HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 Altair Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)Draft Environmental Impact ReportSCH No. 2014111029
Prepared forCity of Temecula
May 2016
ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN
ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2014111029
Prepared for May 2016
City of Temecula
626 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213.599.4300
www.esassoc.com
Irvine
Oakland
Orlando
Palm Springs
Pasadena
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Santa Monica
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills
140106
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Altair Specific Plan EIR
Page
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. S-1
1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Project Background .................................................................................................1-1
1.3 CEQA EIR Process .................................................................................................1-2
1.4 Organization of this Draft EIR .................................................................................1-3
2. Project Description .........................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................2-1
2.3 Project Characteristics ............................................................................................2-3
2.4 Discretionary Approvals ....................................................................................... 2-30
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................ 3.1-1
3.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 3.2-1
3.3 Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 3.3-1
3.4 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 3.4-1
3.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity ............................................................................ 3.5-1
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ............................................. 3.6-1
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials...................................................................... 3.7-1
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................. 3.8-1
3.9 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................... 3.9-1
3.10 Noise and Vibration ........................................................................................... 3.10-1
3.11 Population and Housing .................................................................................... 3.11-1
3.12 Public Services .................................................................................................. 3.12-1
3.13 Transportation and Traffic ................................................................................. 3.13-1
3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment ............................................................ 3.14-1
4. Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Cumulative Projects ................................................................................................4-1
4.3 Description of Cumulative Effects ...........................................................................4-5
5. Alternatives .....................................................................................................................5-1
5.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Project Alternatives .................................................................................................5-4
5.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................................5-8
5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................... 5-17
6. Other CEQA Considerations .........................................................................................6-1
6.1 Growth Inducing Impacts ........................................................................................6-1
6.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes .....................................................6-3
6.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts .............................................................................6-4
6.4 Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant ................................................6-5
Altair Specific Plan i ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Table of Contents
Page
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers ........................................................................7-1
7.1 Acronyms Used in this Report ................................................................................7-1
7.2 References ........................................................................................................... 7-10
7.3 Report Preparers .................................................................................................. 7-25
Appendices
A. Initial Study and Notice of Preparation
B. Air Quality / Greenhouse Gas Analysis Worksheets
C. MSHCP Consistency Report
C1. Species Table
C2. Linkage 10 Assessment Memo
C3. Acreage Consistency Analysis
D. Cultural Resources Assessment Reports [Confidential]
E. Geotechnical Investigation
F. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
G. Water Quality Management Plan
H. Noise Analysis Worksheets
I. Traffic Impact Analysis
J. Water Supply Assessment
K. Preliminary Drainage Study
L. Tribal Consultation Letters
M. Jurisdictional Delineation Report
Figures
2-1 Project Location Map ..............................................................................................2-2
2-2 Land Use Plan .........................................................................................................2-5
2-3 Proposed Zoning .....................................................................................................2-6
2-4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation ...................................................................... 2-15
2-5 Circulation Plan .................................................................................................... 2-17
2-6 Drainage Plan....................................................................................................... 2-20
2-7 Domestic Water Plan ........................................................................................... 2-22
2-8 Reclaimed Water .................................................................................................. 2-24
2-9 Sewer Plan ........................................................................................................... 2-26
2-10 Phasing Plan ........................................................................................................ 2-28
3.1-1 Viewpoint Location Map ...................................................................................... 3.1-8
3.1-2 KOP 1, City Hall Looking West ........................................................................... 3.1-9
3.1-3 KOP 2, Rancho California Road at I-15, Looking Southwest ........................... 3.1-10
3.1-4 KOP 3, Old Town Front Street and Moreno Road, Looking Southwest ........... 3.1-11
3.1-5 KOP 4, Old Town Front Street and 6th Street, Looking West .......................... 3.1-12
3.1-6 KOP 5, Main Street Bridge, Looking West ........................................................ 3.1-13
3.1-7 KOP 6, 1st Street between Old Town Front Street and Pujol Road,
Looking West ................................................................................................ 3.1-14
3.1-8 KOP 7, Santiago Road at I-15, Looking West .................................................. 3.1-15
3.3-1 MSHCP Proposed Linkages ............................................................................. 3.3-21
3.3-2 MSHCP Subunits .............................................................................................. 3.3-25
3.3-3 MSHCP Criteria Cells and Cell Group .............................................................. 3.3-26
3.3-4 Linkages near the Project Site .......................................................................... 3.3-46
3.3-5 Corridor Designer Output .................................................................................. 3.3-51
3.5-1 Major Faults ......................................................................................................... 3.5-3
3.10-1 Effects of Noise on People ................................................................................ 3.10-2
3.10-2 Noise Monitoring Locations ............................................................................... 3.10-7
3.13-1 Intersection and Roadway Segment Analysis Locations .................................. 3.13-2
4-1 Cumulative Projects ................................................................................................4-3
Altair Specific Plan ii ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Table of Contents
Page
Tables
S-1 Specific Plan Acreage ............................................................................................ S-4
S-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................... S-10
2-1 Specific Plan Acreage by Use .................................................................................2-4
2-2 Proposed Residential Zone, Density, and Intensity by Village Area ................... 2-11
2-3 Proposed Use Regulations by Zone .................................................................... 2-11
2-4 Proposed Development Regulations ................................................................... 2-13
3.2-1 Air Quality Data Summary (2011–2013) ............................................................. 3.2-6
3.2-2 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ........................................................... 3.2-7
3.2-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants ......................................... 3.2-9
3.2-4 SCAQMD Regional Air Quality Significance Thresholds .................................. 3.2-16
3.2-5 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds................................................... 3.2-16
3.2-6 Proposed Regional Construction Emissions..................................................... 3.2-21
3.2-7 Proposed Project Unmitigated Operational Emissions ..................................... 3.2-22
3.2-8 Proposed Project Mitigated Operational Emissions ......................................... 3.2-23
3.2-9 Peak Hourly Traffic Volumes ............................................................................ 3.2-25
3.2-10 Proposed Project Unmitigated Localized Daily Construction Emissions .......... 3.2-26
3.2-11 Proposed Project Mitigated Localized PM2.5 Emissions ................................. 3.2-27
3.2-12 Proposed Project Localized Operational Emissions ......................................... 3.2-28
3.3-1 Existing Vegetation Community Acreages within the Project Area .................... 3.3-8
3.3-2 Special-Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence within the Vicinity of the
Project Area .................................................................................................. 3.3-12
3.3-3 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential Occurrence within the Vicinity of
the Project Area ............................................................................................ 3.3-15
3.3-4 Wetlands and Waters of the US (USACE) / State Of California (RWQCB) ..... 3.3-19
3.3-5 California Department of Fish And Wildlife Jurisdictional Streambed and
MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Resources ......................................................... 3.3-20
3.3-6 MSHCP Conservation Criteria .......................................................................... 3.3-27
3.3-7 Mitigation for Impacts to CDFW & Riparian/Riverine Resources ..................... 3.3-42
3.3-8 Proposed Project Impacts to Vegetation Communities .................................... 3.3-44
3.3-9 Consistency of the Project with the City of Temecula General Plan Policies .. 3.3-56
3.3-10 Rough Step Consistency................................................................................... 3.3-59
3.4-1 Cultural Resources within One Mile of the Project Area................................... 3.4-13
3.6-1 Estimated Total Construction-Related GHG Emissions ................................... 3.6-14
3.6-2 Estimated Construction and Operations-Related GHG Emissions .................. 3.6-16
3.7-1 Federal Laws and Regulations Related to
Hazardous Materials Management ................................................................ 3.7-4
3.8-1 Water Quality Objectives for Inland Surface Waters within the
Murrieta Hydrologic Area ................................................................................ 3.8-2
3.8-2 Beneficial Uses of Surface Water Bodies within the Project Area ..................... 3.8-2
3.8-3 303(d) Impaired Waterbodies within the Project Area ........................................ 3.8-3
3.8-4 Projected Potable Water Supply and Demand Normal Water Year ................... 3.8-4
3.8-5 Potential Construction BMPs ............................................................................ 3.8-22
3.8-6 Typical Source Control Best Management Practices ....................................... 3.8-27
3.8-7 Typical Treatment Control Best Management Practices .................................. 3.8-28
3.9-1 Land Use Designations in the Project Area ........................................................ 3.9-5
3.9-2 Summary of Zoning Districts and Corresponding Land Use Designation .......... 3.9-6
3.9-3 Consistency of the Project with SCAG Policies ................................................ 3.9-10
3.9-4 Consistency of the Project with the City of Temecula General Plan Policies .. 3.9-11
3.10-1 Existing Noise Environments Surrounding the Project Site .............................. 3.10-8
3.10-2 Existing Roadway Noise Levels ........................................................................ 3.10-9
3.10-3 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria ......................................................... 3.10-10
3.10-4 Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL) ................................................... 3.10-12
Altair Specific Plan iii ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Table of Contents
Page
Tables (cont.)
3.10-5 Temecula Land Use / Noise Standards .......................................................... 3.10-13
3.10-6 City of Temecula Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix.................................. 3.10-14
3.10-7 Typical Construction Noise Levels .................................................................. 3.10-22
3.10-8 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment ....................................... 3.10-23
3.10-9 Exceedance of City Construction Noise Standards Based on Distance ........ 3.10-24
3.10-10 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ..................................... 3.10-27
3.10-11 Roadway Noise Levels With Project ............................................................... 3.10-33
3.10-12 Future (2025) With Project Roadway Noise Levels ........................................ 3.10-36
3.11-1 Population Estimates and Projections .............................................................. 3.11-1
3.11-2 Housing Units in Temecula by Type: 2014 ....................................................... 3.11-2
3.11-3 Household Trends in Temecula City ................................................................. 3.11-3
3.12-1 Fire Stations ...................................................................................................... 3.12-2
3.12-2 Existing TVUSD Schools Serving the Project Area .......................................... 3.12-3
3.12-3 Public Parks Serving the Project Area .............................................................. 3.12-5
3.12-4 Generation Rates for the Proposed Project .................................................... 3.12-13
3.12-5 Existing Library Facilities and Book Supplies ................................................. 3.12-15
3.13-1 Analyzed Roadway Segments – Existing (2015) Conditions ........................... 3.13-1
3.13-2 Planned Bike Lanes within the Study Area ....................................................... 3.13-5
3.13-3 Level of Service Descriptions ............................................................................ 3.13-6
3.13-4 Roadway Segment Thresholds ......................................................................... 3.13-7
3.13-5 Intersection Level of Service: Existing (2015) Conditions ................................ 3.13-8
3.13-6 Roadway Segment Level of Service: Existing (2015) Conditions .................... 3.13-9
3.13-7 Project Trip Generation Estimates .................................................................. 3.13-14
3.13-8 Intersection Level of Service – Existing (2015) plus Project Conditions ........ 3.13-16
3.13-9 Comparison of Existing vs. Existing plus Project ............................................ 3.13-17
3.13-10 Roadway Segment Level of Service (LOS) –
Existing plus Project Conditions ................................................................. 3.13-21
3.13-11 Intersection Level of Service – Opening year (2025) Conditions ................... 3.13-23
3.13-12 Roadway Segment Level of Service (LOS) – Opening Year (2025)
Conditions ................................................................................................... 3.13-25
3.13-13 Intersection Level of Service – General Plan Build Out (2035) Conditions .... 3.13-28
3.13-14 Roadway Segment Level of Service (LOS) –
General Plan Build Out (2035) Conditions ................................................. 3.13-30
3.14-1 RCWD Existing and Projected Water Supplies ................................................ 3.14-2
3.14-2 Existing and Projected Average Water Demands in the RCWD ...................... 3.14-3
3.14-3 RCWD’s Wastewater Generation by Land Use Classification ......................... 3.14-4
3.14-4 Estimated Future Wastewater Flows .............................................................. 3.14-11
3.14-5 Projected Potable Water Supply and Demand Normal Water Year ............... 3.14-15
3.14-6 Total Estimated RCWD Minimum Water Supply for Next Three Years
Based on Driest 3-Year History .................................................................. 3.14-16
3.14-7 Solid Waste Generation Estimates for commercial Construction ................... 3.14-17
4-1 Planned and Approved Projects in the Project Area ..............................................4-4
4-2 Cumulative Roadway Noise Impacts ................................................................... 4-13
4-3 Projected Potable Water Supply and Demand Normal Water Year .................... 4-18
5-1 Summary of Alternative 2 Development Potential ..................................................5-6
5-2 Ability of Alternatives to Meet Project Objectives ...................................................5-7
5-3 Impact Summary Comparison of Alternatives to the Project ............................... 5-18
Altair Specific Plan iv ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S.1 Introduction
The City of Temecula (City) has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to
provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies information about the potential effects on
the local and regional environment associated with construction and operation of the proposed
Altair Specific Plan Project (project, or Altair). This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
This Draft EIR is being circulated to local, state and federal agencies, and to interested
organizations and individuals who may wish to review and comment on the document.
Publication of this Draft EIR marks the beginning of a 45-day public review period (public
review period ends June 17, 2016), during which written comments may be directed to the City of
Temecula at the address below. Comments on the project should be directed to:
Matt Peters
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
matt.peters@cityoftemecula.org (e-mail)
(951) 694-6400 (phone)
S.2 Background
The project site is located west of Pujol Street near Old Town Temecula. City limits form the
western boundary of the project site. The northern parcel, which comprises the primary project
area, is approximately 215 acres that roughly spans the area between Ridge Park Drive on the
north and Temecula Parkway on the south. The southern parcel is approximately 55 acres and is
located south of future Temecula Parkway/Western Bypass.
Both parcels are currently undeveloped and have experienced minimal disturbance, with the
exception of the two graded pads at the north end of the site. The project area consists of a natural
bench at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains separated by natural ravines with sage scrub and
chaparral as the dominant vegetation communities. Non-native grassland occurs in the lower,
flatter areas of the site, primarily along the eastern boundary. A portion of Murrieta Creek is
adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project, and the site is located within the Murrieta Creek
Altair Specific Plan S-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
and Santa Rosa Plateau subunits of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan’s (MSCHP’s)
Southwest Area Plan.
The project site is largely surrounded by undeveloped, natural land, with undeveloped land
abutting the property to the south; undeveloped land and the foothills of Santa Rosa Mountains to
the west; and undeveloped land immediately adjacent to the north. Urban development, consisting
primarily of multi-family and single-family residential uses along Pujol Street, is located adjacent
to the project site to the east. Business parks exist to the northeast of the project site along Ridge
Park Drive. The Old Town commercial district is located a little farther east of the project site,
beyond the residential and office uses.
There are five existing General Plan land use designations for the project site, including Industrial
Park (IP), combination Open Space (OS) and IP, Medium-Density Residential (M), High Density
Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR). Implementation of the project would require a
General Plan Amendment, which would modify the City’s existing General Plan Land Use Policy
Map and sections in the Land Use and Circulation Elements to accommodate the proposed
residential villages, institutional/civic uses, and the Western Bypass alignment. Additionally,
there are currently four zoning districts within the project site, including Business Park (BP),
combination Open Space (OS) and BP, Westside Specific Plan (SP-8), and Hillside Residential
(HR). Upon approval of the project, the design standards and regulations outlined in the Altair
Specific Plan would replace the existing zoning on the project site, resulting in the project’s
zoning being consistent with the General Plan.
The applicant, Ambient Communities, filed an application with the City of Temecula for the
preparation of the Altair Specific Plan, which would serve as the regulatory document and
planning instrument for the future development of the 270-acre land parcel west of the Old Town
planning area in the City of Temecula. The application includes the request for approval of a
General Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, and Development Agreement. The project site
was the subject of one previous specific plan, the Westside Specific Plan, which was approved by
the City in 1995. The Westside Specific Plan proposed a mixed use development that would
include 50,000 square feet of special event commercial (allowing tourist and hotel uses), 45,000
square feet of neighborhood commercial, and 20,000 square feet of mixed-use space as well as up
to 302 dwelling units and approximately 80 gross acres of open space.
The Western Bypass is a proposed four-lane thoroughfare along the western boundary of the
project that would allow through-traffic to bypass Old Town Temecula and help relieve traffic
congestion. It would link Temecula Parkway and the future approved bridge over Murrieta Creek
to Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Road. The Western Bypass is a project feature
and would be constructed as part of the development. The Western Bypass was initially identified
in the City’s 1991 General Plan and is currently reflected in the Circulation Element of the City’s
2005 General Plan and EIR (SCH No. 2003061041).
This EIR analyzes the impacts of the Western Bypass on the environment, and compares the
impact of the currently approved alignment with the project’s proposed alignment. The future
bridge over Murrieta Creek would be constructed by the developer of Altair along with the
Altair Specific Plan S-2 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
construction of the Western Bypass as proposed, to complete the connection of the Western
Bypass with Temecula Parkway. However, the environmental analysis in this EIR does not
include impacts associated with the future bridge over Murrieta Creek as these impacts were
previously analyzed in an approved Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (City of
Temecula, 2009; SCH No. 2009061038) which is incorporated, herein, by reference. A General
Plan Amendment for the proposed project alignment is being requested by the project applicant.
A Community Facilities District is proposed to fund the Western Bypass and other public
improvements.
S.3 Project Objectives
The primary objectives for this project are to:
• Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of
Temecula General Plan. (A General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element is
needed to achieve these goals and policies.)
• Balance the need for local infrastructure improvement and demand for new housing in
and around Old Town while minimizing physical and visual impacts to the hillside
escarpment, wildlife movement, and conservation areas.
• Develop a high-quality residential component on the project site that focuses on
providing diverse housing types and a wide range of densities that would serve a variety
of age groups and household sizes, support the commercial enterprises of Old Town
Temecula, help to fulfill the city’s regional housing needs, and foster a unique
community identity where each neighborhood is unique, vibrant, diverse, and inclusive.
• Create a project that reduces dependency on the automobile and encourages the use of an
extensive multi-use trail system that would link neighborhood villages and community-
wide uses within the project and to Old Town Temecula.
• Provide for limited/incidental neighborhood-oriented commercial uses to serve the needs
of the project’s residents, such as coffee shop, ice cream store, or small restaurants.
• Promote design that minimizes water usage by using a relatively drought-tolerant
landscape palette, clustered development, and attractive community spaces rather than
traditional water-intensive private lawns.
• Provide water quality management facilities that are incorporated within the landscape
features and designed to create settings that mimic the natural hillside attributes.
• Establish an efficient, interconnected multi-modal transportation network that includes a
Western Bypass Corridor and vehicular, transit/trolley, and pedestrian/bikeway
circulation systems that would improve center-of-city traffic conditions.
• Provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a park in the center of
the project, plazas, trails, a play field, and an elementary school accommodating 600-730
students, which further diversify and contribute to the Old Town’s amenities.
Altair Specific Plan S-3 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
• Provide for a civic site of adequate size that accommodates up to 450,000 building square
feet for an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public,
and be integrated into the overall project design in a way that maximizes compatibility
with other proposed land uses within the Specific Plan, and provides a strong visual
connection and close access to Interstate 15.
S.4 Project Description
Altair is primarily a residential mixed-use development with supporting civic uses and open
space. Different housing types are proposed to meet the needs of a range of age groups and
household sizes. The project is located to take advantage of the shopping, dining, and
entertainment venues of Old Town and is designed to encourage a strong pedestrian connection to
both Old Town and planned open space within the development.
Altair proposes a type of form-based code using building types clustered in villages as the
organizing principle. Housing types will include: detached housing; multi-plex; rowhouse;
live/work; multifamily walk-up; multifamily podium; micro-unit; and mixed-use.
These building types are assigned to seven neighborhood “villages” which, in turn, are overlaid
with one of three proposed residential zones (Residential Zone [SP-R], Mixed-Use/Residential
[SP-MR], or Mixed-Use [SP-M]), in combination with an active open space zone (SP-AO). All
residential uses would allow a small amount of accessory commercial use to support the
neighborhood. Table S-1 shows the acreage breakdown of the land uses for the project.
Each village is centered on a node or focal point separated by landscape terrain. The open space
between the villages preserves the existing appearance of ravines extending from the upper
hillside through the development, allowing similar drainage patterns and maintaining existing
views. The villages are connected by an extensive network of pedestrian and bicycle paths.
TABLE S-1
SPECIFIC PLAN ACREAGE
Use Acres
Conservation Open Space 84.63
Residential / Mixed-Use (Villages A-G) 82.30
Community Recreation / Mixed Use 2.09
Open Space and Parks 42.71
Elementary School 7.06
South Parcel* (civic use – development
area only)
18.78
Roadways 33.33
Total 270.90
*The South Parcel, as defined in this EIR, is approximately 55 gross acres in
size. The development area would be approximately 19 acres, resulting in an
approximately 10-acre buildable footprint after site preparation. The balance
of the South Parcel would be placed in conservation open space.
SOURCE: Draft Altair Specific Plan
Altair Specific Plan S-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
Altair would be developed in three phases over an approximate 10-year time frame, with the
phased construction of streets, utilities and other infrastructure, as needed, for each respective
phase. It is anticipated that development would start at the north end of the project and proceed
southerly. Initial construction is anticipated to begin within 12 months of project approval by the
City of Temecula. See Chapter 2, Project Description, for a detailed description of the project.
S.5 Areas of Controversy
Section 15123 (b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR summary identify areas of
controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by other agencies and the public.
On November 13, 2014, in accordance with Sections 15063 and 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines,
the City published an Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) of a Draft EIR, and circulated
it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons who may be interested in this project,
including nearby landowners, homeowners, and tenants. The IS/NOP requested comments on the
scope of the Draft EIR, and asked that those agencies with regulatory authority over any aspect of
the project to describe that authority. The comment period extended through December 15, 2014.
The NOP provided a general description of the project area, a description of the proposed action,
and a preliminary list of potential environmental impacts.
On December 3, 2014, in accordance with CEQA Section 21083.9,1 the City sponsored a public
scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. The
purpose of the meeting was to present the project to the public through use of display maps,
diagrams and a presentation describing the project components and potential environmental
impacts. City staff and members of the local community attended the scoping meeting. Attendees
were provided an opportunity to voice comments or concerns regarding potential effects of the
project. The following list provides the key issues raised during the NOP comment period (see
Appendix A):
• Scope of the air quality and greenhouse gases impact analysis
• Scope of the traffic impact analysis and potential traffic impacts of the proposed project
• Impacts to public services and utilities, including the adequacy of water supply for the
project, ability to provide sewer service, and rights-of way issues
• Impacts to hydrology, water supply and water quality
• Impacts to Native American cultural resources and outreach with the Native American
tribes in the area
• Biological resources, including impacts to drainages, habitat and species within the
Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and the wildlife
movement corridor between the Santa Ana Mountains and Murrieta Creek
1 CEQA Section 21083.9 requires that a lead agency call at least one scoping meeting for a project of statewide,
regional, or area-wide significance.
Altair Specific Plan S-5 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
This Draft EIR addresses each of the aforementioned areas of concern or controversy in detail;
examines project-related and cumulative environmental impacts, identifies significant adverse
environmental impacts, proposes mitigation measures designed to reduce or eliminate potentially
significant impacts, and identifies residual impacts after mitigation measures are identified.
S.6 Summary of Impacts
The analysis contained in this Draft EIR uses the words “significant” and “less than significant”
in the discussion of impacts. These terms specifically define the degree of impact in relation to
thresholds used to determine significance of impact identified in each environmental impact
section of this Draft EIR. As required by CEQA, mitigation measures have been included in this
Draft EIR to avoid or substantially reduce the level of significant impacts. Certain significant
impacts, even with the inclusion of mitigation measures, cannot be reduced to a level below
significance. Such impacts are identified as “significant and unavoidable impacts.”
Table S-1 at the end of this chapter presents a summary of the impact statements, identified
mitigation measures, and level of impact remaining after mitigation. A complete discussion of
impacts and mitigation measures is presented in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and
Mitigation Measures. The level of significance for each impact was determined using significance
criteria (thresholds) developed for each category of impacts; these criteria are presented in the
appropriate sections of Chapter 3. Significant impacts are those adverse environmental impacts
that meet or exceed the significance thresholds.
Less-than-Significant Impacts
As presented in more detail in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation
Measures, all impacts in the following topical areas were found to be less than significant:
• Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
Significant Impacts
Impacts in the following topical areas were found to be significant, but mitigation measures are
available that would reduce the potential impacts to a less-than-significant level:
• Aesthetics
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Land Use and Planning
• Hydrology and Water Quality
Altair Specific Plan S-6 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires a discussion of any significant impacts that
“cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented.” Based upon the analysis in
Chapter 3, the following issue areas would have significant and unavoidable impacts after
implementation of project mitigation measures (see Sections 3.2, 3.10 and 3.13 for details):
• Air Quality (project and cumulative level)
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions (cumulative level)
• Noise and Vibration (project and cumulative level)
• Transportation and Traffic (project and cumulative level)
When a project is determined to have significant impacts after mitigation, the decision makers
must then evaluate whether the benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects to the
environment. If this is the case, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required for the
project, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
S.7 Analysis of Alternatives
Three alternatives are analyzed in Chapter 5 of this document. These three alternatives are
summarized, as follows:
Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Alternative
This alternative is analyzed within this 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.” This alternative represents a “no build” scenario in which no future
development would occur.
The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that the Altair Specific Plan would not be
adopted and implemented. Instead, the planning area would be left in its current undeveloped and
mostly undisturbed state.
Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative
Under this alternative, the project site would be developed with the Westside Villages Specific
Plan (SP-8), per the existing zoning designation. The Westside Villages Specific Plan would
involve development of a 154.1-acre area, which is a smaller area than the project site for the
proposed project and would not include the 55-acre South Parcel that would include a civic use
and is located roughly to the south of Camino Estribo. Under this alternative, the project site
would be bisected by the Western Bypass and divided into five separate planning areas (A-E) that
each have a separate land use; however, it would not be developed with the ‘villages’ concept that
Altair Specific Plan S-7 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
is proposed under the project. Planning Area A is located in the center of the project site, closest
to Old Town. This area would allow up to 50,000 square feet for a “Wild West,” open-air arena
and a hotel. Planning Area B, which is located at the intersection of First Street and the Western
Bypass, and is designated for neighborhood commercial uses, would allow up to 45,000 square
feet for local-serving retail uses, such as a small market or drug store. Planning Area C, which is
located in the southern portion of the project site, would allow up to 302 high-density residential
uses. The Mixed Use designation of Planning Area D, which is located in the northern section of
the Specific Plan area, is intended to act as a transitional area between the special event uses of
the Specific Plan and the existing office and business park uses located to the north of the
Specific Plan area. As such, Planning Area D would allow 20,000 square feet for service
commercial, office, and light industrial uses. Planning Area E, which would be west of the
Western Bypass would be designated for approximately 80 gross acres of open space and would
remain undeveloped. The project would also provide for pedestrian connectivity between the
various planning areas and Old Town.
Although this alternative would allow for more commercial development (120,000 square feet
versus the maximum 22,000 square feet proposed as part of the project), overall, it would
represent a reduced project alternative to the proposed project due to the significantly fewer
residential units that would be developed, and the absence of the civic use and elementary school;
the intent being to reduce potential impacts to air quality, transportation, and climate change.
Alternative 3: Relocate Civic Use Alternative
Under this alternative, the proposed project would maintain most of the project elements
including the eight residential villages with the proposed residential densities, a small amount of
neighborhood-serving commercial uses, the educational/institutional use, and the extension of the
Western Bypass along the proposed alignment. However, under this alternative, the
educational/institutional use (e.g., college) would be relocated from the proposed South Parcel to
the area of the proposed elementary school site (Village C); and the elementary school eliminated
from the project. The intent of this alternative is to reduce potential impacts to biological and
cultural resources; namely, for biological resources, the restricted wildlife corridor widths
associated with Proposed Linkages 10 and 13; and, for cultural resources, the National-register-
listed Origin Landscape Traditional Cultural Property (TCP), and an archaeological site located
on the South Parcel.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project/No Development
Alternative (Alternative 1) would be environmentally superior to the proposed project based on
the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, the No Project/No
Development Alternative does not meet any of the project objectives. In addition, CEQA
Guidelines (Section 15126.6(c)) require that, if the environmentally superior alternative is the No
Project Alternative (No Development), the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior
alternative among the other alternatives.
Altair Specific Plan S-8 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
A summary comparison of the potential impacts associated with the alternatives and the proposed
project is provided in Table 5-3. Based on this comparison, Alternative 2 (No Project/Existing
Specific Plan Alternative) is the environmentally superior alternative by reducing or avoiding
significant environmental effects. However, Alternative 2 fails to meet several of the project
objectives, as noted in Table 5-2.
Altair Specific Plan S-9 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
TABLE S-2
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Aesthetics
Impact AES-1: The project would
create a new source of light and glare
throughout the project area.
Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1: The following light and glare standards shall be applied to all development
within the project area:
• Temporary nighttime construction lighting shall be shielded and directed downward such that no light
spillage will occur on adjacent properties.
• The applicant shall ensure that all outdoor lighting fixtures in public areas 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 development shall take advantage of landscaping,
onsite architectural massing, and off–site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from
cars.
• The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited.
• Prior to the issuance of construction permits for any phase of the project 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:
o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens.
o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the
horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the shield.
o A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and intensities, including security, roadway, and task
lighting.
o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield.
o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre.
o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especially for security lighting.
• The City shall conduct a post-installation inspection to ensure that the development is in compliance with
the design standards in Altair Specific Plan, Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 and Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655.
Less than Significant
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1: Operational activities
occurring after the buildout of the
project would violate air quality
standards or contribute substantially to
any existing or projected air quality
violation.
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1a: No wood burning fireplaces shall be included in the residential units.
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1b: The lease or purchase agreements for all non-residential units shall include the
following:
a) Required use of low VOC cleaning supplies in all buildings.
b) Required use of low VOC architectural coatings. Architectural coatings shall be 150 grams per liter or less
for both interior and exterior coatings applied as part of building maintenance and upkeep.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Altair Specific Plan S-10 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
TABLE S-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
c) Employers shall allow alternative work weeks, flextime, telecommuting, and/or work-at-home programs as
appropriate to the business developed. (non-quantifiable)
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1c: All residential and non-residential properties shall be equipped with exterior
electrical outlets such that a minimum of 10 percent of landscape equipment can be electrically operated.
Landscape contracts for all multi-family residential and non-residential buildings shall include a mandatory
requirement stipulating that a minimum of 10 percent of all landscape equipment used onsite would be
electrically operated.
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1d: All residential and non-residential buildings shall be constructed such that they
meet one of the following conditions:
a) Buildings shall implement energy efficiency standards that exceed the 2013 Title 24 standards by 15
percent; or
b) Project design shall include onsite renewable energy, for example the incorporation of solar panels into
project development, such that 9 percent of the onsite energy consumption is offset.
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1e: The lease or purchase agreements for all multi-family residential and non-
residential units shall:
a) Require that transit routes be posted in common areas of multi-family residential buildings and
employee/student areas for non-residential buildings. Additionally, building management shall encourage a
ride-share program within the specific plan area such that employees as well as residents have more
access to car-pooling opportunities. (non-quantifiable)
b) Shall encourage the use of alternative vehicles by providing incentives such as, but not limited to, special
parking for alternative fueled vehicles and/or parking cost reduction for alternative fueled vehicles. (non-
quantifiable)
c) Require that 5 percent of all available off-street parking spaces (per multi-family and non-residential
development) shall be equipped with charging stations to encourage the use of electric vehicles. (non-
quantifiable)
Impact AQ-2: Emissions of localized
criteria pollutants from construction of
the project could expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2: The site shall be watered four times per day during ground disturbance (grading)
activities for all project development phases. During drought conditions, defined as Water Shortage Stages 4 or
5 as determined by the Rancho California Water District, use of reclaimed water or non-water chemical
stabilizers shall be implemented such that fugitive emissions reductions are comparable. Permission to use
potable water for dust control activities during drought conditions shall be granted by the City of Temecula
Building Official if the General Contractor shows in writing that (1) Reclaimed water is not available in sufficient
quality and quantity from recycled wastewater treatment facilities located within 10 miles of the construction site;
and (2) Well water or groundwater is not available in sufficient quality and quantity from wells and groundwater
sources located within 10 miles of the construction site.
Less than Significant
Altair Specific Plan S-11 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
TABLE S-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: Activities associated
with construction of the project could
have a significant impact on special
status avian wildlife and migratory
birds including Cooper’s hawk,
northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and
California horned lark.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1: To the extent feasible, clearing and grubbing activities shall take place outside
of the avian breeding season, which occurs from February 1 to September 15. If clearing and grubbing activities
are necessary during the breeding season, a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall
be conducted by a qualified biologist having demonstrated experience conducting breeding bird and nest
surveys. The survey shall occur no more than 7 days prior to any clearing, grubbing, construction or ground-
disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project area, the nest shall
not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on
their own and are no longer relying on the nest for survival). A 500-foot construction setback from any active
raptor nesting location (or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist, based on species, construction
activity, the birds’ response/habituation to human presence, and/or topographic features that could limit
construction activity disturbance to the nest) 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. A 300-foot construction setback
(or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist, based on species, construction activity, and the birds’
response/habituation to human presence, and/or topographic features that could limit construction activity
disturbance to the nest) shall be established for all other migratory birds. If no active nests are identified,
construction may commence. All construction setbacks shall be clearly demarcated in the field with appropriate
material (flagging, staking, construction fencing, etc.) and verified by a qualified biologist. Such fencing shall be
maintained and monitored until the nest is confirmed to be inactive.
If an avoidance buffer is not feasible, as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the City, noise
walls or other noise attenuation devices may be installed as needed to prevent disturbance to the nest.
Less than Significant
Impact BIO-2: The project could have
a significant impact on burrowing owl
or suitable burrowing owl habitat
during construction.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2: Suitable burrowing owl habitat identified on the project site shall be surveyed by
a qualified biologist using the methods described in the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (EPD, 2006) no more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbing
activities to determine presence or absence of burrowing owl. If no burrowing owls are identified, no additional
mitigation is necessary and activities may commence. If a burrowing owl is detected, the City of Temecula and
the RCA will be notified.
If burrowing owls are found on the project site, the applicant shall implement the following measure:
Take of active nests shall be avoided. Passive or active relocation (use of one way doors and collapse of
burrows), as approved by the RCA, may occur when owls are present outside the nesting season (March 1 -
August 31). If active relocation is selected, translocation sites for the burrowing owl shall be created in the
MSHCP Conservation Area for the establishment of new colonies. Translocation sites will be identified, taking
into consideration unoccupied habitat areas, presence of burrowing mammals, existing colonies and effects to
other MSHCP covered species. Selected translocation sites shall be coordinated with CDFW and USFWS prior
to translocation site development.
Less than Significant
Altair Specific Plan S-12 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
TABLE S-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact BIO-3: The urban/wildland
interface associated with the
construction and operation of the
project could have a significant effect
on mountain lions and other wildlife.
Implement Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-6b, MM-BIO-7a, MM-BIO-7b, MM-BIO-7c, MM-NOI-1a and
MM-NOI-1b.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3: The following Best Management Practices shall be adhered to:
• Prior to the issuance of any clearing, grubbing, or grading permit for the project, a qualified biologist
(Project Biologist) with a minimum of 3 years of experience in field supervision on construction sites, shall
be retained by the applicant to oversee compliance with the protection and avoidance measures for
biological issues associated with the project. The Project Biologist shall have the authority to halt
construction activities in the event of non-compliance.
• The Project Biologist shall be onsite during initial ground disturbing activities, including, but not limited to:
vegetation removal, tree removal or trimming, grading, and restoration landscaping to ensure project
activities remain in compliance with all applicable biological resource permits.
• Intentional killing or unauthorized collection of plant and wildlife species shall be prohibited.
• Workers shall be prohibited from bringing pets and firearms to the project site, and from feeding wildlife.
• Proposed and existing MSHCP Conservation Areas shall be protected in place by the installation of orange
silt fencing. Fencing shall be maintained in working order and inspected weekly. Fencing repair shall occur
within 2 working days following inspection.
• All trash and food items shall be contained in closed containers and trash removed daily to reduce the
attractiveness to opportunistic predators such as common ravens and feral cats and dogs.
• All fueling of construction vehicles shall be within designated areas beyond 100 feet of any drainage
course, and be contained using appropriate protection measures.
• Nighttime construction shall be prohibited in areas directly abutting or within 200 feet of existing or project-
proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas. Nighttime construction which does occur outside these areas shall
use directional lighting to minimize the impacts of increased artificial nighttime lighting.
• All construction equipment and vehicles shall not idle for more than 45 minutes to minimize ambient noise
produced by the project.
Less than Significant
Impact BIO-4: Implementation of the
project could have a substantial
adverse effect on riparian/riverine
habitat.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-4a: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, the applicant shall
obtain all necessary agency permits for impacts to jurisdictional waters, wetlands and riparian resources,
including USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB. Impacts to riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 3:1
ratio. Impacts to unvegetated channel shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio. Mitigation for both
temporary and permanent impacts shall be accomplished by one or more of following options: on- or off-site
habitat restoration; purchase of credits from an in-lieu fee program; and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation
bank. If a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is required by any of the respective resource agencies (USACE,
RWQCB, and CDFW), it shall be prepared according to agency requirements and shall include, at a minimum,
the following information:
• Location and detailed maps of the mitigation and revegetation areas
• An evaluation of the existing function and values, and a description of the function and values to be
achieved through compensatory mitigation
• Detailed plant and seed mix requirements
Less than Significant
Altair Specific Plan S-13 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
TABLE S-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
• Detailed planting plan
• Specific and measurable five-year success criteria
• Five-year maintenance and monitoring requirements
• Invasive species management
• Irrigation requirements including the requirement to be off of irrigation for at least two years prior to final
sign-off
• Securing of a bond or line of credit to guarantee success of the compensatory mitigation
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-4b: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, a DBESP shall be
approved by the RCA to address impacts to 1.24 acres of riparian/riverine habitat. The DBESP shall include the
following information:
• Definition of the project area
• A written project description, demonstrating why an avoidance alternative is not possible
• A written description of biological information available for the project site including the results of resource
mapping
• Quantification of unavoidable impacts to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools associated with the
project, including direct and indirect effects
• A written description of project design features and mitigation measures that reduce indirect effects, such
as edge treatments, landscaping, elevation difference, minimization and/or compensation through
restoration or enhancement
• A baseline biological assessment of the resources being impacted, used for comparison of biological
equivalency
• A written description of the proposed habitat mitigation, including habitat type, location, functional lift, and
long-term stewardship responsibility
• A finding demonstrating that although the proposed project would not avoid impacts, the habitat mitigation
would be biologically equivalent or superior to that which is being impacted and would result in a net
equivalent or superior ecological condition
Impact BIO-5: The project could have
a significant impact on federally
protected wetlands.
Implement Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-4a and MM-BIO-4b. Less than Significant
Impact BIO-6: Implementation of the
proposed project could have a
substantial adverse effect on sensitive
natural communities identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations,
or by CDFW or USFWS.
Implement Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-4b and MM-BIO-7c.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-6a: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, or any phase thereof,
the applicant shall pay Local Development Mitigation fees, as determined by the City of Temecula Municipal
Code Chapter 15, to offset impacts to sensitive habitat and covered sensitive species. As provided for in the
RCA’s applicable fee ordinance and/or adopted resolutions, the applicant may request discretionary approval
from the RCA fee credits for land conserved onsite that contributes toward the Reserve Assembly of the
MSHCP. Any such request and approval shall not otherwise diminish or void the applicant’s obligation to pay the
required Local Development Mitigation fees.
Less than Significant
Altair Specific Plan S-14 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
TABLE S-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO 6b: At the time of final map recordation for the project, or any phase thereof, lands
identified to contribute to Linkage Areas and open space areas of the project (Conserved Lands) and included on
the final map shall be conserved in perpetuity through the recordation of conservation easements in favor of the
RCA or deed transfer of said parcels to the RCA. Conserved Lands shall include all areas identified for the
continued preservation and functionality of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. The
project shall conserve onsite a minimum of 82.77 acres, which have been identified at a Criteria Cell level to
include Cells 7077, 7161, 7078, 7164, 7258, 7264, 7355 and 7356.
Impact BIO-7: The project could
interfere with the movement of wildlife
species, and with established
migratory wildlife corridors. The project
could have direct and indirect impacts
to the movement of mountain lion and
other wildlife in Proposed Linkage 10.
Implement Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-6b, MM-NOI-1a, MM-NOI-1b and MM-NOI-3.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-7a: The portion of Camino Estribo that lies between the South Parcel and the
main development area within the project footprint shall remain as a dirt road to minimize vehicular speeds.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-7b: The applicant shall install permanent fencing along the Western Bypass where
the Bypass right-of-way is contiguous with existing or proposed MSHCP Conserved Lands, to keep animals
within the wildlife corridor. Prior to the issuance of any construction permits for the project, the applicant shall
prepare and submit a detailed fencing plan for review and approval by the City Community Development
Department, RCA, CDFW, and USFWS. The fencing plan shall include, at a minimum, the fencing location,
fencing specifications, plant list, and method and timing of installation.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-7c: A Slope Revegetation Plan shall be prepared by the project applicant. The
Plan shall be submitted for approval to the City prior to the construction of the Western Bypass. The Plan shall
include at a minimum:
• The requirement to salvage and stockpile excavated topsoil up to the first six inches along selected
portions of the ground disturbance area for use in spreading as the top layer of soil in restoring disturbed
areas
• Equipment and methods for planting
• A planting plan, including the amount and species of seed necessary to revegetate the target habitat types
• Success criteria for the revegetated areas over a five-year period following installation
• Specific BMPs for erosion control during and after revegetation
• A requirement for five years of maintenance of the revegetated areas, including removal of invasive
species and irrigation (if necessary)
• A requirement for five years of monitoring to evaluate compliance with the success criteria and to adjust
maintenance activities using an adaptive management approach
• Identification of entity responsible for installation, maintenance, and monitoring
Less than Significant
Impact BIO-8: The project could
interfere with the movement of wildlife
species, and with established
migratory wildlife corridors. The project
could have direct and indirect impacts
to Proposed Constrained Linkage 13.
Implement Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-6b, MM-NOI-1a, MM-NOI-1b and MM-NOI-3. Less than Significant
Altair Specific Plan S-15 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
TABLE S-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact BIO-9: The project would have
an onsite shortfall of conserved acres
for impacts to riparian and grassland
habitat.
Implement Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-4b, MM-BIO-6a and MM-BIO-6b.
Less than Significant
Impact BIO-10: Project impacts to
riparian/riverine habitat could result in
the project being inconsistent with the
MSHCP.
Implement Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-4a and MM-BIO-4b. Less than Significant
Impact BIO-11: Project impacts at
urban/wildland interface areas could
result in the project being inconsistent
with the Urban/Wildland Interface
Guidelines.
Implement Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-6b, MM-BIO-7a, MM-BIO-7b, MM-BIO-7c, MM-
NOI-1a, MM-NOI-1b, MM-NOI-3, MM-HYD-1, MM-HYD-2, and MM-HYD-3.
Less than Significant
Impact BIO- 12: The project could
have a significant effect on Proposed
Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained
Linkage 13, and, therefore, could be
inconsistent with the MSHCP
regarding wildlife corridors.
Implement Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-6b, MM-BIO-7c, MM-NOI-1a and MM-NOI-1b. Less than Significant
Impact BIO-13: Project design and
construction of the Western Bypass, a
Covered Activity, could result in the
project being inconsistent with the
Planned Roadway Criteria of the
MSHCP.
Implement Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-4b, MM-BIO-6b, MM-BIO-7c. Less than Significant
Altair Specific Plan S-16 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
TABLE S-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: The project area is
considered moderately to highly
sensitive for cultural resources. In
addition, a portion of the project area is
within the Origin Landscape TCP, one
of the most sacred areas for the
Pechanga Tribe. The lack of identified
intact subsurface archaeological
materials reduces the likelihood of
encountering buried archaeological
resources during project
implementation, but does not preclude
the possibility that archaeological
resources may be present in areas not
subject to archaeological investigation.
In the event that archaeological
resources are inadvertently
encountered during project
implementation, disturbances to such
resources could result in a substantial
adverse change to historical resources
as defined by CEQA. Disturbances to
archaeological resources would
require consideration of impacts to any
archaeological resources individually
and as contributors to the larger
National Register-listed archaeological
district (P-33-11443 – MCAA), as well
as consideration as contributors to the
National Register-listed Origin
Landscape TCP.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1a – Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist: Prior to issuance of a grading
permit and prior to the start of any ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist,
defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for
archaeology (Department of the Interior, 2012), to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological
resources.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1b – Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training: The qualified archeologist, or an
archaeologist working under the direction of the qualified archaeologist, shall conduct preconstruction cultural
resources sensitivity training to inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that may be
encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of
archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant shall ensure that construction personnel are made
available for and attend the training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1c – Archaeological and Native American Monitoring and Re-survey of the
South Parcel: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground
disturbing activity, a qualified archaeological monitor and Native American monitor shall be retained by the
applicant to monitor ground disturbing activities including, but not limited to, brush clearance and grubbing,
grading, trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing and access roads. The archaeological and Native
American monitors shall re-survey the South Parcel involving ground disturbance, after vegetation removal and
grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. This will ensure that previously undocumented resources
obscured by thick brush can be identified and appropriate treatment measures for the resources can be
developed. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of historic
and prehistoric resources that could be encountered within the project, and under direct supervision of the
qualified archaeologist. If ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more
than 500 feet apart, additional archaeological and Native American monitors may be required.
The archaeological and Native American monitors shall keep daily logs. After monitoring has been completed,
the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring, which shall be
submitted to the City, Pechanga, and to the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1d – Unanticipated Discovery: If cultural resources are encountered during the
course of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of
the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist, who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of
discovery. The qualified archaeologist, the archaeological monitor, and/or Native American monitor shall be
empowered to halt or redirect ground disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find until it has been
assessed for significance. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe,
shall assess the significance of discovered resources. If it is determined that the discovery constitutes a
significant resource (i.e., a historical resource or unique archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA or historic
property pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA), preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation.
Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into
open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation
in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is determined to be the only
feasible mitigation option, a treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist, in
consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe. The treatment plan shall provide for the adequate
recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The Pechanga
Tribe shall be consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically
Less than Significant
Altair Specific Plan S-17 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
TABLE S-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
important, are considered. The treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis, reporting, and
curation/disposition of resources. If the applicant, qualified archaeologist, and Pechanga Tribe cannot agree on
the significance or the mitigation for resources, these issues shall be presented to the City Community
Development Director for decision. The City Community Development Director shall make the determination
based on the provisions of CEQA with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the
religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under
the law, the decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning
Commission and/or City Council. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall also be notified within 24 hours of the
discovery and afforded the opportunity to determine whether the discovery requires addressing under Section
106 Post-Review Discoveries provisions provided in 36 CFR 800.13, and invited to participate in the discussion
of significance, mitigation, and/or treatment of resources.
Impact CUL-2: The potential exists for
unique paleontological resources to be
located beneath the ground surface in
the project area, specifically within the
sandstone facies of the Pauba
Formation (Qp), which has high
sensitivity for paleontological
resources. Construction activities
could result in the inadvertent
discovery and damage of these
paleontological resources, which
would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2a – Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP): The
applicant shall implement the paleontological mitigation program outlined in the PRIMP (Kennedy and Wirths,
2013) during project implementation. The PRIMP requires paleontological monitoring of mapped exposures of
the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation (Qp) as shown on Attachment 3a of the PRIMP. In addition,
because the fanglomerate facies of the Pauba Formation is considered to have undetermined potential to yield
significant paleontological resources, initial excavations into the unit shall be spot-checked by a qualified
paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology Standards, 2010) to
determine if the lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the preservation of unique paleontological
resources. The qualified paleontologist shall also contribute to any construction worker cultural resources
sensitivity training, either in person or via a module provided to the qualified archaeologist.
Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist, or a monitor working under the direct supervision of
a qualified paleontologist. Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed
fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. The qualified paleontologist, based on observations of
subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors, may reduce or discontinue monitoring, as warranted, if the qualified
paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. Monitors shall prepare
daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. Any fossils recovered shall be
prepared to the point of identification and curated at an accredited facility. The qualified paleontologist shall
prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to be submitted to the City and filed with the local repository.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2b – Unanticipated Paleontological Resources Discoveries: If construction or
other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work, work
at the discovery location shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made
recommendations as to the appropriate treatment.
Less than Significant
Altair Specific Plan S-18 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
TABLE S-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact CUL-3: Because the proposed
project would involve ground-
disturbing activities, it is possible that
such actions could unearth, expose, or
disturb previously unknown human
remains interred outside of a formal
cemetery.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3 – Human Remains: If human remains are uncovered during project
construction, the applicant shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in
Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, which require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The applicant shall immediately
contact the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate the remains. If the County Coroner determines that the
remains are Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) within 24 hours to relinquish jurisdiction. The NAHC shall designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for
the remains, who shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site to provide
recommendations to the landowner for the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human
remains and any associated grave goods. Until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD, the
landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not subject to further
disturbances, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards,
and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. In the event that no MLD is
identified, or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the
recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the
landowner, the landowner may reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the
property in a location not subject to further disturbance.
Less than Significant
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant geology, soils, or seismicity impacts.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Impact GHG-1: The project could
generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment
Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1: Upon full entitlement of the project and prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the project, the project sponsor shall submit an application for a Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan
through the U.S. Green Building Council. If the application meets the LEED-ND prerequisites, the project
sponsor shall continue with the certification, and the project shall receive a minimum base-level LEED-ND
certification within two years of project build-out. If Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan approval is denied, the project
sponsor will be deemed to have exercised best efforts to achieve full certification and no further action is
required.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact GHG-2: The project could
potentially conflict with the goals of the
City of Temecula’s Sustainability Plan
to reduce GHG emissions.
Implement MM-AQ-1a through MM-AQ-1e, and MM-GHG-1 Less than Significant
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: The project site is near
a high fire hazard area which could
increase the threat of wildfire on
human populations and property.
Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ -1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall
prepare and submit a Fire Modification Plan (FMP) for the project to the City Community Development and Fire
Departments for review and approval. The FMP shall address areas within the project boundary that are
adjacent to a proposed Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
Conservation Area. The FMP shall include, without limitation, the following information and standards:
• Environmental setting that describes the topography and geology, climate, and flammable vegetation in
and around the project site, water supply for fire protection, fire access roads, and fire protection systems
Less than Significant
Altair Specific Plan S-19 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
TABLE S-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
and equipment
• General description of fire behavior in the project area based on such factors as predominant fuel types,
topography and climate
• The establishment of a 100-foot wide fuel modification area located within the project boundary for land
adjacent to a proposed MSHCP Conservation Area
• A fuel modification area shall have two distinct fuel modification zones: Zone 1 and Zone 2
• A site plan identifying the location of the fuel modification area and zones
• Zone 1 shall extend 30 feet from any habitable structure; Zone 2 shall extend 70 feet beyond Zone 1
• Zone 1 shall include the following minimum standards:
o No habitable structures
o New construction (i.e. fences, walls, gazebos) must be non-combustible and/or have a minimum 1-
hour fire rating
o Plants should be primarily low growing (less than 4 feet in height), low-fuel, and fire resistant
o Regular maintenance to include thinning and pruning of trees and plants
• Zone 2 shall include the following minimum standards:
o Regular maintenance to include selective thinning and pruning of native and non-native plants to
reduce fuel load
• A list of plants not recommended to be used within the fuel modification zones
• Identification of entity responsible for regular maintenance
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1: Future development
occurring under the proposed Specific
Plan could result in impacts to
hydrology.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage study shall be prepared
by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance
with City, Riverside County, and engineering standards. The final study shall identify storm water runoff
quantities (to mitigate the 100-year storm event) from the development of this site and upstream of the site, and
shall identify all existing or proposed drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be
conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private
property; the final study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. If the receiving
facilities are determined to under capacity, then onsite detention would be considered.
Less than Significant
Impact HYD-2: Construction of future
development occurring under the
proposed Specific Plan could result in
impacts to water quality.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-2: The developer shall obtain coverage under the statewide NPDES Construction
General Permit. When the anticipated total construction disturbance would be greater than one acre, the
Construction General Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP
Developer, which would examine existing site conditions, identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants
that may affect the quality of storm water discharges during construction and would describe the implementation
and maintenance of erosion control, sediment control, waste management and good housekeeping BMPs to
reduce or eliminate the potential for sediment or other pollutants to mix with storm water runoff during
construction.
Less than Significant
Altair Specific Plan S-20 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
TABLE S-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact HYD-3: Operation of future
development occurring under the
proposed Specific Plan could result in
impacts to water quality.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-3: 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. Each project-specific WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula
prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
Less than Significant
Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-1: The project could be
inconsistent with the MSHCP goals
and objectives governing the assembly
of conservation lands, wildlife linkages,
and riparian/riverine resources.
Implement Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-4b, MM-BIO-6a, MM-
BIO-6b, MM-BIO-7a, MM-BIO-7b, MM-BIO-7c, AES-1, NOI-1a, NOI-1b, and NOI-3.
Less than Significant
Noise and Vibration
Impact NOI-1: 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.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1a: Prior to the issuance any grading or building permits for a phase or sub phase
(project-specific future development within a construction phase), 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. Factors the City shall consider when granting a noise exception include,
but are not limited to, the consideration of the level of noise, duration of noise, constancy or intermittency of
noise, time of day or night, place, proximity to sensitive receptors, nature and circumstances of the emission or
transmission of any such loud noise. If a construction-related exception request is not approved 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-1b: The applicant shall comply with the following noise reduction measures during
construction:
• Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific location on a
construction site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general
truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise- and vibration-sensitive land
uses.
• Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise
generation potential will be minimized. Examples include the use of drills and jackhammers. When impact
tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and caisson drills) are necessary, they shall be
hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air
exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust
muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust
Significant and
Unavoidable
Altair Specific Plan S-21 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
TABLE S-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
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, as determined by the City of Temecula’s Building Official based on the
circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors, type and number of equipment used, and duration
of noise.
• 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, as
determined by the City’s Building Official based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive
receptors, type and number of equipment used, and duration of noise.
• Construction truck traffic shall be restricted to routes approved by the City of Temecula, and 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.
Impact NOI-2: Construction activities
in the project area may 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.
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 activities 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-NOI-2b: The operation of jackhammers shall be prohibited within 25 feet of existing
residential structures and 20 feet of institutional structures during construction activities, to the extent feasible.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact NOI-3: New developments
within the project area may introduce
noise levels that could exceed the
City’s exterior noise standards at
adjacent properties to and/or near the
new development sites.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for future developments in the project,
the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels generated by the proposed
development would not exceed the City’s permissible exterior noise standards that are applicable to adjacent
properties. If City noise standards at the adjacent properties would be exceeded, design measures shall be
taken to ensure that operational noise levels associated with the proposed development 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.
Less than Significant
Altair Specific Plan S-22 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
TABLE S-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact NOI-4: New development
within the project area could expose
nearby sensitive receptors to noise
levels exceeding 5 dBA over ambient
levels due to operation of HVAC
equipment; or to noise levels from the
operation of mechanical equipment
such that interior noise residential
noise levels could exceed 45 dBA Ldn.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4a: The applicant of individual development projects within the project area 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.
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 dBA in any habitable room.
Less than Significant
Impact NOI-5: With addition of the
Western Bypass that would run along
the western boundary of the project
area, new development projects
proposed in the project area adjacent
to the Western Bypass may not meet
the applicable noise/land use
compatibility noise standards
established by the City.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-5: All future residential developments located adjacent to the proposed Western
Bypass in the project area shall be set back a minimum of 45 feet from the centerline of the Western Bypass. If
this minimum setback distance cannot be achieved, other measures shall be taken to ensure compliance with
the City’s noise/land use compatibility standard of 70 dBA Ldn, including, but not limited to, greater setback
distances, the erection of noise walls or use of landscaping.
Less than Significant
Population and Housing
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant population and housing impacts.
Public Services
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant public service impacts.
Traffic and Transportation
Impact TRA-1: Development of the
Specific Plan would cause the average
delay at Jefferson Avenue/ Old Town
Front Street and Rancho California
Road (Intersection #2) to degrade from
an unacceptable LOS E to LOS F and
would increase delay by more than the
2.0-second threshold of significance
during the PM peak hour.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-1: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project
proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system-wide signal timing optimization (phase timings
and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Rancho California Road and Jefferson Avenue
operate on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the developer shall be responsible for system-wide
optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts.
Less than Significant
Altair Specific Plan S-23 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
TABLE S-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact TRA-2: Development of the
Specific Plan would cause the level of
service at Ynez Road and Rancho
California Road (Intersection #5) to
degrade from an acceptable LOS D or
better to an unacceptable LOS E
during the PM peak hour.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-2: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project
proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system-wide signal timing optimization (phase timings
and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Rancho California Road and Ynez Road operate
on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the developer shall be responsible for system-wide optimization
along both corridors to mitigate impacts.
Less than Significant
Impact TRA-3: Development of the
Specific Plan would cause the level of
service at I-15 Northbound Ramps and
Temecula Parkway (Intersection #10)
to degrade from an acceptable LOS D
or better to an unacceptable LOS F
during the PM peak hour.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-3: Prior to the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer
shall install or provide funding for signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) at the intersection
of I-15 Northbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. The project proponent/developer shall coordinate implementation of this
improvement with Caltrans.
Less than Significant
Impact TRA-4: Development of the
Specific Plan would cause the average
delay at Margarita Road and Temecula
Parkway (Intersection #14) to increase
by more than the 2.0-second threshold
of significance, within unacceptable
LOS F conditions, during the AM peak
hour, and would cause the PM peak-
hour level of service to degrade from
an acceptable LOS D to an
unacceptable LOS E.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-4: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project
proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system-wide signal timing optimization (phase timings
and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway operate
an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the developer shall be responsible for system-wide optimization
along both corridors to mitigate impacts.
Less than Significant
Impact TRA-5: Development of the
Specific Plan would cause the level of
service for the westbound First Street
approach at unsignalized Pujol Street
and First Street (Intersection #15) to
degrade from an acceptable LOS D to
an unacceptable LOS F during the PM
peak hour.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-5: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project
proponent/developer shall install stop signs on the Pujol Street approaches at the intersection of Pujol Street and
First Street, converting the intersection from side-street stop-control to all-way stop control.
Less than Significant
Impact TRA-6: Development of the
Specific Plan would cause the average
delay at Ynez Road and Santiago
Road (Intersection #17) to increase by
more than the 2.0 second threshold of
significance, within unacceptable LOS
E conditions, during the PM peak hour.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-6: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 2, the project
proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for one additional exclusive eastbound left turn lane and
signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) at the intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road,
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Less than Significant
Altair Specific Plan S-24 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
TABLE S-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact TRA-7: Development of the
Specific Plan would cause the level of
service at the existing I-15 Southbound
Ramps and Temecula Parkway
(Intersection #25) to degrade from an
acceptable LOS D or better to an
unacceptable LOS F during the AM
and PM peak hours.
No feasible mitigation. Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact TRA-8: Development of the
Specific Plan would cause the
Cumulative (2025) level of service at
Ynez Road and Rancho California
Road (Intersection #5) to degrade from
an acceptable LOS D to an
unacceptable LOS F during the PM
peak hour.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-8: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project
proponent/developer shall contribute 20 percent of the cost for the construction of one additional exclusive right
turn lane for eastbound Rancho California Road at Ynez Road, for acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of
existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection.
Less than Significant
Impact TRA-9: Development of the
Specific Plan would cause the
Cumulative (2025) average delay at La
Paz Road and Temecula Parkway
(Intersection #11) to increase by more
than the 2.0-second threshold of
significance, within unacceptable
LOS E conditions, during the AM peak
hour, and would cause the PM peak-
hour level of service to degrade from
an unacceptable LOS E to an
unacceptable LOS F.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-9: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project
proponent/developer shall contribute 20 percent of the cost for the construction of a fourth through lane for
eastbound and westbound Temecula Parkway at La Paz Road, for acquisition of right-of-way, and modification
of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection.
Less than Significant
Impact TRA-10: Development of the
Specific Plan would cause the
Cumulative (2025) level of service at
Margarita Road and Temecula
Parkway (Intersection #14) to degrade
from an acceptable LOS D or better to
an unacceptable LOS E during both
the AM and PM peak hours.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-10: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project
proponent/developer shall contribute 15 percent of the cost for the construction of an exclusive right turn lane for
westbound Temecula Parkway at Margarita Road, for acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing
traffic signal facilities at the intersection.
Less than Significant
Altair Specific Plan S-25 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
TABLE S-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact TRA-11: Development of the
Specific Plan would cause the General
Plan Build Out (2035) level of service
at Ynez Road and Rancho California
Road (Intersection #5) to degrade from
an unacceptable LOS E during the AM
peak hour, and would cause the
average delay to increase by more
than the 2.0-second threshold of
significance.
No feasible mitigation. Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact TRA-12: Development of the
Specific Plan would cause the General
Plan Build Out (2035) level of service
for the eastbound Ridge Park Drive
approach at unsignalized Vincent
Moraga Drive and Ridge Park Drive
(Intersection #6) to degrade from an
acceptable LOS C to an unacceptable
LOS F during the AM peak hour, and
to increase the PM peak-hour delay by
more than the 2.0-second threshold of
significance, within unacceptable
LOS F conditions.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-12: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project
proponent/developer shall contribute 43 percent of the cost to construct improvements at the west Ridge Park
Drive leg to allow for right-in / right-out turn movements only at the intersection of Vincent Moraga Drive and
Ridge Park Drive, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This improvement would prohibit vehicles from making
northbound left and westbound left turning movements at the intersection.
Less than Significant
Impact TRA-13: Development of the
Specific Plan would cause the General
Plan Build Out (2035) level of service
for the westbound First Street
approach at unsignalized Pujol Street
and First Street (Intersection #15) to
degrade from an acceptable LOS D or
better to an unacceptable LOS F
during the PM peak hour.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-13: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project
proponent/developer shall contribute 17 percent of the cost to install traffic signals at the intersection of Pujol
Street and First Street.
Less than Significant
Impact TRA-14: The proposed project
may conflict with applicable plans and
congestion management programs by
resulting in temporary but prolonged
adverse effects on intersection LOS
during project construction.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-14: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or any permit that authorizes
construction activities within the Specific Plan area, or at offsite locations for improvements associated with the
Specific Plan, the project applicant(s) shall prepare a Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) for review and
approval by the City of Temecula as part of the permit application. The Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s)
shall include measures to minimize the construction traffic volumes entering the roadway system (including local
roads) during AM and PM peak hours. At a minimum, the Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) shall include the
following implementation measures:
• Construction truck routes shall be prepared to designate principal haul routes for trucks delivering
materials to and from the construction site.
• Should a temporary road and/or lane closure be necessary during construction, the project applicant shall
Less than Significant
Altair Specific Plan S-26 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Executive Summary
TABLE S-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
provide traffic control activities and personnel, as necessary, to minimize traffic impacts. This may include
detour signage, cones, construction area signage, flagmen, and other measures as required for safe traffic
handling in the construction zone.
•The project applicant shall keep a minimum of one lane in each direction free from encumbrances at all
times on perimeter roads accessing the project site. In the event a full road closure is required, the
contractor shall coordinate with the City of Temecula and other affected jurisdictions (i.e., Caltrans, and/or
County of Riverside) to designate proper detour routes and signage to appropriate proper access routes.
Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to utilities and water supply.
Altair Specific Plan S-27 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 Purpose
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Temecula (City),
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Public Resources
Code, Sections 21000 et. seq. and the state CEQA Guidelines in the Code of Regulations, Title
14, Section 15000. This Draft EIR has been prepared as a Project EIR pursuant to Section 15161
of the CEQA Guidelines. The purpose of this EIR is to evaluate the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed Altair Specific Plan project (project, or Altair), which includes approval
of a Development Agreement, a General Plan Amendment to amend the existing Land Use Policy
Map and the existing Roadway Plan; and a zone change to replace the existing zoning
designations (BP – Business Park; OS-Open Space; SP-8-Westside Specific Plan) with new zones
and associated use and development regulations and standards for the Specific Plan area.
Intended Uses of an EIR
This Draft EIR is intended to inform the City, responsible agencies, and the public of the
proposed project’s environmental effects. As the Lead Agency, the City has the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon
the environment (CEQA Statute Section 21067). Therefore, the Draft EIR is intended to publicly
disclose those impacts that may be significant and adverse, identify measures that would mitigate
or eliminate such impacts, and describe a range of alternatives for the proposed project that would
avoid or substantially lessen impacts.
1.2 Project Background
The applicant, Ambient Communities, filed an application with the City of Temecula for the
preparation of the Altair Specific Plan, which would serve as the regulatory document and
planning instrument for the future development of the 270-acre land parcel west of the Old Town
planning area in the City of Temecula. The project site was the subject of one previous specific
plan, the Westside Specific Plan, which was approved by the City in 1995. The Westside Specific
Plan proposed a mixed use development that would include 50,000 square feet of special event
commercial (allowing tourist and hotel uses), 45,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial,
and 20,000 square feet of mixed-use space as well as up to 302 dwelling units and approximately
70 acres of open space.
Altair Specific Plan 1-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
1. Introduction
Community Outreach
In addition to the scoping hearing required under CEQA (see below), the project applicant has
held numerous informal meetings with stakeholder groups, such as the Pechanga Band of Luiseño
Indians and other members and special interest groups of the community who have expressed
interest and/or concerns about the project.
1.3 CEQA EIR Process
1.3.1 Notice of Preparation
On November 13, 2014, in accordance with Sections 15063 and 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines,
the City published an Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) of a Draft EIR, and circulated
it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons who may be interested in this project,
including nearby landowners, homeowners, and tenants. The IS/NOP requested comments on the
scope of the Draft EIR, and asked that those agencies with regulatory authority over any aspect of
the project to describe that authority. The comment period extended through December 15, 2014.
The NOP provided a general description of the project area, a description of the proposed action,
and a preliminary list of potential environmental impacts.
On December 3, 2014, in accordance with CEQA Section 21083.9,1 the City sponsored a public
scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. The
purpose of the meeting was to present the project to the public through use of display maps,
diagrams and a presentation describing the project components and potential environmental
impacts. City staff and members of the local community attended the scoping meeting. Attendees
were provided an opportunity to voice comments or concerns regarding potential effects of the
project. The IS/NOP and comments received during the public comment period are provided in
Appendix A of this Draft EIR.
1.3.2 Draft EIR
This Draft EIR provides a description of the project, environmental setting, project impacts, and
mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant as well as an analysis of project
alternatives. Significance criteria have been developed for each environmental resource analyzed
in this Draft EIR, and are defined for each impact analysis section. Impacts are categorized as
follows:
• Significant and unavoidable;
• Significant, but can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level;
• Less than significant (mitigation is not required under CEQA, but may be recommended); or
• No impact.
1 CEQA Section 21083.9 requires that a lead agency call at least one scoping meeting for a project of statewide,
regional, or area-wide significance.
Altair Specific Plan 1-2 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
1. Introduction
CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate ways of avoiding or minimizing identified environmental
impacts where feasible through the application of mitigation measures or project alternatives.
1.3.3 Public Review
This document is being circulated and made available to local, State and federal agencies, and to
interested organizations and individuals who may wish to review and comment on the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR marks the beginning of a 45-day public review period. Written comments should
be sent on or before June 17, 2016, by the close of business to:
Matt Peters,
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
matt.peters@cityoftemecula.org (e-mail)
(951) 694-6400 (phone)
1.3.4 Final EIR
Written and oral comments received in response to the Draft EIR will be addressed in a Response
to Comments document which, together with the Draft EIR, will constitute the Final EIR. The
City will then consider EIR certification (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090). If the EIR is
certified, the City may consider project approval. Prior to approving the project, the City must
make written findings with respect to each significant and unavoidable environmental effect
identified in the EIR in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.
1.3.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt a reporting and mitigation monitoring program for the
changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to
mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (CEQA Section 21081.6, CEQA
Guidelines Section 15097). The mitigation monitoring program will be available to the public at
the same time as the Final EIR.
1.4 Organization of This Draft EIR
This Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with provisions of Sections 15120 to 150131 of
the CEQA Guidelines. It includes all CEQA-required sections based on the IS/NOP. The Draft
EIR has been organized into the following sections:
S. Executive Summary. The executive summary provides a synopsis of the project’s
potential impacts. It identifies, in an overview fashion, the project under consideration and
its objectives including any design features of the project that would be implemented. This
section also summarizes the project’s impacts and mitigation measures and contains a
summary analysis of the alternatives to the project.
Altair Specific Plan 1-3 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
1. Introduction
1. Introduction. The introduction includes the purpose of an EIR and procedural information.
2. Project Description. The project description includes the project background, project
location and setting, site characteristics, project objectives and the characteristics of the
project. The section also includes a summary of the necessary permits and approvals for the
project.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. The existing environmental
setting is described and documented for each environmental factor identified in the Initial
Study. Information is graphically depicted and described in the separate sections of the
document. For each potentially significant issue identified in the IS/NOP, this section of the
EIR includes a discussion of the environmental setting, project impacts (distinguished
between direct and indirect impacts), cumulative impacts, project design features, level of
significance before mitigation, mitigation measures, and the level of significance after
mitigation. The assessment of impacts is consistent with CEQA requirements and utilizes
defined thresholds of significance to determine the impacts of the project.
4. Cumulative Impacts. This section includes a discussion of the past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities in the surrounding areas. This section
also provides an analysis of the cumulative impacts for each issue area analyzed in the EIR.
5. Alternatives Analysis. This section presents an overview of the alternatives development
process and describes and analyzes the alternatives to the project, including the No Project
Alternative.
6. Other CEQA Considerations. This section presents an overview of the impacts of the
project in the sense that it may foster economic or population growth, or additional
housing, either indirectly or directly. This section also provides an analysis of the extent to
which the project's primary and secondary effects would commit resources to uses that
future generations would probably be unable to reverse.
7. Acronyms, References and Preparers. This section provides a list of acronyms used
throughout the EIR, the resources referenced in the EIR, and a list of the individuals who
contributed to the preparation of the EIR.
Altair Specific Plan 1-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
CHAPTER 2
Project Description
This chapter includes a description of the Altair Specific Plan (project, or Altair) that provides a
basis for the environmental analysis contained in this EIR. Also included in this chapter are the
objectives of the project and a summary of discretionary approvals necessary to implement the
project.
2.1 Introduction
The Altair Specific Plan involves the development of approximately 270 acres located west of
and adjacent to Old Town, within the city of Temecula, California (Figure 2-1). The city limits
form the western edge of the project. Altair is designed to be a pedestrian-oriented residential
community within walking or cycling distance of Old Town; offering such amenities as active
and passive parks, an elementary school, walking, running, and cycling trails, a civic/institutional
area, and natural open space. The project would encourage a mix of residential housing types and
combinations of neighborhood-serving commercial. The buildout of the project is anticipated to
occur over an approximate 10-year period.
2.2 Project Objectives
The primary objectives for this project are to:
• Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of
Temecula General Plan. (A General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element is
needed to achieve these goals and policies.)
• Balance the need for local infrastructure improvement and demand for new housing in
and around Old Town while minimizing physical and visual impacts to the hillside
escarpment, wildlife movement, and conservation areas.
• Develop a high-quality residential component on the project site that focuses on
providing diverse housing types and a wide range of densities that would serve a variety
of age groups and household sizes, support the commercial enterprises of Old Town
Temecula, help to fulfill the city’s regional housing needs, and foster a unique
community identity where each neighborhood is unique, vibrant, diverse, and inclusive.
• Create a project that reduces dependency on the automobile and encourages the use of an
extensive multi-use trail system that would link neighborhood villages and community-
wide uses within the project and to Old Town Temecula.
Altair Specific Plan 2-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
R A N C H O C A L I F O R N I A R D
ED P O R T O L A R D
P
E
C
H
A
N
G A
P
K
Y
W I N C H E S T E R R D
MEADO
W
S
P
K
Y
O V E R L A N D DR
W O L F V A L L E Y R D
P A U AB R D
O
L
O
T
D
W
N
F
R
O
N
T
S
T
N I C O LA SRD
S O L A N A WY
L A S E RE N A W Y
R
E
D
H A W K P K Y
R A N C H O V I S T A R D
S A N T I A G O R D
N I C O L A S R D
B
U
T
T
E
R
FI
E
L
D
S
T
A
G
E
R
D
JE
FF
E
R
S
O
N
A
V
D E E R H O L L O W W Y
D
I
A
Z
R
D
P A U B A R D
T E M E CU L A P K W Y
D E L R E Y R D
ANZ A R D
Y
N
E
Z R
D
B U S I NES S
P
A
R K
DR
M
A
R
G
A
R
IT A
RD
V I A N O R TE
P
A
L
A R
D
VAIL
RA
N
C
H
P
K
Y
Altair Specic Plan Area
215 Acres Parcel
55 Acres Parcel
SR-79
15
Altair Specic Plan . 140106
City Limits
Highways
Roads
Figure 2-1
Project Location Map
SOURCE: Altair Specic Plan
2. Project Description
• Provide for limited/incidental neighborhood-oriented commercial uses to serve the needs
of the project’s residents, such as coffee shop, ice cream store, or small restaurants.
• Promote design that minimizes water usage by using a relatively drought-tolerant
landscape palette, clustered development, and attractive community spaces rather than
traditional water-intensive private lawns.
• Provide water quality management facilities that are incorporated within the landscape
features and designed to create settings that mimic the natural hillside attributes.
• Establish an efficient, interconnected multi-modal transportation network that includes a
Western Bypass Corridor and vehicular, transit/trolley, and pedestrian/bikeway
circulation systems that would improve center-of-city traffic conditions.
• Provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a park in the center of
the project, plazas, trails, a play field, and an elementary school accommodating 600–730
students, which further diversify and contribute to the Old Town’s amenities.
• Provide for a civic site of adequate size that accommodates up to 450,000 building square
feet for an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public,
and be integrated into the overall project design in a way that maximizes compatibility
with other proposed land uses within the Specific Plan, and provides a strong visual
connection and close access to Interstate 15.
2.3 Project Characteristics
2.3.1 Land Use and Zoning
Altair is primarily a residential mixed-use development with supporting civic uses and open
space. Different housing types are proposed to meet the needs of a range of age groups and
household sizes. The project is located to take advantage of the shopping, dining, and
entertainment venues of Old Town and is designed to encourage a strong pedestrian connection to
both Old Town and planned open space within the development.
Altair proposes a type of form-based code using building types clustered in villages as the
organizing principle. This approach seems to work best where the project area is no more than
one square mile, such as Altair. At this scale, a code can be produced that will reinforce the
character of a community and encourage the desired urban development. The building types are
described in detail in Section 10.10, Development Standards - Building Types in the Altair
Specific Plan and include the following:
• Detached housing - Consists of individually owned, multistory dwellings arranged
around or along a common outdoor space.
• Multiplex - Combines two to six dwelling units into one structure; the individual
dwelling unit is not distinctly expressed in the multiplex type.
• Rowhouse - Attached dwelling units arranged side-by-side, typically in a linear manner.
Altair Specific Plan 2-3 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
2. Project Description
• Live/work - Combines residential and commercial uses into a single dwelling unit and are
then repeated side-by-side to create a commercial strip that serves as the focus of a
neighborhood.
• Multifamily walk-up - Buildings of two to four stories combining stacked dwelling units.
• Multifamily podium - Combines four or five stories of stacked dwelling units over a
subterranean or partially subterranean enclosed parking garage.
• Micro-unit - Efficiency dwelling units that provide affordable housing for smaller
households.
• Mixed-use - Combines two or more distinct uses into a single structure or group,
typically residential in combination with neighborhood-serving commercial, service or
office uses.
These building types are assigned to seven neighborhood “villages” which, in turn, are overlaid
with one of three proposed residential zones (Residential Zone [SP-R], Mixed-Use/Residential
[SP-MR], or Mixed-Use [SP-M]), in combination with an active open space zone (SP-AO). The
non-residential uses include an elementary school and a civic use area (“South Parcel”) which are
covered by the Educational (SP-E) zone and Institutional (SP-I) zone, respectively, and natural
open space (SP-NO). All residential uses would allow a small amount of accessory commercial
use to support the neighborhood. These might be a corner coffee shop, ice cream parlor or
live/work units with ground floor offices. Figure 2-2 shows the proposed land use plan and
Figure 2-3 shows the proposed zoning overlay for the project. Table 2-1 shows the acreage
breakdown of the land uses for the project.
Each village is centered on a node or focal point separated by landscape terrain. The open space
between the villages preserves the existing appearance of ravines extending from the upper
hillside through the development, allowing similar drainage patterns and maintaining existing
views. The villages are connected by an extensive network of pedestrian and bicycle paths. A
summary description of each village and its characteristics is discussed below.
TABLE 2-1
SPECIFIC PLAN ACREAGE BY USE
Use Gross Acres Percent of Total
Conservation Open Space 84.63 31.2%
Passive Open Space 31.63 11.7%
Parks / Trails 15.73 5.8%
Community Recreation / Mixed Use 2.09 0.8%
Developed Area (residential/elementary
school/civic use)
103.49 38.2%
Roadways 33.33 12.3%
Total 270.90 100%
SOURCE: Draft Altair Specific Plan, 2015.
Altair Specific Plan 2-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
15
Rancho California Rd
First Street
Main Street
t
e
e r t
S
t n o r
F
n w o
T
d l
O
S
R-79
W
E
S
T
E R N
B Y P A S S
V i n c e n t
M o r a g a D r
P u j o l S t r e e t
Civic
Center
Old
T
o
w
n
F
r
o
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
u
j
o
l
S
t r
e
e
t
R
i
d
g
e
P
a
r
k
D r i v e
M u r r i e t a
C r e e k
T
E
M
E
C
U
LA PARK
W
AY
E s t r i b o
C a m i n o
School
South Parcel
(Civic Use)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 2-2
Land Use Plan
SOURCE: Altair Specic Plan
Open Space
Civic/Community
Residential
0 1200
Feet
15
Altair Specic Plan . 140106
SP-AO Active Open Space
SP-NO Natural Open Space
SP-R Residential Zone
SP-M Mixed-Use
SP-MR Mixed-Use / Residential
SP-E Educational
SP-I Institutional
Figure 2-3
Proposed Zoning
SOURCE: Altair Specic Plan
0 1000
Feet
R
ancho California Rd
First Street
Main Street
t
e e r t S
t n o r F
n w o T
d l
O
S
R-79
W
E
S T E R N
B Y P A S S
V i n c e n t
M o r a g a D r
P u j o l
S t r e e t
Old
T
o
w
n
F
r
o
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
u j o l
S t r e e
t
R
i
d
g
e
P
a
r
k
D r i v e
M u r r i e t a
C r e e k
T
E
M
E
C
U
L
A
P
A
R
K
W
AY
2. Project Description
Village A
Village A contains approximately 16 gross acres and is located at the northern end of the project.
It is bounded by existing business parks on the north, the proposed Western Bypass on the east,
and natural open space on the south and west. A portion of the village is on a previously graded
pad with an elevation that would be above the Western Bypass and the adjacent business park,
offering distant views to the north and east. Its development character would be defined by a
higher density and scale of massing. Housing would be arranged around a formal green that
would allow for passive sports play. The narrower shape of the site at the northern end, adjacent
to natural open space, is potentially suited for lower density development. The main vehicular
access to the site is at the southeast corner of the village from the Western Bypass, with a
secondary access at the northwest corner, directly from the existing Ridge Park Drive. The
proposed zoning for Village A is SP-R. Allowable building types include: detached housing,
multiplex, rowhouses, live/work, micro-unit, multifamily walk-up, and multifamily podium.
Building heights could range from two to five stories depending on the building type. Residential
development density is anticipated to range from 9 to 18 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a
maximum of 280 dwelling units allowed.
Village B
Village B contains approximately 12 gross acres and is located at the northern end of the
development. Like Village A, it would function as a gateway site to the community. It is bounded
by the proposed Western Bypass on the north, existing single and multifamily development on
the east and south, and the proposed Altair Vista on the west. Like Village A, Village B is
primarily on a previously graded pad, elevated well above the surrounding existing development.
This village is located across from the proposed elementary school site, making it an ideal
location for families with young children. Higher density residential is planned for compatibility
with the activity generated by the school. Vehicular access would be on the west side of the
village, from Altair Vista that runs north-south through the project site. A passive
park/playground would be centrally located, to serve as the focal point. The proposed zoning for
Village B is SP-R. Allowable building types include: multiplex, rowhouses, live/work, micro-
unit, multifamily walk-up, and multifamily podium. Building heights could range from two to
five stories depending on the building type. Residential development density is anticipated to
range from 9 to 18 du/ac with a maximum of 220 dwelling units allowed.
Village C
Village C is the core of Altair. It is approximately 21 gross acres (not including the Elementary
School Site) in size and located in the heart of the project. This village includes a five-acre central
park, community center and clubhouse, and high density residential; and would allow up to
7,000 square feet (sf) of neighborhood-serving commercial development. It is bounded by the
proposed elementary school on the north, single and multifamily development and religious
facilities of Old Town Temecula on the east, Village D on the south, and the proposed Western
Bypass on the west. Village C is divided into two main areas: the north core and the south core.
The focal point of the project and Village C is a promontory plaza that sits atop the high point of
the central park and visually and physically connects the project with Old Town Temecula,
emphasizing a strong axis aligning with Altair, Main Street in Old Town Temecula, and City
Altair Specific Plan 2-7 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
2. Project Description
Hall. The plaza is flanked by two structures: the community recreation center with a pool located
at the northwest end of the plaza; and a clubhouse at the northeast side of the plaza which would
include a large outdoor patio that overlooks the park, valley, and distant mountains. Multistory
attached or stacked residences would form the south edge of the plaza, possibly with street-level
commercial uses. Immediately west of the plaza are steps that offer a grand vista as well as a
connection to a regional bike path that runs parallel with the Western Bypass. These steps are
bordered by the recreation center to the north and multistory housing to the south to form a public
gathering space. The village is divided by terrain and roads into smaller neighborhoods linked by
“A” Street. A planned street bridge crosses over the park and descending pathway, framing the
park and natural hillside and serving as a gateway to the community from Old Town Temecula. It
is anticipated that, of all the villages, Village C will receive the most visitors from outside the
community to use the park and adjacent elementary school. Vehicular access would be from
Altair Vista, Levant Trail via a connection with existing First Street, and “A” Street through the
middle of the Village. Village C would have a combination of zones that include SP-R, SP-MR,
SP-M, and SP-AO. Allowable building types include: detached housing, multiplex, rowhouses,
live/work, micro-unit, multifamily walk-up, multifamily podium, and mixed-use. Building
heights could range from two to five stories depending on the building type. Residential
development density is anticipated to range from 18 to 29 du/ac, with a maximum of 225
dwellings units for the north core; and 21 to 33 du/ac, with a maximum of 440 dwelling units for
the south core.
Village D
Village D is approximately nine gross acres in size and visually located on the axis with the First
Street entrance into Altair. The village is on a stepped plateau defined by two open space ravines
to the north and south. It is bounded by Village C on the north, multifamily development on the
east, Village E on the south, and the proposed Western Bypass on the west. Altair Vista and
incorporated pedestrian trails running north-south link the neighborhood park and village to the
rest of the project. Vehicular access would be from Altair Vista that bisects the site and splits into
one-way segments encompassing the park. The proposed zoning for Village D is SP-R and SP-
MR. Allowable building types include: detached housing, multiplex, rowhouses, live/work,
micro-unit, multifamily walk-up, and mixed-use. Up to 15,000 sf of ground floor accessory
office, live/work or retail commercial development would be allowed along Altair Vista, oriented
towards the neighborhood park. Building heights could range from two to four stories depending
on the building type. Residential development density is anticipated to range from 8 to 18 du/ac,
with a maximum of 160 dwellings units allowed.
Village E
Village E is approximately eight gross acres in size and is located on steep terrain that is most
suitable for lower density residential development to minimize grading. The neighborhood park is
on an east-west alignment to take advantage of the mountain views south and east of the site. The
village is bounded by Village D on the north, multifamily development on the east, Village F on
the south, and the proposed Western Bypass on the west. Vehicular access would be from Altair
Vista that bisects the village. The proposed zoning for Village E is SP-R. Allowable building
types include: detached housing, multiplex, rowhouses, live/work, micro-unit, and multifamily
walk-up. Building heights could range from two to four stories depending on the building type.
Altair Specific Plan 2-8 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
2. Project Description
Residential development density is anticipated to range from 5 to 15 du/ac, with a maximum of
115 dwellings units allowed.
Village F
Village F is very linear and has a steep slope along the eastern edge. It is approximately nine
gross acres in size and is bounded by Altair Vista and Village E on the north, proposed “B” Street
North and multifamily development on the east, and the proposed Western Bypass on the south
and west. Vehicular access would be from Altair Vista. There are two park locations in Village F;
one centrally located adjacent to the entry and one at the southern tip overlooking the creek and
valley beyond. The proposed zoning for Village F is SP-R. Allowable building types include:
detached housing, multiplex, rowhouses, live/work, micro-unit, and multifamily walk-up.
Building heights could range from two to four stories depending on the building type. Residential
development density is anticipated to range from 7 to 20 du/ac, with a maximum of 180 dwellings
units allowed.
Village G
Village G is south of the proposed Western Bypass on terrain that steeply slopes to the southeast.
As such, a lower density development of clustered, detached homes is most appropriate, or some
type of student housing should the South Parcel be developed as a higher education institution.
This village is approximately seven gross acres in size and is bounded by the proposed Western
Bypass on the north, “B” Street South on the east, “C” Street on the south, and open space on the
west. Vehicular access would be from “C” Street. The proposed zoning for Village G is SP-R.
Allowable building types include: detached housing, multiplex, rowhouses, multi-family walk-up,
multifamily podium and micro-unit. Building heights could range from two to four stories
depending on the building type. Residential development density is anticipated to range from 4 to
18 du/ac, with a maximum of 130 dwellings units allowed.
South Parcel 1
This parcel is located at the southern end of the Specific Plan area and contains approximately 55
gross acres, most of which would be conserved as natural open space. The development area is
approximately 19 acres with a buildable area of approximately 10 acres after site preparation. The
parcel is bordered by “B” Street South, “C” Street, and Metropolitan Water District pipeline
property on the north, Murrieta Creek on the east and south, and Camino Estribo and natural open
space on the west. Vehicular access is via the existing road referred to as “B” Street South from
the proposed Western Bypass. The proposed zoning for this parcel is SP-I and SP-NO. The South
Parcel could be developed as an educational facility that may accommodate up to 5,000 students,
or an office/research and development campus. In addition to, or in lieu of an
educational/research facility, other institutional uses may include, but are not limited to, a
convention center, hospital and/or cultural center. Regardless of the use(s), the project would
allow a maximum of 450,000 building square feet on the development area of the site, with
buildings up to five stories in height. Project features have been incorporated into the
development area to buffer possible wildlife activity in the adjacent conservation area and soften
building mass, such as dense plantings on top of an approximately 10-foot-high vegetated berm
1 The South Parcel may also be referred to as the Civic Site in this EIR and associated appendices.
Altair Specific Plan 2-9 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
2. Project Description
on the southern side of the development area, the installation of “living walls” (green walls or
modular vegetated walls) on the south and west sides of buildings located on perimeter lots, and
the retention of a non-paved road section for the portion of Camino Estribo west of the
development area up to the County line to discourage vehicular traffic and encourage slow
driving speeds.
Elementary School Site
The elementary school site is approximately seven gross acres in size and would be dedicated to
the Temecula Valley Unified School District to serve the residents of Altair and nearby
neighborhoods. It is estimated that the site would have a buildable area of approximately five
acres after site preparation. It is anticipated that the school would accommodate 600 to 730
students in grades K through 6. It is bounded by the proposed Western Bypass on the west,
proposed Altair Vista on the north and east, and Village C and the community center on the
south. Several pedestrian and bicycle paths converge on this location to allow safe, non-vehicular
access to this site from all directions. The proposed zoning for the school site is SP-E. Buildings
up to two stories in height would be allowed. Vehicular access would be from proposed Altair
Vista which is a public street in this portion, adjacent to the elementary school.
2.3.2 Development Standards and Design Guidelines
Development standards and design guidelines outlined in the Altair Specific Plan would work in
tandem with Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code (also referred to as the City of Temecula
Development Code) to regulate the development of the project. The main sections of the Specific
Plan that include development regulations for the project are: Section 3, Land Use; Section 4,
Circulation; Section 5, Grading; Section 8, Open Space and Recreation; Section 9, Design
Guidelines; and Section 10, Development Standards. In particular, Table 2-2 shows the proposed
residential zone, density, and intensity by village area for the project; Table 2-3 shows the use
regulations by zone; and Table 2-4 shows building setbacks and height limitations by village area
from Section 10 of the Altair Specific Plan.
Altair Specific Plan 2-10 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
2. Project Description
TABLE 2-2
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ZONE, DENSITY, AND INTENSITY BY VILLAGE AREA
Village Area Lot No. Principal Land Use Zone
Lot Area
(acres)
Density Range
(dwelling units/acre)
Intensity Range
(dwelling units)
Min Max Min Max
Village A 1 to 4 Residential SP-R 15.6 9 18 140 280
Village B 5 and 6 Residential SP-R 12.4 9 18 110 220
Village C (north) 8 to 10 Residential SP-R, SP-M 7.8 18 29 140 225
Village C (south) 11 to 18 Residential SP-R, SP-MR 13.4 21 33 280 440
Village D 19 to 22 Residential SP-R 9.0 8 19 70 160
Village E 23 to 27 Residential SP-R 7.8 5 15 40 115
Village F 28 and 29 Residential SP-R 9.0 7 20 60 180
Village G 30 and 31 Residential SP-R 7.3 4 18 30 130
Total 870 1750
TABLE 2-3
PROPOSED USE REGULATIONS BY ZONE
Description of Use
Open Space Residential Mixed‐Use Public/Institutional
SP-AO SP-NO SP‐R SP‐M SP-MR SP‐E SP‐I
Residential 2
Single‐family detached - - P P P ‐ ‐
Duplex (two‐family dwellings) - - P P P ‐ ‐
Single‐family attached (greater than two units) - - P P P ‐ ‐
Multiple‐family - - P P P ‐ ‐
Manufactured Homes - - - ‐ - ‐ ‐
Mobile Home Park - - ‐ ‐ - ‐ ‐
Efficiency Units - - P P P ‐ ‐
Transitional Housing - - C C C ‐ ‐
Secondary Dwelling Unit 4 - - P P P ‐ ‐
Group Homes - - C C C ‐ ‐
Congregate care facilities (elderly or disabled) - - C C C ‐ ‐
Residential care facilities (for elderly, disabled,
mentally disordered, dependent or neglected
children)
- - C C C ‐ ‐
Recovery or treatment facility - - C ‐ - ‐ ‐
Guest House 4 - - C P P ‐ ‐
Boarding, rooming and lodging facilities - - C P P ‐ P
Bed and breakfast establishment - - C P P ‐ ‐
Family day care homes - - P P P ‐ ‐
Live/ Work - - P P P ‐ ‐
Home Occupation - - P P P ‐ ‐
Nonresidential
Day care centers - - P3 P C P P
Educational, K‐8th grade - - ‐ ‐ - P C
Altair Specific Plan 2-11 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
2. Project Description
TABLE 2-3
PROPOSED USE REGULATIONS BY ZONE
Description of Use
Open Space Residential Mixed‐Use Public/Institutional
SP-AO SP-NO SP‐R SP‐M SP-MR SP‐E SP‐I
Educational, trade or vocational school - - ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P
Higher Education - - ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P
Conference facility - - ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P
Libraries - - P3 P P P P
Museums and galleries (nonprofit) - - P3 P P P P
Nonprofit clubs and lodge halls - - P3 P P ‐ ‐
Religious Institutions - - ‐ C C C P
Hospital and Ancillary Medical Office - - ‐ - - - P
Commercial
Retail - - P P P - -
Restaurant - - P P P - P
Offices - - P P P - C
Open Space
Community Gardens P - P - - P P
Athletic Field P - - - - P P
Bicycle Paths P C P P P P P
Communications and microwave installations C - C C C C C
Game courts, badminton, tennis, racquetball P - - P P P P
Golf course and clubhouse, driving range - - - - - - -
Nature centers / exhibits P C P - - P P
Parking Areas P1 - P P P P P
Picnic group facilities P C P - - P P
Private parks and recreation facilities P - P P P P P
Public parks and recreation facilities P C - - C P P
Recreational vehicle park - - - - - - -
Riding stable, public or private - - - - - - C
Shooting galleries, ranges, archery courses - - - - - - -
P = Use is permitted in subject zone
C = Use is conditionally permitted subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit
- = Use is prohibited in subject zone
1 Parking for park visitor use only
2 Conform with Housing Type regulations per Sections 10.10-10.21, Altair Specific Plan
3 A CUP is required if use is added after initial development
4 Conform with “accessory dwelling” regulations per Sections 10.11-10.21, Altair Specific Plan
Altair Specific Plan 2-12 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
2. Project Description
TABLE 2-4
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Village A Village B Village C Village D Village E Village F Village G School
South
Parcel
min maxc min maxc min maxc min maxc min maxc min maxc min maxc min maxc min maxc
Lot
Minimum Lot Acre N/A
Minimum Lot Frontage Determined by Building Type. (See Sections 10.10-10.18 of the Altair Specific Plan)
Setbacks (feet)a,b
From Altair Vista Property Line 3d 10d 3 10 3 5e 0 5e 0 5e 3 ‐ 3 ‐ 5 ‐
From Western Bypass ROW 20 130 20 100 10 ‐ 10 ‐
From Ridge Park Drive ROW 20 160
From Levant Trail ROW 3 ‐
From King Road Property Line 0 5
From Camino Estribo ROW 10 -
All other Lot Lines 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐ 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 ‐ 0 ‐
Height
Maximum Height (feet)f,g 65 70 75 65 55 55 55 50 85
Maximum Stories 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 2 5
Other Requirements
Park Space
Minimum Total Area 0.95 acre 0.60 acre 5.00 acres 0.87 acre 0.50 acre 1.00 acre 0.35 acre 2.00 -
Minimum Contiguous Area 0.65 acre 0.40 acre 5.00 acres 0.87 acre 0.25 acre 0.40 acres - 1.50 -
Common Open Space
(sq. ft. per unit) Determined by Building Type. (See Sections 10.10‐10.18 of the Altair Specific Plan)
Private Open Space
(sq. ft. per unit) Determined by Building Type. (See Sections 10.10‐10.18 of the Altair Specific Plan)
Allowable Building Types
Detached Housing (Section 10.11)
Multiplex (Section 10.12)
Rowhouse (Section 10.13)
Live / Work (Section 10.14)
Multifamily Walk‐Up (Section 10.15)
Multifamily Podium (Section 10.16)
Micro Unit (Section 10.17)
Mixed Use (Section 10.18)
Iconic Tower (Section 10.19)
a. Setbacks do not apply to interior lot lines.
b. See Section 10.5, Altair Specific Plan for allowable encroachments into setback area.
c. At least 30% of the building frontage area must comply with the maximum setback. See Fig. 10.1 in the Altair Specific Plan.
d. Measured from Boundary Road easement at Village A.
e. May be increased to 8 feet maximum where an arcade is provided per Section 9.4, Altair Specific Plan.
f. Structure height is measured as the vertical distance from the grade established by the Grading Plan exhibit referenced in this Specific Plan to the highest point of the
parapet of a flat or mansard roof, or to the mid‐point of a gable, hip or gambrel roof. Screened mechanical and electrical equipment, chimneys, towers, railings and
other integral parts of a building or structure occupying no more than five percent of the roof area shall be excluded from this measurement. Photovoltaic panels and
their support framework may be excluded from this measurement.
g. Buildings greater than 55 feet in height from the lowest floor of fire department access shall provide certain high‐rise provisions in compliance with Section 15.16.020‐
1.1.7.1 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Altair Specific Plan 2-13 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
2. Project Description
2.3.3 Circulation
The circulation plan for Altair overlaps vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle systems to provide
transportation choices and promote a safe and healthy environment. The focus is on human-
powered circulation while accommodating the automobile. The project incorporates the concept
of “complete streets.” Narrow travel lanes and roundabouts calm traffic while improving traffic
flow. A network of integrated and separate sidewalks, bikeways, and trails provides safe
opportunities for walking, cycling, and jogging; and serves to connect the project’s villages and
Old Town Temecula. Buildings and landscape treatment along circulation routes would define
streets and pathways and contribute to a cohesive community.
Pedestrian Walkways, Trails, and Bikeways
A pedestrian and cycling network runs through the active open spaces and connects adjacent
neighborhoods and Old Town Temecula. Village nodes are within a five-minute walk from each
other and the project site can be traversed north to south in about 30 minutes. Old Town is within
a 10 to 15 minute walk from the village core (Village C) and elementary school site. The trail and
bikeway system and types are designed to be consistent with and promote the goals and
objectives of the Temecula Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. The trail and bikeway
network would include the following: Class 1 bikeways that are separated from vehicular traffic
with a minimum width of eight feet; key eight-foot wide pedestrian/bikeways separated from
vehicular traffic that connect the planned villages and open spaces; hiking trails that run along the
eastern slope of the project, connecting various points of interest and the elementary school site;
and sidewalks located on both sides of Altair Vista through the project and on “A” Street within
Village C. Figure 2-4 shows the proposed pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan for the project.
Vehicular Circulation
The vehicular circulation system is influenced by the linear shape of the project site, grading
constraints on the project site, and connections to the existing offsite street network. The main
offsite connections would be at Vincent Moraga Drive on the north, First Street on the east, and
Temecula Parkway (SR-79 South) on the south.
The backbone of the street network would consist of four major streets: the Western Bypass,
Altair Vista, Levant Trail and “B” Street. The Western Bypass, a portion of Altair Vista between
Levant Trail and the Western Bypass, the round-about connecting First Street with Levant Trail,
the portion of “B” Street from Pujol Street to the South Parcel and “C” Street are the public street
segments in the project. The Western Bypass, a proposed four-lane thoroughfare, would be
constructed as part of the project and would link Temecula Parkway to Rancho California Road
via Vincent Moraga Road. The Western Bypass would allow through-traffic to bypass Old Town
Temecula and help relieve traffic congestion. As such, intersections along the Western Bypass
would be limited. Due to its elevation and location, this route would be a scenic drive, providing
easterly views over the project and the city of Temecula and to the mountains and valleys beyond.
Altair Vista would be an internal, north-south two-lane road that connects the planned villages
and elementary school site. Its cross-section would vary to slow traffic and provide on-street
parking, depending on its location and the character of each village.
Altair Specific Plan 2-14 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
G
F
E
D
C
B
A
Rancho California Rd
First Street
Main Street
t
e
e r t
S
t
n o r
F
n w o
T
d
l
O
S
R-79
W
E
S
T E R N
B Y P A S S
V i n c e n t
M o r a g a D r
P u j o l S t r e e t
Civic
Center
Old
T
o
w
n
F
r
o
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
u j
o l
S
t
r e
e
t
R
i
d
g
e
P
a
r
k
D r i v e
M ur i e tt a C r e e k
T
E
M
E
C
U
LA PARK
W
AY
School
Civic Use
Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Class 1 Bikeway (8’ width)
Key Walkway (8’ min. width)
Hiking Trail (5’ width)
Sidewalks (6’ min. width)
Mid-block Crossing
Figure 2-4
Pedestrian Bicycle Circulation
SOURCE: Altair Specic Plan
0 1200
Feet
2. Project Description
In general, it would include a tree-lined parkway and sidewalks. Levant Trail would run from
First Street to the elementary school site as a private street where it would connect with Altair
Vista. Roundabouts are proposed at strategic locations to slow and coordinate traffic without
signalized intersections. “B” Street North and South intersects the Western Bypass Road just west
of the bridge over Murrieta Creek and provides access to Altair Vista to the north and the South
Parcel and Village G (via a connection to “C” Street) to the south. Portions “B” Street are offsite.
Figure 2-5 shows the circulation plan for the project. Section 4, Circulation, in the Altair Specific
Plan provides the design details of each street.
Offsite Roadway Improvements
The project proposes connections to existing offsite Circulation Element roadways as identified in
the General Plan and EIR (SCH No. 2003061041. There are several other offsite roadway
connections that will complete the project’s proposed onsite circulation layout and provide
enhanced traffic flow.
Connecting the Western Bypass to the existing westerly end of Temecula Parkway near the
southern end of the project requires the construction of the Western Bypass Bridge over Murrieta
Creek. This four-lane bridge was designed and approved by the City as PW 06-04 and has
received the necessary environmental clearances (City of Temecula, 2009; SCH No.
2009061038) and regulatory agency permits (e.g., Section 404 permit, Section 401 Certification,
Streambed Alteration Agreement, and Western Riverside County Regional Conservation
Authority determination). The developer of the Altair Specific Plan will work with the City to
construct this bridge as part of the Western Bypass construction.
As currently shown in the City’s General Plan, the Western Bypass is contemplated to continue
north, over Rancho California Road with an ultimate connection at Via Industria. While currently
aligned higher on the hillside and connecting further north in a more environmentally disruptive
location, the project proposes to modify the northerly alignment to connect to the existing
Vincent Moraga Drive right-of-way (ROW) so that existing Diaz Road north of Rancho
California Road will now become the northerly extension of the Western Bypass. This revised
alignment creates not only a less intrusive pathway and more scenic ambiance but also preserves
roughly 55 acres that would otherwise have been developed. This revised alignment will occur at
the southerly end of Vincent Moraga and continue north to its intersection at Rancho California
Road. This section of Vincent Moraga Drive would be improved to a four-lane roadway as part of
the project. As a result, the Vincent Moraga street section will be a modified Major Arterial
within an 80-foot ROW. This will require that additional ROW be acquired and improvements be
made to meet the demands of the increased traffic. The City has already received approval of the
realignment from Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) as part of their
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) roadway network and fee structure. The new
alignment of the Western Bypass will require a General Plan Amendment.
At the southerly end of the site, the project will improve an existing unimproved utility
maintenance road described as “B” Street South. and “C” Street to a Local Road (60-foot ROW)
standard. These improvements would provide access to Village G and the South Parcel. Portions
of “B” Street S. and “C” Street will cross over offsite Metropolitan Water District (MWD)
property. Those offsite portions will be improved to MWD standards and require permanent
easements from the District.
Altair Specific Plan 2-16 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
15
Altair Vista
Levant Trail
Western
Bypass Corridor
“A” Street
“C” Street
“B” Street N.
“B” Street S.
Camino Estribo
Rancho California Rd
First Street
Main Street
t
e
e r t
S
t n o r
F
n w o
T
d l
O
S
R-79
W
E
S
T
E R N
B Y P A S S
V i n c e n t
M o r a g a D r
P u j o l S t r e e t
Civic
Center
Old
T
o
w
n
F
r
o
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
u
j
o
l
S
t r
e
e
t
R
i
d
g
e
P
a
r
k
D r i v e
M u r r i e t a
C r e e k
T
E
M
E
C
U
LA PARK
W
AY
E s t r i b o
C a m i n o
School
South Parcel
(Civic Use)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 2-5
Circulation Plan
SOURCE: Altair Specic Plan
0 1200
Feet
2. Project Description
Altair will also have offsite improvements to complete at the terminus of existing Pujol Street and
the proposed intersection with “B” Street and the Western Bypass, just west of the proposed
Bridge over Murrieta Creek. These improvements would complete the project connection to the
realignment of Pujol currently under construction as part of the recently approved Shearwater
Creek project.
The secondary entrance for Village C is Levant Trail, a private split level roadway that will
connect to the existing improvements on First Street. This connection will require the
construction of a proposed public round-about and pavement transitions, some which will be
within existing offsite ROW.
Offsite improvements are also proposed within the existing 60-foot unimproved ROW for Main
Street from the easterly project boundary to Pujol Street. One of the primary pedestrian
connections between Altair and Old Town is across the recently constructed Main Street bridge.
Improvements have been constructed throughout Main Street from City Hall at the east end to
Pujol Street on the west end. West of the Pujol Street and Main Street intersection is an existing
dirt area that is approximately 60 feet wide by 220 feet long in which the City of Temecula holds
easement rights. As part of the project, the developer would construct and maintain offsite
improvements within this area that would serve as a pedestrian promenade to transition from
Main Street into the project site and complete the connection. The planning of this area would
also provide vehicular access to the existing structures adjacent north and south of this area.
Public Transit
Old Town Temecula is currently served by bus transit operated by the Riverside Transit Agency.
The Temecula Trolley (Route 55) is a loop route that circulates just east of Interstate 15 next to
The Promenade at Temecula and Harveston School Road at the north end. Route 55 connects
mostly residential neighborhoods to commercial, retail and school uses, including Promenade
Mall and the County Center. Route 55 operates on Winchester Road, Ynez Road, Overland Drive,
and Margarita Road, among others, within the study area. Old Town Temecula is also served
internally by the Old Town Trolley Program, a trolley-style bus supported by the Old Town
Temecula businesses. The project is proposing an extension of the Old Town Trolley route, the
current loop runs from 2nd to 6th Streets along Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street, to
link Altair with Old Town. The project is proposing an extension of this route to link Altair with
Old Town. The proposed route would follow Main Street west to Pujol Street, then south to First
Street, west to proposed Levant Trail, then north and west along Levant Trail to the elementary
school site at Altair Vista, then south on Altair Vista to the community center. The trolley would
continue south on Altair Vista, then southeast on “B” Street, north on Pujol Street, east on Main
Street, across the bridge and back to Old Town Front Street to complete the loop.
2.3.4 Utilities
Storm Drainage and Water Quality
The project site is situated at the base of the Santa Rosa foothills on the westerly side of the
Temecula Valley. Runoff from these foothills flows easterly across the project site and directly or
indirectly into Murrieta Creek. The project proposes an onsite and offsite storm drainage system
Altair Specific Plan 2-18 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
2. Project Description
to collect and transport storm flows through the site as required by the City of Temecula. The
Murrieta Creek is a regional drainage facility and under the jurisdiction of Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District. This system will include isolated storm drain
facilities to convey offsite and open space runoff that is not required to be treated for water
quality purposes onsite. This dual system will minimize the potential comingling of runoff from
the developed and non-developed areas of the project. This secondary system will collect and
carry storm flows from the natural open spaces west of the proposed Western Bypass, through the
project site, and directly into Murrieta Creek. The other storm drain system would collect and
treat surface runoff from the proposed development, before exiting the site. The onsite drainage
system is designed and sized to convey a 100-year storm event. Flows from the open space would
be collected in ten inlet structures. The onsite catch basins and piping system would collect flows
from the developed portion of the project site and treat these flows in a series of basins, swales
and bioretention trenches. There are seven main outlets for the onsite network of storm drains.
Village A is tributary to the existing 60-inch storm drain in Ridge Park Drive, Village B drains
directly into the existing concrete lined channel adjacent to the easterly project boundary, and the
northerly portion of Village C is tributary to the existing inlet and 48-inch pipe aligned within
Sixth Street. The central portion of Village C is tributary to a proposed 36-inch storm drain in
Main Street to be extended easterly to Murrieta Creek. The remaining portion of Village C is
tributary to the existing 42-inch pipe in First Street that connects directly to Murrieta Creek.
Villages D and E areas are tributary to the existing onsite 36-inch and 24-inch pipes along with
the existing concrete channels of Tract Map 36568. Village G and H would both convey storm
flows directly into Murrieta Creek adjacent to the easterly project boundary. Figure 2-6 shows
the conceptual design of the storm drainage system for the project.
The onsite drainage plan as proposed utilizes the project’s streets, open channels, and
underground storm drains to convey stormwater flows. To adequately control stormwater quality,
both point and non-point sources of urban pollutants must be identified and controlled. As
required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the runoff from the proposed
developed surfaces will be treated for water quality purposes. This treatment train will
incorporate a variety of biofiltration and bioretention facilities along with bioswales where
feasible to reduce any potential water quality impacts on Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita
River Watershed. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared
that identifies the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater treatment facilities, source
control, and site design (Appendix G of this EIR). The Preliminary WQMP addresses the project-
specific constraints of the site and proposed treatment and filtration of stormwater runoff.
The project will also be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. This permit will be
required prior to receipt of a grading permit from the City of Temecula and requires the
submission of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which will also identify
proposed BMPs.
Altair Specific Plan 2-19 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
15
Rancho California Rd
First Street
Main Street
t e
e r t
S
t n o r
F
n w o
T
d l
O
SR-79
W
E
S
T E R N
B Y P A S S
V i n c e n t
M o r a g a D r
P u j o l S t r e e t
Civic
Center
Old
T
o
w
n
F
r
o
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
u j o l
S
t r e
e
t
R
i
d
g
e
P
a
r
k
D r i v e
M u r i e t t a
C r e e k
T
E
M
E
C
ULA PARK
WAY
Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 2-6
Drainage Plan
SOURCE: Altair Specic Plan
0 1200
Feet
Proposed Storm Drain
Existing Storm Drain
Basin
2. Project Description
The proposed onsite drainage and water quality system facilities located on privately held land
would be privately owned and maintained by the proposed Home Owners Association (HOA),
while portions of the system within a public ROW would be maintained by the City of Temecula.
All stormwater and associated water quality facilities would be designed to comply with the City
of Temecula and, where applicable, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District requirements.
Water System
The Altair Specific Plan is located within the service area of the Rancho California Water District
(RCWD). The project is located within the District’s Santa Rosa division and more specifically
the 1305 Pressure Zone. The District’s main source of domestic water is from the Metropolitan
Water District’s two exiting San Diego Aqueduct pipelines Number 4 and 5. These pipelines
traverse the southern end of the project site between the South Parcel and Village G. The
southerly end, the Altair Specific Plan will make two connections to the existing 30-inch
transmission main within the proposed ROW of “C” Street and “B” Street South. This portion of
the proposed system would provide domestic and fire service to Village G and the South Parcel.
The central portion of the project would connect to the existing 21-inch transmission main in the
Pujol Street ROW at two locations. The southerly location will extend a 12-inch main
northwesterly in the proposed Western Bypass to the park area (Open Space Lot 50 on the
tentative tract map) between Village F and Village E. At this location the 12-inch main will
traverse the project northerly within the Altair Vista public access and utility easement. The
second connection would be with the existing 21-inch main in Pujol Street at First Street. This
12-inch connection would be brought onsite within the Levant Trail public ROW to connect to
the proposed 12-inch water main in the Altair Vista public access and utility easement. To
complete the looped domestic and fire service system Villages A and B would provide the
northerly connection to the existing 12-inch main in Ridge Park Drive. This connection would
extend a 12-inch main line southerly within the Western Bypass to the intersection with Altair
Vista before providing a primary connection for the central portion of the project. Figure 2-7
shows the conceptual design of the main water lines for the project.
Offsite Water Improvements
Offsite water improvements would be limited to two 12-inch main line connections to the existing
21-inch domestic transmission line within the existing Pujol Street ROW; one at the southern end
of the Western Bypass and “B” Street North and the other at Pujol Street and First Street, in the
central portion of the project adjacent to Village C. A third offsite connection would occur within
the existing Ridge Park Drive ROW where the proposed Western Bypass intersects with Ridge
Park Drive and Vincent Moraga. This would also be a 12-inch connection to the existing 12-inch
domestic water line at that location. Onsite water systems serving the various villages would be
constructed by subsequent merchant builders and would be private systems.
Altair Specific Plan 2-21 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
15
Rancho California Rd
First Street
Main Street
t e e r t
S
t n o r
F
n w o
T
d l
O
SR-79
T
E
M
E
C
ULA PARKWAY
W
E
S
T E R N
B Y P A S S
V i n c e n t
M o r a g a D r
P u j o l S t r e e t
Civic
Center
Old
T
o
w
n
F
r
o
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
u j o l
S
t r e
e t
R
i
d
g
e
P
a
r
k
D r i v e
M u r i e t t a
C r e e k
Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 2-7
Domestic Water Plan
SOURCE: Altair Specic Plan
0 1200
Feet
Existing Water
Proposed Water
2. Project Description
Recycled Water
Recycled water is provided by the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) via their Santa
Rosa Treatment Plant. The District maintains an existing 20-inch reclaimed water line in Vincent
Moraga at Felix Valdez that is part of the District’s 1381 Pressure Zone. The same system also
extends southerly in Pujol Street to First Street. At the southerly end of the project, the City’s
approved Western Bypass bridge plans propose to bring two 20-inch recycled water lines
westerly across Murrieta Creek from the existing 24-inch recycled main line in Old Town Front
Street. This westerly extension within the proposed bridge from Old Town Front Street to the
intersection of the Western Bypass and “B” Street North would provide a secondary connection
point to RCWD’s recycled water system and meet the project’s irrigation demands. The onsite
recycled water system would connect through the project via a proposed 8-inch line in the
Western Bypass from Vincent Moraga to the north and “B” Street from the south. The central
portion of the Altair Specific Plan would be served by an 8-inch line connected offsite to the
existing 20-inch recycled line in Pujol Street within the existing Main Street ROW. The South
Parcel and Village G to the south would be served by a 10-inch line within the proposed “B”
Street South ROW.
At the northerly end of the project, recycled water would be provided by an offsite connection to
the existing 20-inch recycled main at the intersection of Vincent Moraga and Felix Valdez. This
northerly connection proposes an 8-inch line to be extended southerly to the project site within
the proposed Western Bypass. In the central portion of the site, adjacent to Village C, an offsite
10-inch recycled line would be extended to the site within the Main Street ROW. At the southerly
end, the project would extend two proposed 12-inch pipelines as part of the City-approved
Western Bypass bridge project on to the site to serve the southerly portion of the project and
provide temporary irrigation water for the manufactured slopes adjacent to the Western Bypass
and connect to the northerly extension to provide service throughout the project. Figure 2-8
shows the conceptual design of the reclaimed water lines for the project.
Sanitary Sewer
The project is within the boundaries of Eastern Municipal Water District’s (EMWD) sanitary
sewer service area. Project generated wastewater flows would be transported via a proposed
network of onsite and offsite gravity pipes and interconnections with the District’s existing offsite
Pujol Street lift station. The existing Pujol Lift Station is tributary to the nearby Santa Rosa Water
Reclamation Plant that is operated by RCWD. The estimated average-flow and peak-flow
wastewater generated by the project is 0.35 million gallons per day (mgd) and 1.09 mgd,
respectively. The District is currently upgrading the Pujol Lift Station as part of the upgrading of
the sanitary sewer system in the Old Town area to the west that is also tributary to the Pujol Lift
Station. These upgrades are designed to accommodate the build out of the project and will include
a District-installed 24-inch force main to add additional capacity to the existing force main
system connected to the Pujol Lift Station. The onsite sanitary sewer system is comprised of
typically 8-inch and 10-inch gravity pipes. Lots 1 and 2 of Village A would connect to the
existing 8-inch pipe in Ridge Park Drive. The remaining portion of Village A, including all of
Village B and the northerly portion of Village C, is tributary to Sixth Street. The remaining
portion of Village C, including Villages D through F, are tributary to First Street.
Altair Specific Plan 2-23 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
15
Rancho California Rd
First Street
Main Street
t e e r t
S
t n o r
F
n w o
T
d l O
SR-79
T
E
M
E
C
ULA PARKW
AY
W
E
S
T E R N
B Y P A S S
V i n c e n t
M o r a g a D r
P u j o l S t r e e t
Civic
Center
Old
T
o
w
n
F
r
o
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
u j o l
S
t r e
e
t
R
i
d
g
e
P
a
r
k
D r i v e
M u r i e t t a
C r e e k
Existing Reclaimed
Water
Proposed Reclaimed
Water
Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 2-8
Reclaimed Water
SOURCE: Altair Specic Plan
0 1200
Feet
2. Project Description
Village G and the South Parcel are tributary to the Pujol Lift Station via a proposed offsite gravity
line within the existing Pujol Street ROW. Onsite sewer systems would be constructed by
subsequent merchant builders and would be private systems. Figure 2-9 shows the conceptual
design of the sanitary sewer system.
Offsite Sanitary Sewer Improvements
The proposed offsite sanitary sewer system is directed and ultimately connected to the existing
Pujol Lift Station at the southeast corner of Pujol Street and First Street adjacent to First Street
bridge, and operated by EMWD. To accommodate the anticipated additional development within
Old Town to the west and the southerly end of Temecula, the District is currently upgrading the
Pujol Lift Station and will install a 24-inch force main to provide the estimated capacity for
Altair. This force main will be extended northerly within the existing District easement adjacent
to the project’s easterly boundary. This facility will then be extended in Vincent Moraga / Diaz
Road to a connection point downstream of the existing Diaz Lift Station. Wastewater generated
from the southern end of the project site (Village G and the South Parcel) will be transported
across the proposed Western Bypass via a 10-inch pipe to existing Pujol Street and extended
northerly within the existing ROW to First Street and connect to the Pujol Lift Station with a
15-inch pipe. At the offsite sewer connection to Sixth Street and Pujol Street, a new 15-inch
sewer will be installed to replace the existing 8-inch line to provide the estimated capacity
required by EMWD. The central portion of the project would connect to the existing Pujol Lift
Station with the offsite construction of a 12-inch gravity pipe extended easterly within the
existing First Street ROW to Pujol Street. As part of the District upgrades to the Pujol Lift Station
facility, the existing 12-inch effluent force main will be replaced with a new 16-inch force main
and the Pujol Lift Station will be disconnected from the existing regional Pala Lift Station system.
The existing 18-inch force main will then be connected to the Pujol Lift Station. The District-
proposed 24-inch force main would provide additional capacity to the Pala Lift Station system.
Since portions of this sanitary sewer system would be sized to accommodate offsite wastewater
flows from additional tributary offsite properties, EMWD would financially participate in the
incremental cost of upsizing any facilities over the project demands.
Dry Utilities
The project is within Southern California Gas Company’s natural gas service area. The project
would be served by an existing 6-inch transmission line within an onsite easement that extends
westerly across the project site to serve residential estate homes west of Altair. Upon construction
of the affected portion of Altair, the gas line would be relocated by the purveyor as directed by
their existing easement. Electrical service would be provided by Southern California Edison by
the extension of the existing infrastructure adjacent to the project. Verizon would provide
telephone and fiber optic internet and Time Warner Cable would provide cable, telephone, and
internet service to the project.
Altair Specific Plan 2-25 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
15
Rancho California Rd
First Street
Main Street
t e e r t
S
t n o r
F
n w o
T
d l O
SR-79
T
E
M
E
C
ULA PAR
WAY
W
E
S
T E R N
B Y P A S S
V i n c e n t
M o r a g a D r
P u j o l S t r e e t
Civic
Center
Old
T
o
w
n
F
r
o
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
u j o l
S
t r e
e t
R
i
d
g
e
P
a
r
k
D r i v e
M u r i e t t a
C r e e k
Existing Sewer(Gravity)
Existing Force Main
Proposed Sewer
Proposed Force Main
(by EMWD)
Existing Lift Station
Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 2-9
Sewer Plan
SOURCE: Altair Specic Plan
0 1200
Feet
2. Project Description
2.3.5 Construction
Phasing Plan
Altair would be developed in three phases over an approximate 10-year time frame, with the
phased construction of streets, utilities and other infrastructure, as needed, for each respective
phase. It is anticipated that development would start at the north end of the project and proceed
southerly. Figure 2-10 shows the proposed phasing plan.
While three construction phases are anticipated, is possible that these phases would be divided
into sub-phases to better accommodate development. This would not change the proposed
duration of build-out (estimated to be 10 years), intensity of construction activities, or the amount
of development. Therefore, while the areas of development may be sub-divided in a different
manner, the impacts, analyzes, and findings discussed in Chapter 3 of this EIR would not change.
Project Construction
Each phase of construction would involve site clearing, grading and excavation, site contouring,
installation of improvements and structural development, and site clean-up. A total of
approximately 3,834,100 cubic yards of excavation and 3,792,500 cubic yards of fill are
estimated for the total project, including remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical
engineer. This earthwork analysis represents a potential export of approximately 41,600 cubic
yards that would be balanced onsite. Temporary nighttime construction may be required near the
intersection of Vincent Moraga and Rancho Cal Road (due to traffic on Rancho Cal Road), but
would not occur in any areas adjacent to existing or proposed Conservation Areas. Water
consumption during construction of each phase is estimated as follows: Phase 1 – 46 acre-feet
(AF), Phase 2 – 128 AF, and Phase 3 – 161 AF; for a total of 335 AF. Construction of each phase
is estimated to take approximately 2 to 3 years to complete. Initial construction is anticipated to
begin within 12 months of project approval by the City of Temecula.
Altair Specific Plan 2-27 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
15
Rancho California Rd
First Street
Main Street
t
e
e r t
S
t
n o r
F
n w o
T
d
l
O
S
R-79
W
E
S
T E R N
B Y P A S S
V i n c e n t
M o r a g a D r
P u j o l S t r e e t
Civic
Center
Old
T
o
w
n
F
r
o
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
u
j
o
l
S
t r
e
e
t
R
i
d
g
e
P
a
r
k
D r i v e
M u r i e t t a
C r e e k
T
E
M
E
C
U
LA PARK
W
AY
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 1
Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 2-10
Phasing Plan
SOURCE: Altair Specic Plan
0 1200
Feet
2. Project Description
2.3.6 Project Conservation Features
The project applicant has voluntarily committed to several conservation features as part of the
project that will further aid in the conservation of sensitive habitats and the enhancement of
wildlife movement and genetic diversity of mountain lions in the region. These features, however,
are not being relied upon as a form of mitigation, and therefore are not necessary to reduce the
project’s impacts to a less-than-significant level. Further, the EIR evaluates the proj ect’s
environmental impacts without these voluntary conservation features, and the project’s impacts
would be reduced through the enforceable mitigation measures provided in this EIR.
1. San Diego ambrosia translocation: The applicant will translocate the San Diego
ambrosia population to minimize impacts to this species. The translocation will occur on
already conserved land within 10 miles of the project site. The receptor site will be
selected in conjunction with the City, the Western Riverside Regional Conservation
Authority (RCA) and resource agencies. The applicant will prepare a translocation plan
for City review and approval prior to implementing the translocation effort. The RCA
will be responsible for any long-term management and monitoring obligations as part of
their overall management and monitoring efforts for the MSHCP preserve.
2. Conservation of 269.6 acres: The project applicant will donate to the RCA a
conservation easement over 269.6 acres of hillside escarpment in the city of Corona that
is adjacent to a MSHCP Criteria Cells. The easement is valued at $150,000.
3. Conservation of 8.97 acres: The project applicant will assign to the RCA an existing
Purchase and Sale Agreement (P&SA) for the acquisition of 8.97 acres located on the
hillside escarpment adjacent to the proposed project for conservation. The project
applicant has already paid $150,000 into escrow toward the $335,000 amount provided in
the PS&A for purchase of the property, which funds would be included as part of the
assignment to the RCA of the P&SA. Therefore, the assignment to the RCA is valued at
$150,000.
4. Additional funding for conservation efforts: The project applicant will provide
$200,000 in funding to the City to be used to fund any of the following conservation
activities:
A. All or a portion of the remaining cost for the RCA to acquire the 8.97-acre parcel
identified under Item 3.
B. A wildlife connectivity study to be prepared by the City and the RCA within the
Interstate 15 freeway Special Linkage Area south of the proposed project. The
purpose of the connectivity study is to evaluate locations and initiate engineering for
a wildlife overcrossing or undercrossing across the Interstate 15 freeway, which will
allow wildlife (including mountain lion) to safely travel between the Santa Margarita
Ecological Reserve and the Palomar Mountain regions.
C. Acquisition by the City and the RCA of lands within the Special Linkage Area south
of the proposed project for conservation and/or to contribute toward Item 4B.
Altair Specific Plan 2-29 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
2. Project Description
2.4 Discretionary Approvals
This project-level EIR is intended to provide documentation pursuant to CEQA to cover the
discretionary approvals that are required to implement the Altair Specific Plan.
Actions and approvals required by the City of Temecula in association with the project include,
but are not limited to, the following:
• Development Agreement
• Tentative Tract Map
• Specific Plan
• Certification of the Final EIR and Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program
• General Plan Amendment to amend:
o existing Land Use Policy Map
o existing Roadway Plan
• Zoning Ordinance Amendment to:
o replace the existing zoning designations (BP – Business Park; OS-Open Space; SP-8,
Westside Specific Plan) with new zones and associated use and development
regulations and standards for the Specific Plan area
o modify the Zoning Map to show the Altair Specific Plan No. for the project site
• Grading permits
• Building permits
• Home product review/development plans for future buildings
Permits and/or approvals that are required for the project from other agencies include, but are not
limited to, the following:
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Section 404 permit
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife – Streambed Alteration Agreement
• San Diego Regional Water Quality Control District – NPDES Construction General
Permit, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Section 401 certification
Altair Specific Plan 2-30 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
CHAPTER 3
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and
Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
This section describes the existing visual or aesthetic resources within and surrounding the
project area, and analyzes the impacts of the project on these resources. The evaluation is based
on the project’s potential to impact visual character and quality and create light and glare, and
compares the existing visual character of the site to that resulting from implementation of the
project. Visual or aesthetic resources are generally defined as both the natural and built features
of the landscape that contribute to the public’s experience and appreciation of the environment.
Depending on the extent to which a project’s presence would alter the perceived visual character
and quality of the environment, a visual or aesthetic impact may occur. Familiarity with the
following terms and concepts will aid the reader in understanding the content of this chapter.
Visual character is a general description of the visual attributes of a particular land use setting.
An area’s visual character generally includes a description of the visual attributes of a particular
land use setting. The purpose of defining the visual character of an area is to provide the context
within which the visual quality of a particular site or locale is most likely to be perceived by the
viewing public. For urban areas, visual character is typically described on the neighborhood level
or in terms of areas of common land use, intensity of development, and/or landscaping and urban
design features. For natural and open space settings, visual character is most commonly described
in terms of areas with common landscape attributes, such as landform, vegetation, or water
features.
A project viewshed is defined as the general area from which a project would be visible or could
be seen. For purposes of describing a project’s visual setting and assessing potential visual
impacts, the viewshed or “seen area” can be broken down into distance zones of foreground,
middleground, and background. The foreground is defined as the zone within one-quarter mile to
one-half mile from the viewer. The middleground can be defined as a zone that extends from the
foreground up to three to five miles from the viewer, and the background extends from about
three to five miles to infinity.
A scenic vista is generally considered to be a location from which the public can experience
unique and exemplary high-quality views—typically from elevated vantage points that offer
panoramic views of great breadth and depth.
Altair Specific Plan 3.1-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
3.1.1 Environmental Setting
Visual Study Area
The visual study area is the area from which development for the proposed project would come
into view. Due to the topography of the project site and the surrounding area, as well as the built
environment within the vicinity, views of the project site are generally limited to the area of the
city west of Interstate 15 (I-15), south of Rancho California Road, and north of Temecula
Parkway.
Scenic Resources
None of the roads adjacent to the project are designated as scenic highways or corridors. The
nearest Eligible Scenic Highway is I-15, which is located less than a one-half mile from the
project site. According to the State Scenic Highways Program, State Route 74 (SR-74) and State
Route 243 (SR-243) are designated as State Scenic Highways in Riverside County. These
highways are not visible from within the project site or the surrounding areas.
Figure CD-1, Community Design Plan, of the Temecula General Plan, identifies a viewshed with
views of the project site near the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway.
The General Plan also identifies the hillsides and ridgelines visible to the west of the city as
scenic resources.
Land Use and Development Pattern
Regional views within the vicinity of the City of Temecula are characterized by flat or gently
rolling terrain with residential communities, industrial/commercial development, and agricultural
land (primarily vineyards) that transition into homes and residential neighborhoods. The Santa Rosa
Plateau, located at the southern end of the Santa Ana Mountains, provides a prominent visual
backdrop immediately west of the City. Distant views of Palomar Mountain and the Cleveland
National Forest exist to the south. The primary scenic resources in the City include topographical
features such as the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, hillsides in the northern area,
natural drainage courses, and environmental resources of the Santa Margarita River.
Much of Temecula comprises urbanized areas developed primarily with low-density residential
development. Densities range from very low to low/medium, with low/medium densities making
up the highest percentage of existing housing units (65 percent). Several pockets of apartments
and townhouses are located near the center of the City. The Nicolas Valley and residential areas
east of I-15 and south of Santiago Road consist of lower density residences on large lots. While
the city itself contains large residential areas, surrounding areas are more rural and agricultural in
nature. The many golf courses and wineries in the region contribute to the atmosphere of a resort
community.
Temecula’s largest commercial areas are located at the I-15/State Route 79 (SR-79) junction at
Winchester Road, Jefferson Avenue south of Winchester Road, Winchester Road and Ynez, and
the area surrounding the Rancho California/Ynez Road intersection. Industrial parks and
buildings are concentrated at the western end of the City. This includes a mix of industrial
Altair Specific Plan 3.1-2 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
buildings and vacant land. The area along Jefferson Avenue south of Winchester Road consists of
a mixed retail, service, and industrial corridor characterized primarily by auto-oriented uses.
Visual Character of the Project Site and Surrounding Area
The project site is a natural “bench” at the base of the Santa Rosa Plateau and is undeveloped,
open space mostly vegetated with low-lying sage scrub and chaparral, which, depending on the
time of year, ranges between greenish or brownish in color. Due to the low-lying nature of the
vegetation, the landform is visible, with a mildly undulating surface due to several small ridges
and ravines. The site does not contain any visually prominent features, such as trees or rock
outcroppings.
Development immediately adjacent to the project site, along Pujol Street, consists primarily of
medium-density residential uses, including apartments and townhomes, which range in height
from a single story to a maximum of three stories. Architectural styles vary as well. Single-family
homes and several apartment complexes retain features of the Ranch style, such as one- to two-
story rectangular buildings with low-pitched gable roofs and minimal architectural detailing on
the stucco-clad exteriors. In contrast, a newer and more visually prominent (i.e., structures front
the road with minimal, as opposed to deep, setbacks) multi-family development located along
Pujol Street includes townhouses with building heights up to three stories, and retains features of
modern Mission or Spanish Colonial styles such as neutral stucco siding, red-tiled roofs, and
arched doorways. These buildings also include off-setting facades where dimension is achieved
through projecting elements, such as front porches or balconies, or recessed features, such as
porticoes at entryways. The exteriors include other architectural embellishments including
window shutters, arched doorways, and bracketed eaves. Newer single-family homes near the
north end of Pujol Street have also been developed in the Mission or Spanish Colonial styles with
some homes bearing Craftsman details, such as wide, over-hanging bracketed eaves, clapboard
siding, and porticoes supported by broad columns. More modern-style structures have also been
introduced to this area with clean architectural lines and little embellishments.
The business parks located adjacent to the northern portion of the project site generally include
large format, one- to two-story rectangular structures with flat roofs, although some of the
buildings contain some architectural detailing, such as hipped gable roofs with red tiles,
prominent entranceways featuring two-story porticoes, and other exterior decorative elements.
Old Town Temecula, an important historic district in Temecula, is located approximately 0.25-
mile east of the project site and contains buildings typical of “old west” boom towns. Many of the
buildings are one- to two-story wooden structures with natural wood clapboard siding and
covered front porches that span the entire length of the front façade. Buildings front the road with
very narrow setbacks. The district is approximately four blocks long (from approximately 2nd
Street to 6th Street) and is centered primarily around the narrow, two-lane Old Town Front Street.
Light and Glare
Because it consists of undeveloped open space, the project site currently does not contain any
sources of light and glare. Sources of light and glare in the vicinity of the project may include
Altair Specific Plan 3.1-3 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
parking lots and structural lighting from the business parks and residential uses in the area. Other
sources of lighting include cars traveling along the roadways in the area, and lighting from the
businesses and City Hall in Old Town Temecula. Sources of glare may include reflective building
materials (e.g., windows and awnings) and cars in the parking lots and along the roadways in the
project vicinity.
3.1.2 Regulatory Framework
State Scenic Highway Program
The State Scenic Highway Program, created by the California Legislature in 1963, was
established to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish the
aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. Under this program, a highway is designated as a
scenic highway when a local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for scenic highway approval, and receives
notification from Caltrans that the highway has been designated as a scenic highway. Caltrans
defines a scenic corridor as “land generally adjacent to and visible from the highway. A scenic
corridor is identified using a motorist’s line of vision. A reasonable boundary is selected when
the view extends to the distance horizon. Jurisdictional boundaries of the applicants are also
considered.” The project is located in close proximity to I-15, which is designated as an Eligible
State Scenic Highway, however I-15 is not officially designated as a State Scenic Highway by the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans, 2011).
The project site is not designated as a scenic area, and none of the adjacent roads are designated
as scenic highways or corridors. The nearest Eligible Scenic Highway is I-15 to the east.
According to the State Scenic Highways Program, SR-74 and SR-243 are designated as State
Scenic Highways in Riverside County. SR-74 is located approximately 26 miles northeast and SR
243 is located approximately 28 miles to the northeast of the project, respectively; these highways
are not visible from within the project site or the surrounding areas.
City of Temecula General Plan
The City of Temecula General Plan contains polices that regulate visual resources in the project
area. The following City of Temecula General Plan goals, objectives, and policies for visual
resources and aesthetics are relevant to the project.
Community Design Element
Goals and policies in the Community Design Element of the General Plan address seven issues:
1) City image enhancement; 2) design excellence; 3) district/neighborhood preservation and
enhancement; 4) streetscape system enhancement; 5) public views of significant natural features;
6) public spaces/resources; and 7) community gathering areas. The following goals and policies
are relevant the project:
Goal 1: Enhancement of the City’s image related to its regional and natural setting and its
tourist orientation.
Altair Specific Plan 3.1-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
Policy 1.3: Develop design standards to enhance the visual character of commercial
centers located adjacent to I-15.
Policy 1.5L: Maintain and incorporate natural amenities such as: rock outcroppings,
indigenous vegetation, streams and watercourses within proposed development projects.
Goal 2: Design excellence in site planning, architecture, landscape architecture and signs.
Policy 2.5: Limit light and glare pollution through design standards for outdoor lighting,
the use of low intensity lights, and lighting that supports the continued use of the Mt.
Palomar Observatory.
Policy 2.6: Enhance the visual identity of commercial districts.
Goal 5: Protection of public views of significant natural features.
Policy 5.1: Work with the County of Riverside to protect surrounding hillside areas from
inappropriate grading and development that affects the visual backdrop of the valley.
Policy 5.2: Retain critical escarpment and major hillside areas to preserve open space
areas on the west and south edges of the City.
Policy 5.3: Establish a program to acquire, or permanently protect, critical hillside areas
from development.
Land Use Element
The City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Element includes some policies and goals relevant
to the visual quality in the City. These policies compliment goals and policies already identified
in the Community Design Element.
Goal 6: A development pattern that preserves aesthetics and enhances the environmental
resources of the Planning Area.
Policy 6.1: Preserve the natural aesthetics quality of hillsides and reduce hazards
associated with hillside development within the Planning Area.
Policy 6.2: Create distinctive features at entry points to the City that emphasize
Temecula’s aesthetic and environmental setting.
Open Space and Conservation
The Open Space/Conservation Element establishes an approach to protect and enhance
Temecula’s park, recreation trail, water, biological, energy, open space, historical and cultural,
agricultural, and other resources. The following goals and policies are relevant the project:
Goal 5: Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and
protection of natural resources and features.
Altair Specific Plan 3.1-5 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
Policy 5.1: Conserve the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, the Santa
Margarita River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and other important landforms and
historic landscape features through the development review process.
Policy 5.2: Retain critical escarpment and major hillside areas to preserve open space
areas on the west and south edges of the City.
City of Temecula City-wide Design Guidelines
Temecula’s City-wide Design Guidelines provide site planning, architectural design, and
landscape design criteria for commercial, industrial, and residential development. The guidelines
also establish criteria for unique design characteristics found within specialized development
types, such as specific commercial and public uses. The design standards and criteria contained
within the guidelines are the primary tool for implementing the policies contained within the
Community Design Element.
Palomar Observatory Light Pollution Ordinance
The city of Temecula is located within proximity of the Palomar Observatory. To prevent
“skyglow” condition, the observatory requires unique nighttime lighting restrictions. This
skyglow condition would adversely impact the use of the telescope at the observatory. Generally,
observatory sites need to be 30 to 40 miles from large lighted areas so that the nighttime sky will
not be brightened.
Temecula adheres to Riverside County’s Light Pollution Ordinance (No. 655), which restricts
nighttime lighting for areas within a 15-mile radius (Zone A) and a 45-mile radius (Zone B) of
the Palomar Observatory. Zone A refers to the circular area 15 miles in radius centered on
Palomar Observatory; Zone B refers the circular area defined by two circles, one 45 miles in
radius centered on Palomar Observatory, and the other the perimeter of Zone A.
The project site is located within Zone B (45-mile Radius Lighting Impact Zone) and is required
to comply with Ordinance No. 655. The requirements for lamp source and shielding of light
emissions for outdoor light fixtures are less stringent under Zone B as compared to Zone A. For
instance, parking lots, walkway and security lamps above 4,050 lumens are allowed under Zone
B if they are fully shielded, whereas in Zone A, they are prohibited. Furthermore, low-pressure
sodium decorative lamps and other lamps that are 4,050 lumens and below are allowed under
Zone B, whereas in Zone A, they are prohibited. It should be noted that when lighting is
“allowed” by this ordinance, it must be fully shielded,1 if feasible, and partially shielded,2 in all
other cases. Lighting for on-premises advertising displays, shall be shielded and focused to
minimize spill light into the night sky or adjacent properties.
In conformance with Riverside County’s Light Pollution Ordinance, Ordinance No. 655, all
artificial outdoor light fixtures must be installed in conformance with the provisions of the
1 Fully Shielded - constructed so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal plan
passing through the lowest point on the fixture from which light is emitted. 2 Partially Shielded – constructed so that ninety percent (90%) of the light rays emitted by the fixture are projected
below the horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the shield.
Altair Specific Plan 3.1-6 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
ordinance, the Building Code, the Electrical Code, and lighting requirements specified in the
Zoning Ordinance of the County of Riverside, along with any other related state and federal
regulations such as California Title 24. Section 59.105 of Ordinance No. 655 sets forth specific
requirements for lamp source and shielding of light emissions for outdoor light fixtures. Lighting
for on-premises advertising displays must be shielded and focused to minimize light spill into the
night sky or adjacent properties.
3.1.3 Impact Assessment
Thresholds of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to aesthetic issues may be
considered significant if the proposed project would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway;
• Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings; or
• Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
Cumulative impacts from the proposed project are detailed in Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts.
Methodology
The proposed project would involve adoption of a Specific Plan to guide development of a
primarily residential community that would complement and support the Old Town Temecula
commercial district. The potential aesthetic impacts of the project are evaluated considering such
factors as the scale, mass, proportion, orientation, architectural detailing, and landscaping/buffering
associated with the design of the project and the project’s visibility from key vantage points within
the project viewshed. In consultation with City staff, seven key observation points (KOPs) were
identified of representative publicly accessible foreground, middleground, and background
viewsheds from which the project site is visible (see Figures 3.1-1 through 3.1-8). Views of the
project area are generally not available from public vantage points east of I-15 due to intervening
development, landscaping, and topography.
Altair Specific Plan 3.1-7 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Temecula Pkwy Rancho California Rd
Murrieta Creek
Old Town
Santa Margarita River
City Hall
Temecula Valley Fwy
PROJECT SITE
Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 3.1-1
Viewpoint Location Map
SOURCE: carrierjohnson + CULTURE3
NORTH
AFFIRMED HOUSING
5391.00ALTAIR-ORIGINAL IMAGE - 1
AFFIRMED HOUSING
5391.00ALTAIR-PERSPECTIVE - 1 Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 3.1-2
KOP 1, City Hall,
Looking West
SOURCE: carrierjohnson + CULTURE3
Existing
Simulation
AFFIRMED HOUSING
5391.00ALTAIR-ORIGINAL IMAGE - 2
AFFIRMED HOUSING
5391.00ALTAIR-PERSPECTIVE - 2 Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 3.1-3
KOP 2, Rancho California Road at I-15,
Looking Southwest
SOURCE: carrierjohnson + CULTURE3
Existing
Simulation
AFFIRMED HOUSING
5391.00ALTAIR-ORIGINAL IMAGE - 3
AFFIRMED HOUSING
5391.00ALTAIR-PERSPECTIVE - 3 Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 3.1-4
KOP 3, Old Town Front Street and Moreno Road,
Looking Southwest
SOURCE: carrierjohnson + CULTURE3
Existing
Simulation
AFFIRMED HOUSING
5391.00ALTAIR-ORIGINAL IMAGE - 4
AFFIRMED HOUSING
5391.00ALTAIR-PERSPECTIVE - 4 Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 3.1-5
KOP 4, Old Town Front Street and 6th Street,
Looking West
SOURCE: carrierjohnson + CULTURE3
Existing
Simulation
AFFIRMED HOUSING
5391.00ALTAIR-ORIGINAL IMAGE - 5
AFFIRMED HOUSING
5391.00ALTAIR-PERSPECTIVE - 5 Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 3.1-6
KOP 5, Main Street Bridge,
Looking West
SOURCE: carrierjohnson + CULTURE3
Existing
Simulation
AFFIRMED HOUSING
5391.00ALTAIR-ORIGINAL IMAGE - 6
AFFIRMED HOUSING
5391.00ALTAIR-PERSPECTIVE - 6 Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 3.1-7
KOP 6, 1st Street Between Old Town Front Street and Pujol Road,
Looking West
SOURCE: carrierjohnson + CULTURE3
Existing
Simulation
AFFIRMED HOUSING
5391.00ALTAIR-ORIGINAL IMAGE - 7
AFFIRMED HOUSING
5391.00ALTAIR-PERSPECTIVE - 7 Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 3.1-8
KOP 7, Santiago Road at I-15,
Looking West
SOURCE: carrierjohnson + CULTURE3
Existing
Simulation
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
Impacts
Scenic Vistas
As discussed, the hillsides and ridgelines of the Santa Rosa Plateau are considered a scenic
resource to the City of Temecula. The project site is located on a natural bench in the foothills of
the Santa Rosa Plateau; therefore, the project has the potential to result in adverse impacts on
scenic resources. Photo simulations that demonstrate how the proposed project would appear
upon completion were prepared for the KOPs, as presented in Figures 3.1-2 through 3.1-8.
As demonstrated in the visual simulations, the proposed project would be visible from all of the
seven vantage points. As would be expected, views are most dramatically altered within
foreground views. As shown in KOPs 3 through 6 (see Figures 3.1-5 through and 3.1-7),
foreground and middleground views from the Old Town area, change from chaparral and sage
scrub vegetation on moderately sloped hillsides to buildings ranging from two to six stories in
height. From KOP 3, taken from Moreno Road and Old Town Front Street, the proposed
buildings become prominent features on the hillside in the middleground views; however, they do
not block ridgeline views. Views from KOP 4 are not significantly altered from existing
conditions due to the fact that that portion of the project site contains a gully and the proposed
project was intentionally designed to respect existing land forms. Therefore, that portion of the
project site would involve minimal intrusion of structural features in foreground views. From
KOP 5, the proposed grand staircase that would connect the project site to Old Town would
become a visually prominent feature. From KOP 6, building roofs and some facades would be the
most visible features of the project site for westbound travelers along 1st Street. Overall, while
foreground views of the moderately sloped hillsides would no longer be available, views of most
of the hillsides and views of the ridgelines would be preserved.
Middleground views from City Hall (KOP 1 in Figure 3.1-2) would be minimally affected by the
proposed project. While the proposed buildings would be visible from City Hall, it would blend
into the urban architecture of Old Town and the residential and business park uses to the west of
Old Town. The majority of the hillsides and the entire ridgelines would still be visible from
middleground perspectives.
Likewise, background views of the project site that are available from I-15 would be minimally
affected (see KOPs 2 and 7 in Figures 3.1-3 and 3.1-8, respectively). The proposed buildings
would blend into the overall existing urban fabric of Old Town and the surrounding uses.
The site plan created for Altair was developed with the intent of respecting and preserving natural
landforms and features of the project site, such as ridges and gullies. Development would be
concentrated along the eastern edge of the parcel boundary in order to preserve hillsides. The
route and lane configuration of the Western Bypass, which would incorporate split lanes (where
southbound and northbound lanes would be at different elevations from each other) and standard
lanes (where all lanes would be at the same elevation) and landscaped medians throughout, was
also designed to respect the existing landforms and minimize the visual impacts of this major
roadway. While the proposed structures that would be developed as part of the project would
obscure the individual features (ravines and ridges) of the landform of the project site, the
Altair Specific Plan 3.1-16 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
proposed site design would ensure that the majority of the hillside would still remain visible to
viewers from outside the project area. In addition, many of the landform features would still be
visible to viewers using publicly accessible hiking and bicycle trails within the project site after
project implementation.
Therefore, as detailed above, the proposed project not result in significant, adverse impacts to
scenic resources, including the hillsides and ridgelines of the Santa Rosa Plateau. Impacts would
be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Scenic Resources
The project is not located within a designated scenic highway corridor. As stated in Section 3.1.1,
Environmental Setting, above, SR-74 and SR-243 are designated as State Scenic Highways in
Riverside County. These highways are located east of the project area, more than 20 miles away
and are not visible from within the project area or surrounding areas. The project is located within
the viewshed from I-15, which is designated by Caltrans as an Eligible State Scenic Highway;
however, it is not officially designated as a State Scenic Highway by Caltrans. Views of the
project area are available from points along I-15; however, as described above, the proposed
project would be minimally visible from I-15 and would blend into the urban environment of Old
Town and the surrounding development. Views of the hillsides and ridgelines of the Santa Rosa
Plateau from I-15 would not be substantially affected by the proposed project. Impacts would be
less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Visual Character
Under the proposed project, the visual character of the project site would change substantially
from undeveloped, open space to a high-density urbanized development. However, a change in
visual character or visual quality does not, by itself, equate to a significant, adverse impact under
CEQA. The evaluation should consider the degree of impact that may result from visual change.
Per the City of Temecula General Plan, the City has planned for development at the project site
and did not expect for it to remain as undeveloped, open space. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project
Description, and throughout the draft Altair Specific Plan, to the extent feasible, site design took
the natural landform into consideration. Additionally, the proposed project concentrates
development within the eastern portion of the project site adjacent to existing urban development
in order to preserve the remaining hillsides for visual and biological resources.
The Altair Specific Plan includes design guidelines and development standards that are intended
to achieve a community with a high aesthetic quality. The proposed project does not dictate the
number or the styles of buildings to be developed in each village, but instead focuses on a variety
of building forms in order to create distinct neighborhoods and encourage visual interest,
vibrancy, and diversity. Design guidelines address features from building form (including how to
create visually interesting facades, rooflines, building entrances, fenestration, siding materials,
and colors), building placement on the lot, utility screening, retaining walls, and landscaping.
Altair Specific Plan 3.1-17 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
Adherence to the design guidelines and development standards of the project would ensure that
the proposed structures are developed to meet the goals of high aesthetic quality and visual
interest and would not result in adverse impacts related to the visual character of the project area.
In addition, specific development proposals occurring under the Specific Plan would be reviewed
by City staff to ensure that they meet the design guidelines and development standards identified
within the project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Light and Glare
The proposed project would introduce a new source of light and glare to the project site from
lighting for residential and civic buildings, plazas, and streets as well as from cars traveling
through the project site. Also, temporary nighttime construction lighting may be required near the
intersection of Vincent Moraga and Rancho California Road (due to traffic on Rancho California
Road). There are no sensitive receptors near this intersection; however, Mitigation Measure MM-
AES-1 would ensure nighttime construction lighting is shielded and directed downward to avoid
light spillage on adjacent properties. The proposed project is located approximately 20 miles from
the Palomar Observatory. The project would be required to comply with the Palomar Observatory
Light Pollution Ordinance (Riverside County’s Light Pollution Ordinance No. 655), which
requires a variety of measures (see below) including the preparation of an outdoor lighting plan
and photometric plan, to reduce the effects of light pollution from nighttime light sources.
However, given the proposed density and intensity of the project, new development would
increase nighttime light sources. According to Ordinance No. 655, the project site is located in
Zone B (45-mile Radius Lighting Impact Zone). Ordinance No. 655 includes requirements for
lessening “sky glow” from nighttime light sources and identifies specific measures for projects
within Zone B, including lighting from parking lots and advertising displays being fully shielded
to lessen light that is omitted within the vicinity of the Palomar Observatory. Additionally,
application of the design guidelines outlined in Chapter 9, Design Guidelines, of the Specific Plan
include variations in street materials and outdoor lighting controls. For example, light fixtures
shall incorporate cut-offs and appropriate lenses to eliminate glare and light spillover to adjacent
properties to reduce potential impacts associated with light and glare. Still, this impact would be
potentially significant. Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 would reduce any potential impacts
associated with light and glare to less than significant.
Impact AES-1: The project would create a new source of light and glare throughout the project
area.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1: The following light and glare standards shall be applied to all
development within the project area:
• Temporary nighttime construction lighting shall be shielded and directed downward such
that no light spillage will occur on adjacent properties.
• The applicant shall ensure that all outdoor lighting fixtures in public areas contain “sharp
cut-off” fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding.
Altair Specific Plan 3.1-18 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
• 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 development shall take advantage
of landscaping, onsite architectural massing, and off–site architectural massing to block
light sources and reflection from cars.
• The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be
prohibited.
• Prior to the issuance of construction permits for any phase of the project 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:
o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens.
o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are
projected below the horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the shield.
o A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and intensities, including security,
roadway, and task lighting.
o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield.
o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre.
o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especially for security
lighting.
• The City shall conduct a post-installation inspection to ensure that the development is in
compliance with the design standards in Altair Specific Plan, Mitigation Measure MM-
AES-1 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 655.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.1-19 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
This section provides an overview of the existing air quality at the project site and surrounding
region, a summary of applicable air quality regulations, and analyses of potential short-term and
long-term air quality impacts from implementation of the proposed project. Mitigation measures are
recommended as necessary to reduce significant air quality impacts.
3.2.1 Environmental Setting
Climate and Meteorology
The project site is located in the City of Temecula in the portion of Riverside County that lies
within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The project area is under the jurisdiction of the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Basin is a 6,600-square-mile coastal
plain bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and
San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Basin includes the non-desert portions of Los
Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, and all of Orange County.
The ambient concentrations of air pollutants are determined by the amount of emissions released
by sources and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute such emissions. Natural factors
that affect transport and dilution include terrain, wind, atmospheric stability, and sunlight.
Therefore, existing air quality conditions in the area are determined by such natural factors as
topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the amount of emissions released by existing
air pollutant sources.
Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients interact
with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air
pollutants. The topography and climate of Southern California combine to make the Basin an area
of high air pollution potential. The Basin is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low
hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and high mountains around the rest of the
perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern
Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds.
The usually mild climatological pattern is disrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot
weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. During the summer months, a warm air mass
frequently descends over the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction between the
ocean’s surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper layer forms a cap over
the cool marine layer and inhibits the pollutants in the marine layer from dispersing upward. In
addition, light winds during the summer further limit ventilation. Furthermore, sunlight triggers
the photochemical reactions that produce ozone. The region experiences more days of sunlight
than any other major urban area in the nation except Phoenix (SCAQMD, 2007).
The Temecula area is an interior valley of the Basin. Clouds and fog that form along the coast
infrequently extend as far inland as the Temecula Valley, and usually burn off quickly after
sunrise. Precipitation is greatest during the winter season from December through February.
Average temperatures are typically highest during August and lowest during December. Since
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
1999, the highest and lowest temperatures recorded were 111.3 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) and
22.9 ºF, respectively. The annual mean temperature for the city is 62 ºF.
Criteria Air Pollutants
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) currently focus on the following air pollutants as indicators of ambient air
quality: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), fine
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), and lead. The
pollutants are referred to as “criteria air pollutants” since they are the most prevalent air
pollutants known to be injurious to human health and extensive health-effects criteria documents
are available about their effects on human health and welfare. Standards have been established for
each criteria pollutant to meet specific public health and welfare criteria set forth in the federal
Clean Air Act (CAA). California has adopted more stringent ambient air quality standards for
the criteria air pollutants (referred to as State Ambient Air Quality Standards, or state standards)
and has adopted air quality standards for some pollutants for which there is no corresponding
national standard.
Ozone
Ozone, the main component of photochemical smog, is primarily a summer and fall pollution
problem. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is formed through a complex series of
chemical reactions involving other compounds that are directly emitted. These directly emitted
pollutants (also known as ozone precursors) include reactive organic gases (ROGs) or volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX). While both ROGs and VOCs refer to
compounds of carbon, ROG is a term used by CARB and is based on a list of exempted carbon
compounds determined by CARB. VOC is a term used by the EPA and is based on EPA’s own
exempt list. The time period required for ozone formation allows the reacting compounds to
spread over a large area, producing regional pollution problems. Ozone concentrations are the
cumulative result of regional development patterns rather than the result of a few significant
emission sources.
Once ozone is formed, it remains in the atmosphere for one or two days. Ozone is then eliminated
through reaction with chemicals on the leaves of plants, attachment to water droplets as they fall
to earth (“rainout”), or absorption by water molecules in clouds that later fall to earth with rain
(“washout”).
Short-term exposure to ozone can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. In
addition to causing shortness of breath, ozone can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as
asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema.
Carbon Monoxide
CO, a colorless and odorless gas, is a relatively non-reactive pollutant that is a product of
incomplete combustion and is mostly associated with motor vehicles. When inhaled at high
concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces the oxygen-carrying
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-2 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
capacity of the blood. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart and other body
tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung
disease, or anemia. CO measurements and modeling were important in the early 1980s when CO
levels were regularly exceeded throughout California. In more recent years, CO measurements
and modeling have not been a priority in most California air districts due to the retirement of
older polluting vehicles, lower emissions from new vehicles, and improvements in fuels.
Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 is a reddish-brown gas that is a by-product of combustion processes. Automobiles and
industrial operations are the main sources of NO2. Combustion devices emit primarily nitric oxide
(NO), which reacts through oxidation in the atmosphere to form NO2. The combined emissions of
NO and NO2 are referred to as NOx, which are reported as equivalent NO2. Aside from its
contribution to ozone formation, NO2 can increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory
disease and reduce visibility. NO2 may be visible as a coloring component of a brown cloud on
high pollution days, especially in conjunction with high ozone levels.
Sulfur Dioxide
SO2 is a colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. It enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly
as a result of burning high sulfur-content fuel oils and coal, and from chemical processes
occurring at chemical plants and refineries. When SO2 oxidizes in the atmosphere, it forms sulfur
trioxide (SO3). Collectively, these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX).
Major sources of SO2 include power plants, large industrial facilities, diesel vehicles, and oil-
burning residential heaters. Emissions of SO2 aggravate lung diseases, especially bronchitis. It
also constricts the breathing passages, especially in people with asthma and people involved in
moderate to heavy exercise. SO2 potentially causes wheezing, shortness of breath, and coughing.
Long-term SO2 exposure has been associated with increased risk of mortality from respiratory or
cardiovascular disease.
Particulate Matter
PM10 and PM2.5 consist of particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter and 2.5
microns or less in diameter, respectively (a micron is one-millionth of a meter). PM10 and PM2.5
represent fractions of particulate matter that can be inhaled into the air passages and the lungs and
can cause adverse health effects. Acute and chronic health effects associated with high particulate
levels include the aggravation of chronic respiratory diseases, heart and lung disease, and
coughing, bronchitis and respiratory illnesses in children. Recent mortality studies have shown an
association between morbidity and mortality and daily concentrations of particulate matter in the
air. CARB has estimated that achieving the ambient air quality standards for PM10 could reduce
premature mortality rates by 6,500 cases per year (CARB, 2004). Particulate matter can also
damage materials and reduce visibility. One common source of PM2.5 is diesel exhaust emissions.
PM10 consists of particulate matter emitted directly into the air, such as fugitive dust, soot, and
smoke from mobile and stationary sources, construction operations, fires, and natural windblown
dust; and particulate matter formed in the atmosphere by condensation and/or transformation of
SO2 and ROG. Traffic generates particulate matter emissions through entrainment of dust and dirt
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-3 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
particles that settle onto roadways and parking lots. PM10 and PM2.5 are also emitted by burning
wood in residential wood stoves and fireplaces and open agricultural burning. PM10 can remain in
the atmosphere for up to seven days before gravitational settling, rainout, and washout remove it.
Lead
Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment and present in some manufactured products.
There are a variety of activities that can contribute to lead emissions, which are grouped into two
general categories, stationary and mobile sources. On-road mobile sources include light-duty
automobiles; light, medium, and heavy-duty trucks; and motorcycles.
Emissions of lead have dropped substantially over the past 40 years. The reduction before 1990 is
largely due to the phase-out of lead as an anti-knock agent in gasoline for on-road automobiles.
Substantial emission reductions have also been achieved due to enhanced controls in the metals
processing industry. In the Basin, atmospheric lead is generated almost entirely by the
combustion of leaded gasoline and contributes less than one percent of the material collected as
total suspended particulates. As the proposed project would not involve the development of any
major lead emissions sources, lead emissions will not be analyzed as part of this Draft EIR.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TACs), or in federal parlance, hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs), are also used as indicators of ambient air quality conditions. A TAC is defined as an air
pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may
pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air;
however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low
concentrations.
According to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality (CARB, 2009), the majority
of the estimated health risk from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most
important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines (diesel PM). Diesel PM differs
from other TACs in that it is not a single substance, but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of
substances. Although diesel PM is emitted by diesel-fueled internal combustion engines, the
composition of the emissions varies depending on engine type, operating conditions, fuel
composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emission control system is present.
Unlike the other TACs, no ambient monitoring data are available for diesel PM because no
routine measurement method currently exists. However, CARB has made preliminary
concentration estimates based on a particulate matter exposure method. This method uses the
CARB emissions inventory’s PM10 database, ambient PM10 monitoring data, and the results from
several studies to estimate concentrations of diesel PM. In addition to diesel PM, the TACs for
which data are available that pose the greatest existing ambient risk in California are benzene,
1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene,
formaldehyde, methylene chloride, and perchloroethylene.
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Odorous Emissions
Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However,
manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation,
anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and
headache). Offensive odors are unpleasant and can lead to public distress generating citizen
complaints to local governments. Although unpleasant, offensive odors rarely cause physical
harm. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency, and intensity
of the source, wind speed, direction, and the sensitivity of receptors.
Project Area Air Quality Setting
Existing Air Quality
SCAQMD maintains monitoring stations within district boundaries that monitor air quality and
compliance with associated ambient standards. The project site is located in the Temecula/Anza
area sub region. Currently, the nearest monitoring station to the project site is the Lake Elsinore
monitoring Station (506 W. Flint St. Lake Elsinore), which is located approximately 15 miles
northwest of the project site. This station monitors ambient concentrations of ozone, NO2, sulfate
and CO, but does not monitor SO2 or PM10, PM2.5, lead, TACs or hydrogen sulfide. The nearest
monitoring station that monitors ambient concentrations of PM10 and sulfate is the Perris Station,
located approximately 18 miles northwest of the site. The closest monitoring station that monitors
PM2.5 is the Mira Loma Station located approximately 37 miles northwest of the project site. The
closest station that monitors for lead and SO2 is the Metropolitan Riverside County 1 Station,
located approximately 35 miles northwest of the project site. Concentrations from the monitoring
stations for the years 2011–2013 are shown in Table 3.2-1.1 The SCAQMD does not have
monitoring stations in the area that report on TACs, or hydrogen sulfide, therefore these
emissions are not included in Table 3.2-1.
Both CARB and USEPA use this type of monitoring data to designate areas according to their
attainment status for criteria air pollutants. The purpose of these designations is to identify the areas
with air quality problems and thereby initiate planning efforts for improvement. The three basic
designation categories are nonattainment, attainment, and unclassified. Unclassified is used in an
area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the
standards. In addition, the California designations include a subcategory of nonattainment-
transitional, which is given to nonattainment areas that are progressing and nearing attainment. The
current attainment status for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is provided in Table 3.2-2.
1 2014 data has not been reviewed and finalized as of the date of this analysis. Typically the previous year’s data is
available around June or July of the following year.
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-5 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
TABLE 3.2-1
AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY (2011–2013)
Pollutant
Monitoring Data by Year
Standarda 2011 2012 2013
Ozone – Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station
Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm) 0.133 0.111 0.102
Days over State Standard 0.09 ppm 19 10 6
Highest 8 Hour Average (ppm) 0.106 0.089 0.089
Days over National Standard 0.075 ppm 28 17 12
Days over State Standard 0.070 ppm 45 29 25
Carbon Monoxide – Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station
Highest 8 Hour Average (ppm) 0.7 0.7 06
Days over National Standard 9 ppm 0 0 0
Days over State Standard 9.0 ppm 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide – Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station
Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm) 0.0503 0.0483 0.0466
Days over National Standard 0.100 ppm 0 0 0
Days over State Standard 0.18 ppm 0 0 0
Annual Average (ppm) 0.0096 0.0102 0.0084
Days over National Standard 0.053 ppm 0 0 0
Days over State Standard 0.030 ppm 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide – Metropolitan Riverside County 1 Monitoring Station
Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm) 0.0513 0.0043 0.0081
Days over State Standard 0.25 ppm 0 0 0
Particulate Matter (PM10) – Perris Monitoring Station
Highest 24 Hour Average (µg/m3)b 65 62 70
Days over National Standard (measured)c 150 µg/m3 0 0 0
Days over State Standard (measured)c 50 µg/m3 3 1 10
Annual Average (µg/m3)b 20 µg/m3 29.2 26.5 33.6
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – Mira Loma Monitoring Station
Highest 24 Hour Average (µg/m3)b 56.3 39.3 56.5
Days over National Standard (measured)c 35 µg/m3 8 7 9
Annual Average (µg/m3)b 12 µg/m3 15.3 15.1 14.12
Lead (Pb) - Metropolitan Riverside County 1 Monitoring Station
Highest 3 month Rolling Average (µg/m3) 0.007 * 0.009
Days over National Standard 0.15 µg/m3 0 0
Highest Monthly Average (µg/m3) 0.007 * 0.010
Days over State Standard 1.5 µg/m3 0 0
Sulfate (SO4) - Perris Monitoring Station
Highest 24-hr Concentration (µg/m3) 4.4 * 3.4
Days over State Standard 25 µg/m3 0 0
ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
* = Insufficient data available to determine the value.
a Generally, state standards and national standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year.
b Concentrations and averages represent federal statistics. State and federal statistics may differ because of different sampling methods.
c Measurements are usually collected every six days. Days over the standard represent the measured number of days that the standard
has been exceeded.
SOURCE: SCAQMD, 2013a, 2012, 2011a.
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-6 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
TABLE 3.2-2
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS
Attainment Status
Pollutant California Standards Federal Standards
Ozone Extreme Nonattainment Severe Nonattainment
CO Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Lead Attainment Attainment
SOURCE: CARB, 2013a; USEPA, 2013.
Sensitive Land Uses
Land uses such as schools, children’s daycare centers, hospitals, and convalescent homes are
considered to be more sensitive to poor air quality than the general public because the population
groups associated with these uses have increased susceptibility to respiratory distress. In addition,
residential uses are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions than commercial and
industrial uses, because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residences,
resulting in greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions. Recreational land uses are
considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Exercise places a high demand on respiratory
functions, which can be impaired by air pollution, even though exposure periods during exercise
are generally short. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of
recreation.
Currently, sensitive uses located in the project site vicinity include multi- and single-family
residential uses. Specifically, the nearest residential development is located directly adjacent to
the project site on the east. Additionally, the project itself would also introduce new sensitive uses
(e.g., residential and school uses).
3.2.2 Regulatory Framework
The project site is located in the southwestern portion of Riverside County within the Basin. Air
quality in the project area is regulated by USEPA, CARB, and SCAQMD. The City of Temecula
General Plan also contains an Air Quality Element that establishes a policy foundation to
implement local air quality improvement measures and provides a framework for coordination of
air quality planning efforts with surrounding jurisdictions.
USEPA
Criteria Air Pollutants
At the federal level, the USEPA has been charged with implementing national air quality
programs. USEPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the federal Clean Air Act
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-7 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
(CAA), which was enacted in 1970. The most recent major amendments to the CAA were made
by Congress in 1990.
The CAA requires the USEPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
EPA has established primary and secondary NAAQS for the following “criteria air pollutants”:
ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. Table 3.2-3 shows the NAAQS for these pollutants.
The CAA also requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan, referred to as a state
implementation plan (SIP). The CAA Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) added requirements for
states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to
reduce air pollution. The SIP is modified periodically to reflect the latest emissions inventories,
planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins, as reported by their jurisdictional
agencies. EPA is responsible for reviewing all SIPs to determine whether they conform to the
mandates of the CAA and its amendments, and to determine whether implementing the SIPs will
achieve air quality goals. If EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a federal implementation
plan that imposes additional control measures may be prepared for the nonattainment area. If an
approvable SIP is not submitted or implemented within the mandated time frame, sanctions may
be applied to transportation funding and stationary sources of air pollution in the air basin.
EPA also has regulatory and enforcement jurisdiction over emission sources beyond state waters
(outer continental shelf), and those that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government,
such as aircraft, locomotives, and interstate trucking. EPA’s primary role at the state level is to
oversee state air quality programs. EPA sets federal vehicle and stationary source emissions
standards and provides research and guidance in air pollution programs.
CARB
Criteria Air Pollutants
CARB, a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), oversees air
quality planning and control throughout California by administering the SIP. Its primary
responsibility lies in ensuring implementation of the 1989 amendments to the CCAA, responding
to the federal CAA requirements, and regulating emissions from motor vehicles sold in
California. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.
The amendments to the CCAA establish CAAQS, and a legal mandate to achieve these standards
by the earliest practical date. These standards apply to the same criteria pollutants as the federal
CAA, and also include sulfates, visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide and vinyl
chloride. They are also generally more stringent than the federal standards.
CARB is also responsible for regulations pertaining to TACs. The Air Toxics “Hot Spots”
Information and Assessment Act was enacted in 1987 as a means to establish a formal air toxics
emission inventory risk quantification program. Assembly Bill (AB) 2588, as amended,
establishes a process that requires stationary sources to report the type and quantities of certain
substances their facilities routinely release.
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-8 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
TABLE 3.2-3
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
State
Standard
National
Standard
Pollutant Health and
Atmospheric Effects Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm --- High concentrations can directly
affect lungs, causing irritation.
Long-term exposure may cause
damage to lung tissue.
Formed when ROG and NOX react in
the presence of sunlight. Major
sources include on-road motor
vehicles, solvent evaporation, and
commercial / industrial mobile
equipment.
8 hours 0.07 ppm 0.075 ppm
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Classified as a chemical
asphyxiant, carbon monoxide
interferes with the transfer of
fresh oxygen to the blood and
deprives sensitive tissues of
oxygen.
Internal combustion engines, primarily
gasoline-powered motor vehicles. 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm Irritating to eyes and respiratory
tract. Colors atmosphere reddish-
brown.
Motor vehicles, petroleum refining
operations, industrial sources, aircraft,
ships, and railroads. Annual
Arithmetic Mean
0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
1 hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb Irritates upper respiratory tract;
injurious to lung tissue. Can
yellow the leaves of plants,
destructive to marble, iron, and
steel. Limits visibility and reduces
sunlight.
Fuel combustion, chemical plants,
sulfur recovery plants, and metal
processing. 3 hours --- 0.50 ppm
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
Annual
Arithmetic Mean
--- 0.03 ppm
Respirable Particulate Matter
(PM10)
24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 May irritate eyes and respiratory
tract, decreases in lung capacity,
cancer and increased mortality.
Produces haze and limits
visibility.
Dust and fume-producing industrial
and agricultural operations,
combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and natural
activities (e.g., wind-raised dust and
ocean sprays).
Annual
Arithmetic Mean
20 µg/m3 ---
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
24 hours --- 35 µg/m3 Increases respiratory disease,
lung damage, cancer, and
premature death. Reduces
visibility and results in surface
soiling.
Fuel combustion in motor vehicles,
equipment, and industrial sources;
residential and agricultural burning;
Also, formed from photochemical
reactions of other pollutants, including
NOx, sulfur oxides, and organics.
Annual
Arithmetic Mean
12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3
Lead (Pb) 30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 --- Disturbs gastrointestinal system,
and causes anemia, kidney
disease, and neuromuscular and
neurological dysfunction (in
severe cases).
Present source: lead smelters, battery
manufacturing and recycling facilities.
Past source: combustion of leaded
gasoline.
Calendar
Quarter
--- 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month
Average
--- 0.15 µg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide
1 hour 0.03 ppm No National
Standard
Nuisance odor (rotten egg smell),
headache and breathing
difficulties (higher concentrations)
Geothermal power plants, petroleum
production and refining
Sulfates (SO4)
24 hour 25 µg/m3 No National
Standard
Decrease in ventilatory functions;
aggravation of asthmatic
symptoms; aggravation of cardio-
pulmonary disease; vegetation
damage; degradation of visibility;
property damage.
Industrial processes.
Visibility Reducing Particles
8 hour Extinction of
0.23/km;
visibility of
10 miles or
more
No National
Standard
Reduces visibility, reduced airport
safety, lower real estate value,
and discourages tourism.
See PM2.5.
Vinyl Chloride
24 hour 0.01 ppm No National
Standard
Exposure to high levels causes
central nervous system effects,
such as dizziness, drowsiness,
and headaches, liver damage,
and cancer.
Production of polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
plastic and vinyl products. Also results
from microbial breakdown of
chlorinated solvents and can be found
near landfills, sewage plants, and
hazardous waste sites.
NOTE: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
SOURCE: CARB, 2013b.
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-9 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
SCAQMD
Criteria Air Pollutants
SCAQMD attains and maintains air quality conditions in the SCAB through a comprehensive
program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and promotion of the
understanding of air quality issues. The clean air strategy of SCAQMD includes preparation of
plans for attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and
regulations concerning sources of air pollution, and issuance of permits for stationary sources of
air pollution. SCAQMD also inspects stationary sources of air pollution and responds to citizen
complaints; monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions; and implements
programs and regulations required by the CAA, CAAA, and CCAA.
Air Quality Management Plan
SCAQMD and the SCAG are responsible for preparing the air quality management plan
(AQMP), which addresses federal and state CAA requirements. The AQMP details goals,
policies, and programs for improving air quality in the SCAB.
The 2012 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on December 12, 2012. The
purpose of the 2012 AQMP for the SCAB is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program
that will lead the region into compliance with the federal 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard, and
to provide an update to the SCAB’s commitment towards meeting the federal 8-hour ozone
standards (SCAQMD, 2013b). The AQMP would also serve to satisfy recent USEPA
requirements for a new attainment demonstration of the revoked 1-hour ozone standard, as well
as a vehicle miles travelled (VMT) emissions offset demonstration. Specifically, the AQMP
would serve as the official SIP submittal for the federal 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, for which
USEPA has established a due date of December 14, 2012. In addition, the AQMP updates
specific new control measures and commitments for emissions reductions to implement the
attainment strategy for the 8-hour ozone SIP. The 2012 AQMP sets forth programs which require
integrated planning efforts and the cooperation of all levels of government: local, regional, state,
and federal. Currently, SCAQMD staff has already begun initiating an early development process
for the 2015 AQMP.
SCAQMD Rules and Regulations
All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction.
Specific rules applicable to the construction anticipated under the proposed project would include
the following:
Rule 401 – Visible Emissions. A person shall not discharge into the atmosphere from any single
source of emission whatsoever any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than
three minutes in any 1 hour that is as dark or darker in shade as that designated No. 1 on the
Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United States Bureau of Mines.
Rule 402 – Nuisance. A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities
of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any
considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-10 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
safety of any such persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury
or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule do not apply to odors emanating
from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust. This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter
entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (human-made) fugitive dust sources by
requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any
activity or human-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust.
Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings. No person shall apply or solicit the application of any
architectural coating within the SCAQMD with VOC content in excess of the values specified in
a table incorporated in the Rule.
Toxic Air Contaminants
At the local level, air pollution control or management districts may adopt and enforce CARB
control measures. Under SCAQMD Regulation XIV (Toxics and Other Non-Criteria Pollutants),
and in particular Rule 1401 (New Source Review), all sources that possess the potential to emit
TACs are required to obtain permits from SCAQMD. Permits may be granted to these operations
if they are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable regulations, including new
source review standards and air toxics control measures. SCAQMD limits emissions and public
exposure to TACs through a number of programs. SCAQMD prioritizes TAC-emitting stationary
sources based on the quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the
facilities to sensitive receptors.
The Air Toxics Control Plan (revised March 26, 2004) is a planning document designed to
examine the overall direction of SCAQMD’s air toxics control program. It includes development
and implementation of strategic initiatives to monitor and control air toxics emissions. Control
strategies that are deemed viable and are within SCAQMD’s jurisdiction will each be brought to
the SCAQMD Board for further consideration through the normal public review process.
Strategies that are to be implemented by other agencies will be developed in a cooperative effort,
and the progress will be reported back to the Board periodically.
In September 2008 the SCAQMD completed the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study III
(MATES III). MATES III is a monitoring and evaluation study conducted in the SCAB and is a
follow up to previous air toxics studies. The study consists of several elements including a
monitoring program, an updated emissions inventory of toxic air contaminants, and a modeling
effort to characterize risk across the SCAB. The study focuses on the carcinogenic risk from
exposure to air toxics. However, it does not estimate mortality or other health effects from
particulate exposures. MATES III shows that the region around the project site area has an
estimated carcinogenic risk of up to 978 in a million (SCAQMD, 2008). These model estimates
were based on monitoring data collected at 10 fixed sites within the SCAB.
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-11 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
City of Temecula General Plan
The Air Quality Element “establishes policy foundation to implement local air quality
improvement measures and provides a framework for coordination of air quality planning efforts
with surrounding jurisdictions” (City of Temecula, 2005). The goals and policies relevant to the
Air Quality analysis include:
Goal 1 Continue coordination of air quality improvement efforts in the Western Riverside area.
Policy 1.1 Coordinate planning efforts with other local, regional and State
agencies, including the County of Riverside, Western Riverside
Council of Governments (WRCOG), SCAQMD and SCAG.
Policy 1.2 Encourage participation of local citizens, the business community and
interested groups and individuals in air quality planning and
implementation efforts.
Policy 1.3 Promote programs that educate the public about regional air quality
issues, opportunities and solutions.
Goal 2 Improve air quality through effective land use planning in Temecula.
Policy 2.1 Encourage new development that provides employment opportunities
for Temecula residents to improve the balance of jobs relative to
housing.
Policy 2.2 Encourage infill development near activity centers, within Mixed Use
Overlay Areas, and along transportation corridors.
Policy 2.3 Minimize land use conflicts between emission sources and sensitive
receptors.
Policy 2.4 Mitigate air quality impacts associated with development projects to
the greatest extent feasible.
Goal 3 Enhance mobility to minimize air pollutant emissions.
Policy 3.1 Use transportation demand reduction techniques to reduce motor
vehicle trips.
Policy 3.2 Use transportation systems management techniques to maintain an
orderly flow of traffic and improve mobility.
Policy 3.3 Pursue development of a public transit system consisting of local
shuttle and bus routes, as well as bicycle and pedestrian trails that are
linked to the regional transit network.
Policy 3.4 Establish a convenient and efficient system of bicycle routes and
pedestrian walkways.
Policy 3.5 Promote the use of alternative clean-fueled vehicles, new
transportation technologies, and combustion engine alternatives for
personal and business use.
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-12 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Policy 3.6 Develop and implement programs that reduce local traffic congestion
at peak hours and during special events.
Goal 4 Adopt effective energy conservation and recycling practices to reduce emissions.
Policy 4.1 Encourage community-wide reductions in energy consumption through
conservation.
Policy 4.3 Encourage energy-efficient design in new development projects.
The following 15 implementation programs have also been introduced in the Temecula General
Plan to reduce air quality emissions.
AQ-1: Multi-jurisdictional coordination: Support regional transit initiatives and promote
development of high-speed rail service connecting Temecula to San Diego and Los
Angeles. Actively participate in efforts to protect and improve air quality in the
region.
AQ-2: Public Participation: Continue to involve the general public, environmental groups,
the business community, and special interest groups in the formulation and
implementation of air quality programs. Conduct periodic public outreach efforts,
and continue to promote public education as a method of employer compliance with
the Trip Reduction Ordinance.
AQ-3: Land Use Compatibility Adhere to the policies and programs of the Land Use
Element, including development of mixed-use projects where designated and
feasible, to ensure that future land use patterns and traffic increases are accompanied
by measures to improve air quality
AQ-4: Job housing Balance: Improve the jobs/housing balance in Temecula by
encouraging development and expansion of businesses, while also promoting
development of housing affordable to all segments of the community near job
opportunity sites, and within Mixed Use Overlay Areas.
AQ-5: Mitigation Measures: Assess the potential air quality impacts of individual
development projects by requiring preparation of air quality analysis for individual
projects. The City shall require individual development projects to comply with
measures as stated in the General Plan to minimize short-term, construction-related
PM10 and NOx emissions, and to minimize offsite impacts.
AQ-6: Sensitive Receptors: Locate new sensitive receptors away from major air pollution
sources. Require buffering of sensitive receptors from air pollution sources through
the use of landscaping, open space and other separation techniques.
AQ-7: Design Guidelines: Incorporate strategies into City-wide design guidelines and
development standards that promote a pedestrian-scale environment, encourage use
of mass transit, and reduce dependence on the automobile.
AQ-8: Alternative Work Schedules: Promote the use of alternative work weeks, flextime,
telecommuting, and work-at-home programs among employers in Temecula and
continue to enforce provisions of the City’s Trip Reduction Ordinance, including
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-13 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
requirements for preparation of Trip Reduction Plans (TRPs) for qualifying
development projects and employers.
AQ-9: Rideshare and Transit Incentives: Require employee rideshare and transit incentives
for large employers, consistent with the requirements of the City’s Trip Reduction
Ordinance.
AQ-10: Special Events : Require operators of large scale outdoor events to submit a Trip
Reduction Plan (TRP) that shall apply to both patrons and employees during the
course of the event.
AQ-11: Transportation Alternatives: Work to achieve local performance goals for vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) reduction, consistent with SCAG’s Growth Management Plan
recommended standards for the Western Riverside County subregion.
AQ-12: Alternative Fueled Vehicles: Promote and encourage the use of alternative fuel
vehicles. Consider adoption of an ordinance requiring provision of alternative
fueling stations at or near major employment locations, shopping centers, public
facilities, and mixed-use developments.
AQ-13: Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan: Encourage pedestrian and bicycle trips
as an option to single occupancy vehicle trips by constructing and maintaining trails
and bikeways specified in the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan.
AQ-14: Park and Ride Facilities: Work with Caltrans and RTA to identify potential sites for
Park and Ride facilities adjacent to key commuting routes within the City.
AQ-15: Energy Efficient Design: Incorporate energy efficient design elements in residential,
commercial and light industrial and mixed-use development projects.
City of Temecula Municipal Code
The following section of the City of Temecula Municipal Code is relevant to the proposed project
(City of Temecula, 2015):
18.06.100 Dust prevention and control plan. Dust prevention and control procedures
shall be employed while construction activity occurs to minimize wind borne particles. At
minimum, all grading operations, land clearing, loading, stockpiling, landscaping, vehicular
track-out and haul routes shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District
(AQMD) Rule 403 (fugitive dust emissions) and the provisions of Subarticle 3.8 of the
grading manual. (Ord. 04-04 § 4 (part))
3.2.3 Impact Assessment
Thresholds of Significance
Based on the state California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a project would
have a significant adverse effect on air quality resources if it would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-14 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation;
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors);
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Cumulative impacts from the proposed project are detailed in Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts.
The City of Temecula has not developed specific air quality thresholds for air quality impacts.
However, as stated in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the significance criteria established by
the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make
the above determinations. As such, the significance thresholds and analysis methodologies in
SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating project impacts. SCAQMD has no
quantitative thresholds to address compliance with the AQMP. Qualitatively, if a project’s growth
forecasts for population, housing and employment are consistent with those identified by SCAG,
then the project would be considered to be consistent with the AQMP.
SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown
in Table 3.2-4. The thresholds in Table 3.2-4 will be used to evaluate the project’s potential to
violate or contribute to an existing air quality violation as well as address the cumulative impacts
associated with air quality violations as the SCAQMD guidance states that if projects exceed the
regional thresholds then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable impact.
Aside from regional air quality impacts, projects in the SCAB are also required to analyze local
air quality impacts. As discussed previously, SCAQMD has developed LSTs that represent the
maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance
of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, and thus would not
cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient
concentrations of that pollutant for each of the 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) in the SCAB. The
localized thresholds, which are found in the mass rate look-up tables in SCAQMD’s Final
Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document, were developed for use on projects
that are less than or equal to five acres in size or have a disturbance of less than or equal to five
acres daily. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: NOx, CO, PM10, and
PM2.5. As discussed previously, the construction LSTs for a 3.5-acre site and operational LSTs for
a 5 acre site in SRA 26 (Temecula), which are shown in Table 3.2-5, would be used to evaluate
the project’s localized air quality impacts. The thresholds in Table 3.2-5 are used to address
impacts from the project with respect to exposing sensitive receptors to significant pollutant
concentrations.
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-15 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
TABLE 3.2-4
SCAQMD REGIONAL AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Pollutant
Mass Daily Thresholds (lb/day)
Construction Operations
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 100 55
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55
Oxides of Sulfur (SOX) 150 150
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
TACs (including carcinogens and
non-carcinogens
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk:
≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden:
> 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million)
Chronic & Acute Hazard Index:
≥ 1.0 (project increment)
a As the proposed project would not involve the development of any major lead emissions sources, lead
emissions would not be analyzed further in this Draft EIR.
SOURCE: SCAQMD, 2011b.
TABLE 3.2-5
SCAQMD LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Monitored Within SRA 26 –
Temecula Valley
Allowable emissions (pounds/day) as a function of receptor
distance (feet) from site boundary
82 (ft) 164 (ft) 328 (ft) 656 (ft) 1,640 (ft)
Construction Thresholds – 3.5 Acre Site
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)a 302.50 345.50 441.50 596.50 1,006.50
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1,532.50 2,143.00 3,531.50 7,473 27,334
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 10 30 48.5 85 196
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 6 8 13 27 98
Operational Thresholds – 5 acre Site
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)a 371 416 520 675 1,072
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1,965 2,714 4,282 8,547 29,256
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 13 40 59 96 207
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 8 10 16 31 105
a The localized thresholds listed for NOx in this table take into consideration the gradual conversion of NO to NO2.The analysis of
localized air quality impacts associated with NOx emissions focuses on NO2 levels as they are associated with adverse health effects.
SOURCE: SCAQMD, 2009
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-16 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
It should be noted that with regards to NOx emissions, the two principal species of NOx are NO
and NO2, with the vast majority (95 percent) of the NOx emissions being comprised of NO.
However, because adverse health effects are associated with NO2, not NO, the analysis of
localized air quality impacts associated with NOx emissions is focused on NO2 levels. For
combustion sources, SCAQMD assumes that the conversion of NO to NO2 is complete at a
distance of 5,000 meters from the source.
CO Hotspot
Historically, qualitative screening procedures and guidelines contained in the Transportation
Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (the Protocol) were used to determine whether a project
poses the potential for a CO hotspot (UCD ITS, 1997). According to the Protocol, projects may
worsen air quality if they increase the percentage of vehicles in cold start modes by two percent
or more; significantly increase traffic volumes (by five percent or more) over existing volumes; or
worsen traffic flow, defined for signalized intersections as increasing average delay at
intersections operating at level of service (LOS) E or F or causing an intersection that would
operate at LOS D or better without the project, to operate at LOS E or F.
However, it should be noted that CO concentrations have declined dramatically in California due
to existing controls and programs and most areas of the state, including the region in which the
proposed Project is located, have no problem meeting the state and federal CO standards.
Additionally, CO hotspots have not been seen in the most congested intersections in the region in
well over a decade. CO measurements and modeling were important in the early 1980s when CO
levels were regularly exceeded throughout California. In more recent years, CO measurements
and modeling have not been a priority in most California air districts due to the retirement of
older polluting vehicles, fewer emissions from new vehicles and improvements in fuels (CARB,
2004). The reduction in older polluting vehicles and emissions controls on newer vehicles have
increased the length of time that a number of vehicles can idle before emissions would trigger a
CO impact. This increase in vehicle idling has made the use of the LOS as an indicator obsolete
for determining CO impacts. For this reason, several air districts, including the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) (BAAQMD, 2009), have adopted guidelines that focus
on criteria other than LOS and percentage traffic increase, and instead focus on total volumes and
consistency with congestion management plans.
The SCAQMD has not implemented a threshold other than the LOS thresholds. Therefore,
because that methodology is obsolete, for the purposes of this analysis, the BAAQMD’s
screening criteria have been incorporated for use in determining CO hotspots. The BAAQMD
criteria are as follows (BAAQMD, 2009):
1. Consistency with an applicable congestion management program established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional
transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.
2. Traffic volumes at affected intersections would not be increased to more than 44,000
vehicles per hour.
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-17 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
3. Traffic volumes at affected intersections would not be increased to more than 24,000
vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g.,
tunnels, parking garages, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade
roadway).
For the purposes of this analysis, intersections that exceed the BAAQMD screening criteria
should conduct dispersion modeling to determine the potential impact from the impacted
intersections. Where the screening values are not exceeded, the project would be determined to be
less than significant with respect to localized CO impacts. This threshold will further address the
impacts of criteria pollutants on localized sensitive receptors.
SCAQMD has no quantitative thresholds to address odor impacts for projects. Therefore a
qualitative analysis based on the land use type compared to known odor generators was used to
assess the project’s potential to affect a substantial number of people through the generation of
odors.
Methodology
Air pollutant emissions associated with the project would result from operations of the future
multi-family residential and commercial developments at the project site and from traffic volumes
generated by these new uses. Construction activities would also generate air pollutant emissions
at the project site and on roadways resulting from construction-related traffic. The net increase in
emissions generated by these activities and other secondary sources have been estimated and
compared to the applicable thresholds of significance recommended by SCAQMD.
Construction Impacts
Short-term construction-generated emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors
associated with the project were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod), Version 2013.2.2, as recommended by SCAQMD. CalEEMod was used to
determine whether short-term construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants associated
with the project would exceed SCAQMD’s applicable regional thresholds and whether mitigation
would be required. Modeling was based on project-specific data provided by the Applicant,
where available. Where project-specific information was not available, reasonable assumptions
based on other similar projects and default model settings were used to estimate criteria air
pollutant and ozone precursor emissions. Modeling assumptions and output files are provided in
Appendix B of this Draft EIR.
In addition, to determine whether or not construction activities associated with the project would
create significant adverse localized air quality impacts on nearby sensitive receptors, the worst-
case daily emissions contribution from the project were compared to SCAQMD’s localized
significance thresholds (LSTs). The LSTs developed by SCAQMD are based on the pounds of
emissions per day that can be generated by a project without causing or contributing to adverse
localized air quality impacts, and only applies to the following criteria pollutants: CO, NOx,
PM10, and PM2.5. The analysis of localized air quality impacts focuses only on the onsite activities
of a project, and does not include emissions that are generated offsite such as from on-road haul
or delivery truck trips.
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-18 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
It should be noted that the construction schedule for the project could potentially change to more
than three phases to better accommodate development. However, this change in phasing would
only involve sub-dividing the areas of development in a different manner than originally planned
and would not alter the proposed duration of development (10 years), intensity of construction
activities, or the overall amount of development in the project area. Thus, should the project
eventually be developed in more than three phases, the construction-related emissions analyzed in
this section would not change.
Operational Impacts
Long-term (i.e., operational) regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors associated
with the proposed project, including mobile- and area-source emissions, were also quantified
using the CalEEMod computer model. Area-source emissions, which are widely distributed and
made of many small emissions sources (e.g., building heating and cooling units, landscaping
equipment, consumer products, painting operations, etc.), were modeled according to the size and
type of land use proposed. Mass mobile-source emissions were modeled based on the daily
vehicle trips that would result from the proposed project. Project trip generation rates were
obtained from the project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (Fehr & Peers, 2015). The resulting
long-term operational emissions were then compared with the applicable SCAQMD thresholds
for determination of significance. Modeling assumptions and output files are provided in
Appendix B of this Draft EIR.
In addition to the regional air quality impacts, the project’s localized air quality impacts during
operation is also analyzed by extracting the onsite operational emissions from the CalEEMod
model run for the project and evaluating those emissions against SCAQMD’s applicable
operational LSTs. Because of the different acreage sizes of each project development phase (i.e.,
Phases 1, 2, and 3), each development phase was evaluated separately with respect to localized
emissions.
CO Hotspots
For the purposes of this analysis, total hourly vehicle volumes through intersections and an
assessment of the project’s consistency with congestion management plans was conducted to
evaluate potential impacts associated with CO hotspots. Intersections that exceed the screening
criteria (detailed under Thresholds of Significance above) would be required to conduct
dispersion modeling to determine the potential impact from the impacted intersections.
Toxic Air Contaminants
TAC generators located within the SCAB are associated with diesel-fueled vehicles and specific
types of facilities such as dry cleaners, gas stations, distribution centers, and ports. The project
consists of residential, commercial, and institutional development that would not include any of
the aforementioned TAC emitter facilities nor would it be anticipated to include diesel-powered
emergency backup generators. Therefore, it is not anticipated that offsite receptors would be
impacted by TAC emissions resulting from project’s operations. Additionally, while onsite
residents would be considered sensitive receptors, the project site is not located within 1,000 feet
of any major sources, including high-volume roadways or freeways. Therefore, this analysis
discusses impacts from TACs on a qualitative basis.
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-19 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Impacts
Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plan
The proposed project is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the
SCAQMD. As such, SCAQMD’s 2012 AQMP is the applicable air quality plan for the proposed
project. Projects that are consistent with the regional population, housing, and employment
forecasts identified by SCAG are considered to be consistent with the AQMP growth projections,
since the forecast assumptions by SCAG forms the basis of the land use and transportation
control portions of the AQMP. Additionally, because SCAG’s regional growth forecasts are
based upon, among other things, land uses designated in general plans, a project that is consistent
with the land use designated in a general plan would also be consistent with the SCAG’s regional
forecast projections, and thus also with the AQMP growth projections.
The project site is identified in the General Plan as Specific Plan (SP-8), Westside/Village at Old
Town, the intent of which is “to provide complementary land uses to Old Town that increase the
vitality of the area; to increase the range of housing opportunities west of I-15; and to encourage
sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area.” The proposed project would
involve the creation of a new specific plan that meets the objectives of providing a residential
complementary land use to the Old Town commercial district. Therefore, the proposed project
would be consistent with the land use objectives of the specific plan area identified in the General
Plan (see Section 3.9.3 in this Draft Environmental Impact Report [EIR] for further discussion).
As such, because the proposed development is consistent with the intent of General Plan land use
policies, the growth resulting from the project is anticipated to be consistent with SCAG’s
regional forecast projections and, in turn, would also be consistent with the growth projections
accounted for in SCAQMD’s AQMP. Therefore, the project would not conflict with, or obstruct,
implementation of the AQMP and this impact would be less than significant
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Violation of Air Quality Standards
Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate pollutant emissions
from the following construction activities: (1) site preparation, grading, and excavation; (2)
construction workers traveling to and from project site; (3) delivery and hauling of construction
supplies to, and debris from, the project site; (4) fuel combustion by onsite construction
equipment; (5) building construction; application of architectural coatings; and paving. These
construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and
other air contaminants. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary,
depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring simultaneously at the
time. Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling.
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-20 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Table 3.2-6 summarizes the modeled peak daily emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone
precursors associated with the project’s worst-case construction scenario. The peak daily
emissions generated during each year of the project’s 10-year construction period, which includes
development of Phases 1, 2, and 3, are identified. Most of the individual construction sub-phases
within each development phase are anticipated to occur consecutively without overlapping with
each other. The only exceptions with respect to overlapping construction sub-phases are the
building construction and paving sub-phases, and the building construction and architectural sub-
phases for each development phase. While these sub-phases will overlap within each
development phase, the construction between the three development phases will not occur at the
same time.
TABLE 3.2-6
PROPOSED REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction Year
Estimated Maximum Daily Emissions (lb/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2016 10.62 98.88 118.91 0.11 9.83 6.44
2017 4.71 32.09 40.81 0.09 6.24 2.93
2018 45.39 30.73 43.43 0.10 6.91 3.03
2019 5.80 54.27 60.18 0.14 9.05 5.71
2020 3.96 25.39 43.11 0.11 7.53 2.85
2021 3.65 22.98 41.45 0.11 7.36 2.69
2022 69.23 38.48 62.17 0.16 9.47 5.16
2023 4.70 30.81 60.55 0.16 9.31 3.41
2024 3.47 19.72 44.75 0.14 8.55 2.82
2025 69.61 20.11 49.30 0.16 9.90 3.17
Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
NOTE: Construction emissions would be slightly different during the summer and winter seasons. Maximum daily emissions of
ROG and NOX would generally be higher during the winter while emissions of CO and SO2 would generally be higher in the
summer. The maximum emissions for each pollutant over the course of the summer and winter seasons are shown in this table.
SOURCE: ESA, 2015
As shown in Table 3.2-6, the maximum daily construction emissions generated by the project’s
worst-case construction scenario would not exceed SCAQMD’s daily significance threshold for
any criteria pollutants during any of the modeled construction phases. Therefore, construction
phase emissions would have a less-than-significant impact related to regional air quality.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Operation
Implementation of the proposed project would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria
air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption,
landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products, in addition to
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-21 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
operational mobile emissions. According to the TIA prepared for the project, development of the
project would result in a net increase in 19,232 vehicle trips per day.
Table 3.2-7 shows the maximum unmitigated daily operational emissions. As shown, the project
would result in long-term regional emissions of ROG, NOx, and CO that would exceed the
SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. Emissions of SOx, PM10 and PM2.5 would be below
SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds. Therefore, the project’s operational emissions would have the
potential to result in or substantially contribute to emissions concentrations that exceed the
NAAQS and CAAQS and mitigation is required.
TABLE 3.2-7
PROPOSED PROJECT UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Emissions Source
Estimated Emissions (lb/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1
Area Sources 13.12 0.48 41.59 0.00 0.83 0.82
Energy Sources 0.15 1.32 0.56 0.01 0.11 0.11
Mobile Sources 9.94 31.19 106.97 0.30 20.96 5.90
Total Phase 1 Emissions 23.21 32.99 149.13 0.31 21.89 6.83
Phase 2
Area Sources 19.67 0.64 55.12 0.00 1.10 1.09
Energy Sources 0.24 2.11 1.04 0.01 0.17 0.17
Mobile Sources 15.99 41.43 160.16 0.53 36.39 10.21
Total Phase 2 Emissions 35.90 44.17 216.32 0.55 37.66 11.47
Phase 3
Area Sources 27.50 0.56 48.81 0.00 0.96 0.96
Energy Sources 0.53 4.73 3.67 0.03 0.36 0.36
Mobile Sources 26.95 59.20 265.31 0.99 67.46 18.94
Total Phase 3 Emissions 54.98 64.49 317.79 1.02 68.79 20.26
Total Net Operational Emissions 114.09 141.65 683.24 1.88 128.34 38.56
Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? Yes Yes Yes No No No
SOURCE: ESA, 2015
The majority of the emissions are from either mobile sources or area sources related to hearth and
consumer product usage. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1a through MM-AQ-
1e will reduce the project’s operational emissions of criteria pollutants. While mitigation
measures are proposed that will reduce VMT, the reductions in vehicle emissions from these
measures cannot be quantified due to the fact that the level of compliance would vary depending
on the type of development operating and the level of effort applied by each development to
implement the mitigation measures. The total mitigated operational emissions that would result
from implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1a through MM-AQ-1e are shown in
Table 3.2-8.
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-22 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
TABLE 3.2-8
PROPOSED PROJECT MITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Emissions Source
Estimated Emissions (lb/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1
Area Sources 12.19 0.47 40.54 0.00 0.22 0.22
Energy Sources 0.15 1.32 0.56 0.01 0.11 0.11
Mobile Sources 9.94 31.19 106.97 0.30 20.96 5.90
Total Phase 1 Emissions 22.29 32.98 148.08 0.31 21.29 6.23
Phase 2
Area Sources 18.22 0.62 53.74 0.00 0.30 0.30
Energy Sources 0.24 2.11 1.04 0.01 0.17 0.17
Mobile Sources 15.99 41.43 160.16 0.53 36.39 10.21
Total Phase 2 Emissions 34.45 44.16 214.94 0.55 36.85 10.68
Phase 3
Area Sources 25.24 0.55 47.57 0.00 0.26 0.26
Energy Sources 0.45 4.73 3.13 0.02 0.31 0.31
Mobile Sources 26.95 59.20 265.31 0.99 67.46 18.94
Total Phase 3 Emissions 52.65 64.48 316.02 1.01 68.04 19.51
Total Net Operational Emissions 109.38 141.61 679.03 1.87 126.17 36.41
Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? Yes Yes Yes No No No
SOURCE: ESA,2015
As shown, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1a through MM-AQ-1e,
operational emissions generated under the proposed project would not be reduced to below
SCAQMD’s applicable regional thresholds. While several of the mitigation measures are
unquantifiable, it is not likely that even with their full implementation all emissions would be
reduced to below the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the project’s impacts related to regional
operational emissions will be significant and unavoidable.
Impact AQ-1: Operational activities occurring after the buildout of the project would violate any
air quality standard or contribute substantially to any existing or projected air quality violation.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1a: No fireplaces shall be included in the residential units.
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1b: The lease or purchase agreements for all non-residential units
shall include the following:
a) Required use of low VOC cleaning supplies in all buildings.
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-23 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
b) Required use of low VOC architectural coatings. Architectural coatings shall be 150
grams per liter or less for both interior and exterior coatings applied as part of building
maintenance and upkeep.
c) Employers shall allow alternative work weeks, flextime, telecommuting, and/or work-at-
home programs as appropriate to the business developed. (non-quantifiable)
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1c: All residential and non-residential properties shall be
equipped with exterior electrical outlets such that a minimum of 10 percent of landscape
equipment can be electrically operated. Landscape contracts for all multi-family residential and
non-residential buildings shall include a mandatory requirement stipulating that a minimum of 10
percent of all landscape equipment used onsite would be electrically operated.
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1d: All residential and non-residential buildings shall be
constructed such that they meet one of the following conditions:
a) Buildings shall implement energy efficiency standards that exceed the 2013 Title 24
standards by 15 percent; or
b) Project design shall include onsite renewable energy, for example the incorporation of
solar panels into project development, such that 9 percent of the onsite energy
consumption is offset.
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1e: The lease or purchase agreements for all multi-family
residential and non-residential units shall:
a) Require that transit routes be posted in common areas of multi-family residential
buildings and employee/student areas for non-residential buildings. Additionally,
building management shall encourage a ride-share program within the specific plan area
such that employees as well as residents have more access to car-pooling opportunities.
(non-quantifiable)
b) Shall encourage the use of alternative vehicles by providing incentives such as, but not
limited to, special parking for alternative fueled vehicles and/or parking cost reduction
for alternative fueled vehicles. (non-quantifiable)
c) Require that 5 percent of all available off-street parking spaces (per multi-family and
non-residential development) shall be equipped with charging stations to encourage the
use of electric vehicles. (non-quantifiable)
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable
As indicated in Table 3.2-1, applicable ozone standards have regularly been exceeded at the
nearest (Lake Elsinore) monitoring station between 2011 and 2013 and the SCAB is designated as
a non-attainment region for ozone. The proposed project’s ROG and NOx emission increases
could contribute to additional air quality violations in the SCAB region by contributing to more
days of ozone exceedance or result in air quality index levels that are unhealthy for sensitive
groups and other populations. On unhealthy days, persons are recommended to avoid both
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-24 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
prolonged outdoor activities and activities requiring heavy exertion outdoors. Short-term
exposure to ozone can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. In addition to
causing shortness of breath, ozone can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma,
bronchitis, and emphysema.
Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Pollutant Concentrations
CO Hotspots
A total of 25 local intersections were analyzed as part of the TIA that was prepared for the
proposed project (Fehr & Peers, 2015). The existing, existing plus project, cumulative, and
cumulative plus project peak hour conditions were evaluated against the screening level threshold
of 24,000 vehicles per hour.2 The study area intersections with the maximum peak hour traffic
volumes are shown in Table 3.2-9. Under all scenarios, the total vehicles generated during the
PM peak hour are greater than those for the AM peak hour at all study intersections. As none of
the peak hour traffic at all of the intersections would come close to 24,000 vehicles per hour, CO
emissions from these vehicles volumes would be less than significant.
TABLE 3.2-9
PEAK HOURLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Without Project With Project
Intersection AM PM AM PM
Existing
Ynez Rd / Rancho California Rd 5,195 6,972 5,425 7,194
Ynez Rd / Winchester Rd 5,023 7,028 5,138 7,139
Screening Threshold 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000
Significant? No No No No
Cumulative
Ynez Rd / Rancho California Rd 6,070 7,810 6,300 8,032
Temecula Pkwy / Pechanga Pkwy 6,530 7,610 6,876 7,945
Screening Threshold 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000
Significant? No No No No
SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2015
The Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires that if an EIR was
prepared, new developments analyze the project’s potential impacts on CMP monitoring
locations. The project’s TIA (Fehr & Peers, 2015) analyzed the project impacts on nearby CMP
monitoring stations for arterial roadways. If a CMP monitoring segment falls into an LOS of F,
a deficiency plan would be required. As determined in the TIA for the project, there are no CMP
arterials or roadway segments within the project study area. Therefore, the proposed project
would not conflict with the CMP due to additional growth.
2 For the purpose of conducting a conservative analysis, the more conservative BAAQMD screening threshold for
CO hotspots is used for the project.
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-25 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Given that the project would not exceed the screening level intersection volumes, nor would it
conflict with the local CMP, impacts related to CO hotspots would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Localized Construction Air Quality Impacts – Criteria Air Pollutants
Daily onsite construction emissions generated by the project were evaluated against SCAQMD’s
LSTs for a 3.5-acre site to determine whether the emissions would cause or contribute to adverse
localized air quality impacts.3 The nearest offsite sensitive receptors are the multi-family
residential dwelling units located directly adjacent to the project site on the east. Additionally, the
project itself would also introduce sensitive receptors (e.g., residential and school uses) once the
individual development phases are completed. Table 3.2-10 identifies the daily unmitigated,
localized onsite emissions that are estimated to occur during the project’s worst-case construction
scenario.
TABLE 3.2-10
PROPOSED PROJECT UNMITIGATED LOCALIZED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction Year
Estimated Maximum Daily Onsite Emissions
(lb/day)
NOX CO PM10a PM2.5a
2016 86.83 115.09 9.83 6.48
2071 27.64 24.62 1.88 1.71
2018 26.42 25.48 1.74 1.59
2019 55.93 49.20 8.98 5.70
2020 20.67 25.32 1.25 1.09
2021 18.75 24.78 1.09 0.94
2022 40.50 47.13 8.42 5.16
2023 26.28 42.20 1.37 1.18
2024 15.32 27.56 0.79 0.63
2025 15.47 29.02 0.75 0.61
Highest Daily Construction Emissions 86.83 115.09 9.83 6.48
Localized Significance Thresholdb 302.5 1532.5 10 6
Significant Impact? No No No YES
a Emissions account for implementation of dust control measures as required by SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive
Dust. b LST values are extrapolated from the SCAQMD LST Threshold Tables for SRA 26 and is based on the
construction-related disturbance of 3.5 acres per day. The 3.5 acreage was determined based on the equipment
used during site preparation activities, which generated the highest PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.
SOURCE: ESA,2015
3 According to SCAQMD’s LST methodology, LSTs are only applicable to the onsite construction emissions that are
generated by a project and do not apply to emissions generated offsite such as mobile emissions on roadways from
worker, vendor, and haul truck trips.
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-26 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
As shown, the daily unmitigated emissions generated onsite by the proposed project’s worst-case
construction scenario would exceed the applicable SCAQMD LST for PM2.5 for a 3.5-acre site in
SRA 26 in 2016, during the site preparation sub-phase. The emissions for the remaining
pollutants of concern (NOx, CO, and PM10) would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs in
any construction year. As the project’s worst-case construction emissions would exceed
SCAQMD’s applicable LST for PM2.5 the localized air quality impacts associated with PM2.5
would be potentially significant. Localized impacts for NOX, CO, and PM10 would be less-than
significant.
However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2, the total onsite emissions of
PM2.5 generated during the site preparation sub-phase would be reduced to below the SCAQMD’s
applicable LST for a 3.5-acre site. The total mitigated PM2.5 emissions that would result from
implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2 during project construction in 2016 is shown
in Table 3.2-11. While only the reduction of PM2.5 for 2016 is shown, Mitigation Measure MM-
AQ-2 would reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from all site preparation and grading construction
sub-phases. Therefore, localized air quality impacts associated with PM2.5 would be reduced to a
less-than-significant level.
TABLE 3.2-11
PROPOSED PROJECT MITIGATED LOCALIZED PM2.5 EMISSIONS 4
Construction Year
Estimated Maximum Daily Onsite Emissions (lb/day) with Mitigationa
PM2.5
2016 5.73
Localized Significance Threshold 6
Significant Impact? No
a Incorporates Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1e.
SOURCE: ESA,2015
Impact AQ-2: Emissions of localized criteria pollutants from construction of the project could
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2: The site shall be watered four times per day during ground
disturbance (grading) activities for all project development phases. During drought conditions,
defined as Water Shortage Stages 4 or 5 as determined by the Rancho California Water District,
use of reclaimed water or non-water chemical stabilizers shall be implemented such that fugitive
emissions reductions are comparable. Permission to use potable water for dust control activities
during drought conditions shall be granted by the City of Temecula Building Official if the
General Contractor shows in writing that (1) Reclaimed water is not available in sufficient quality
4 Additionally, even though the unmitigated emissions of NOx, CO, and PM10 would not exceed their respective
LSTs, the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1a could also further reduce these emissions during
project construction.
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-27 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
and quantity from recycled wastewater treatment facilities located within 10 miles of the
construction site; and (2) Well water or groundwater is not available in sufficient quality and
quantity from wells and groundwater sources located within 10 miles of the construction site.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Localized Operational Air Quality Impacts – Criteria Air Pollutants
During project operations, the daily amount of localized pollutant emissions generated onsite by
the project would not be substantial. The proposed project’s onsite operational emissions are
shown in Table 3.2-12. As shown, the project’s total operational-related emissions generated
onsite would not exceed SCAQMD’s screening operational LSTs. Thus, no dispersion modeling
is required and localized air quality impacts during project operations would be less than
significant.
TABLE 3.2-12
PROPOSED PROJECT LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Development Phases
Estimated Emissions (lb/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1 7.39 76.00 1.35 0.63
Phase 2 27.01 60.87 1.77 0.99
Phase 3 40.11 106.81 3.73 1.68
Localized Significance Threshold 371 1,965 4 2
Significant Impact? No No No No
SOURCE: ESA, 2015
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Localized Construction Air Quality Impacts – TACs
Project construction would result in short-term emissions of diesel PM, which is a TAC. Diesel
PM poses a carcinogenic health risk that is measured using an exposure period of 70 years. The
exhaust of off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would emit diesel PM during demolition; site
preparation (e.g., clearing); site grading and excavation; paving; installation of utilities, materials
transport, and handling; building construction; and other miscellaneous activities. SCAQMD has
not adopted a methodology for analyzing such impacts and has not recommended that health risk
assessments be completed for construction-related emissions of TACs.
The construction period for the proposed project would be much less than the 70-year period used
for risk determination. Although project construction would occur over a 10-year period,
construction activities would not occur across the entire project site during the entire duration of
this period. Instead, construction activities would likely occupy much smaller areas located
throughout the 270-acre project site. Because off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would be used
only for short time periods at each active construction area, and spread out over 270 acres, project
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-28 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
construction would not expose any existing nearby sensitive receptors or new onsite receptors to
substantial emissions of TACs. This impact would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant.
Localized Operational Air Quality Impacts – TACs
Typical sources of acutely and chronically hazardous TACs include industrial manufacturing
processes, automotive repair facilities, and dry cleaning facilities. The project would not include
any of these potential sources, although minimal emissions may result from the use of consumer
products. Additionally, it is not anticipated that emergency back-up generators would be required
for the new land uses associated with the project. However, if a generator was implemented for a
new land use, it would typically only be used during emergencies and may be turned on
periodically for maintenance and inspection purposes. Further, emergency back-up generators are
subject to SCAQMD regulatory requirements, which limit the allowable emissions to a level
below that which would result in a significant impact. As such, the periodic operation of a backup
generator at the project site would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant or
TAC emissions.
Additionally, as the project is not located within the buffer distance of any major TAC-emitting
facilities, including being within 500 feet of any freeway or major roadway with more than
100,000 vehicles per day, the project is not anticipated to be adversely affected by proximity to
exposure to diesel exhaust emissions. The nearest freeway to the project site is I-15 which is
located more than 1,000 feet east of the project site. Therefore, TAC impacts are less than
significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Objectionable Odors
Land uses that are associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater
treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills,
dairies, and fiberglass molding. As the proposed residential, commercial, and civic/institutional
developments associated with the project does not include any of these uses that have been
identified as being associated with odors, the project is not expected to result in objectionable
odors for the neighboring uses.
During construction of the project, exhaust from equipment and activities associated with the
application of architectural coatings and other interior and exterior finishes may produce
discernible odors typical of most construction sites. Such odors would be a temporary source of
nuisance to adjacent uses, but would not affect a substantial number of people. As odors
associated with project construction would be temporary and intermittent in nature, the odors
would not be considered to be a significant environmental impact. In addition, operational
activities associated with the proposed land uses are not anticipated to result in significant odors.
Therefore, impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant.
Altair Specific Plan 3.2-29 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
This section provides a description of the existing biological resources at and in the vicinity of the
project and provides an analysis of the potential for significant impacts to biological resources as
a result of project development.
The following analysis is based on several biological surveys conducted within the project area
between 2005 and 2015 by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. (Helix) including, but not limited
to, least Bell’s vireo (Vireo pusillus bellii) survey (Helix, 2014a), burrowing owl (Athene
cunicularia) survey (Helix, 2014b), and wet and dry season fairy shrimp surveys (Helix, 2015f
and 2015g). In addition, a Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP) Consistency Report (Appendix C and C1 of this EIR; Helix, 2015a) and a
Jurisdictional Delineation Report (Appendix M of this EIR; Helix, 2015b) was prepared by Helix.
3.3.1 Regulatory Framework
The following provides a general description of the applicable regulatory requirements for the
Project, including federal, state, and local policies and guidelines.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended, is designed to protect birds that
migrate and cross state lines to provide management of migratory birds at a federal level. The
MBTA prohibits the kill or transport of native migratory birds, or any part, nest, or egg of such
bird unless allowed by another regulation adopted in accordance with the MBTA.
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) was established to protect wildlife species and
habitats from extinction and diminishment. The FESA is administered by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and applies to federally listed species and habitat occupied by the
federally listed species. FESA Section 9 forbids acts that directly or indirectly harm listed species.
Specifically, Section 9 identified prohibited acts related to endangered species, and all persons,
including federal, state, and local governments, from taking listed fish and wildlife species,
except as specified under the provisions for exceptions (16 U.S.C. 1539). The term ‘take’ is
defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt
to engage in any such activity (16 U.S.C. 1532[18]).
Clean Water Act
In 1948, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Act). The Act was later
amended in 1972 and became known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA establishes the
basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the Waters of the U.S. The CWA
specifies a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to sharply reduce direct pollutant
discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted
runoff.
• Sections 303 and 304 provide for water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
• Section 401 requires every applicant for a federal permit or license for any activity that
may result in a discharge to a water body to obtain a water quality certification that the
proposed activity will comply with applicable water quality standards. Under Section 401
of the CWA, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) must certify that
actions receiving authorization under Section 404 of the CWA also meet state water
quality standards.
• Section 402 regulates point- and nonpoint-source discharges to surface waters through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. In California, the
SWRCB oversees the NPDES program, which is administered by the Regional Water
Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). The NPDES program provides for both general
permits (those that cover a number of similar or related activities) and individual permits.
Anti-backsliding requirements provided for under CWA Sections 402(o)(2) and
303(d)(4) prohibit slackening of discharge requirements and regulations under revised
NPDES permits. With isolated/limited exceptions, these regulations require effluent
limitations in a reissued permit to be at least as stringent as those contained in the
previous permit.
• Section 404 of the CWA establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged and
fill material into Waters of the U.S., including some wetlands. Activities in Waters of the
U.S. that are regulated under this program include fills for development, water
resource projects (e.g., dams and levees), infrastructure development (e.g., highways
and airports), and conversion of wetlands to uplands for farming and forestry. This
program is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) is similar in many ways to the FESA. CESA is
administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). CESA provides a
process for CDFW to list species as threatened or endangered in response to a citizen petition or
by its own initiative (Fish and Game Code § 2070 et seq.). Section 2080 of CESA prohibits the
take of species listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the CESA (Fish and Game Code §
2080). Section 2081 allows CDFW to authorize take prohibited under Section 2080 provided that:
(1) the taking is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity; (2) the taking will be minimized and
fully mitigated; (3) the applicant ensures adequate funding for minimization and mitigation; and
(4) the authorization will not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species (Fish and Game
Code § 2081).
California Department of Fish and Game Code
The California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) regulates the taking of birds, mammals, fish,
amphibians, and reptiles, as well as natural resources such as wetlands and Waters of the State. It
includes the CESA (Sections 2050-2115) and Streambed Alteration Agreement regulations
(Sections 1600-1616), as well as provisions for legal hunting and fishing, and tribal agreements
involving the take of native wildlife. Any project impact to State-listed species within or adjacent
to a project site would require a permit under CESA. Also, if a project proposes to alter a State-
defined wetland, then a Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required from CDFW.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-2 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
California Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA) of 1977 (Fish and Game Code Sections
1900–1913) is intended to preserve, protect, and enhance endangered or rare native plants in
California and gives the CDFW authority to designate State endangered, threatened, and rare
plants and provides specific protection measures for identified populations. The CNPPA also
directs the California Fish and Game Commission to adopt regulations governing taking,
possessing, propagation, and sale of any endangered or rare native plant.
Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the California Native Plant Society (2011), but
which have no designated status or protection under federal or State endangered species
legislation, are defined as follows:
• Rank 1A: Plants Believed Extinct.
• Rank 1B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere.
• Rank 2: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere.
• Rank 3: Plants About Which More Information is Needed - A Review List.
• Rank 4: Plants of Limited Distribution - A Watch List.
Natural Community Conservation Planning Program
The Natural Community Conservation Program (NCCP) Act, Sections 2800-2840 of the CFGC,
authorized the preparation of NCCPs to protect natural communities and species while allowing a
reasonable amount of economic development. The MSHCP, adopted by the County of Riverside
on June 17, 2003, serves as a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) pursuant to the NCCP Act and
pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the FESA.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan
The project site lies within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP involves the assembly and management of a 500,000-acre
Conservation Area for the conservation of natural habitats and their constituent wildlife
populations. The MSHCP was developed to serve as a HCP pursuant to the NCCP Act and
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the FESA. It encompasses 1.26 million acres and includes all
unincorporated Riverside County land west of the crest of the San Jacinto Mountains to the
Orange County line as well as jurisdictional areas of the Cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Lake
Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Norco, Corona, Riverside, Moreno Valley, Banning, Beaumont,
Calimesa, Perris, Hemet, and San Jacinto. The overarching purpose of the plan is to balance
development and economic interests with species and lands conservation goals. The MSHCP
permits development of lands and take of species “in exchange for the assembly and management
of a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area (Riverside County, 2004).
The approval of the MSHCP and the Implementing Agreement (IA) by the USFWS and the
CDFW allows signatories of the IA to issue “take” authorizations for the 146 species covered by
the MSHCP (termed “covered species”), including state and federally listed species, as well as
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-3 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
other identified sensitive species. The “take” authorization includes impacts to the habitats of the
covered species. The MSHCP requires any new development to pay fees to support the financing
for the MSHCP. The fees are intended to meet mitigation requirements for CEQA, FESA and
CESA. The MSHCP is further broken down into core areas and linkages, which are the focus of
reserve and preservation actions.
City of Temecula General Plan
The City of Temecula has a comprehensive General Plan that addresses multiple aspects of city
planning and development as well as the preservation of natural resources such as open space,
sensitive biological resources, and water. The following are biological resource goals and policies
from the City’s General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element that are applicable to this
project:
Goal 3: Conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal
species of concern, wildlife movement corridors, and general biodiversity.
Policy 3.1: Require development proposals to identify significant biological
resources and provide mitigation, including the use of adequate buffering
and sensitive site planning techniques, selective preservation, provision
of replacement habitats; and other appropriate measures.
Policy 3.3: Coordinate with the County of Riverside and other relevant agencies in
the adoption and implementation of the Riverside County MSHCP.
Policy 3.4: Encourage developers to incorporate native drought resistant vegetation,
mature trees, and other significant vegetation into site and landscape
designs for proposed projects.
Policy 3.5: Maintain an inventory of existing natural resources in the City.
Policy 3.6: Limit recreational use of designated open space areas where there are
sensitive biological resources as needed to protect these resources.
Policy 3.7: Maintain and enhance the resources of Temecula Creek, Pechanga
Creek, Murrieta Creek, Santa Gertrudis Creek, Santa Margarita River,
and other waterways to ensure the long-term viability of habitat, wildlife
and wildlife movement corridors.
Implementation Program OS-9: Require development proposals in all areas inside or adjacent
to sensitive habitat areas, designated critical habitat, and Western Riverside County MSHCP
conservation areas and core linkages as defined by the USFWS, the CDFW, and the MSHCP, to
provide detailed biological assessments, assess potential impacts, and mitigate significant impacts
to a level below significance.
Implementation Program OS-11: Require appropriate resource protection measures to be
prepared in conjunction with specific plans and subsequent development proposals. Such
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
requirements may include the preparation of a Vegetation Management Program that addresses
landscape maintenance, fuel modification zones, management of passive open space areas,
corridor connections for wildlife movement, conservation of water sources, and rehabilitation of
biological resources displaced in the planning process, and use of project design, engineering, and
construction practices that minimize impacts to sensitive species, MSHCP conservation areas,
and designated critical habitats.
Implementation Program OS-14: Continue to participate in multi-species habitat conservation
planning, watershed management planning, and water resource management planning efforts.
Implementation Program OS-32: Require project developers to retain coast live oak woodland,
including oaks within new development areas, and require surveys of all coast live oak trees prior
to construction to determine if any raptor nests are present and active. If active nests are observed,
postponement of construction activities until the end of the fledgling season is required. The City
shall apply the following guidelines from the Riverside County Oak Tree Management
Guidelines (see General Plan for details).
Implementation Program OS-33: Require project proponents to minimize impacts to Coastal
sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, and non-native grassland consistent
with the MSHCP. Such mitigation measures will include, but are not limited to: onsite
preservation, offsite acquisition of mitigation land located within the City and inside MSHCP
conservation areas, and habitat restoration of degraded sage scrub vegetation that increases
habitat quality and the biological function of the site.
Implementation Program OS-34: Require project proponents to avoid adverse impacts to
Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest and Water vegetation communities to the maximum extent
possible. Mitigation consistent with the MSHCP, and future mitigation ratios established by the
City will be required, including, but not limited to: wetland creation in upland areas, wetland
restoration that re-establishes the habitat functions of a former wetland, and wetland enhancement
that improves the self-sustaining habitat functions of an existing wetland. Mitigation measures
will be required to achieve “no net loss” of wetland functions and values.
Implementation Program OS-35: Review development-associated impacts to MSHCP
conservation areas for consistency with the MSHCP reserve and buffer development
requirements, and require compliance with the following MSHCP Urban/Wildlife Interface
Guidelines (see General Plan for details).
Implementation Program OS-36: Require work corridor surveys to identify active nests for
projects with the potential to adversely impact nesting migratory birds, as defined under the
MBTA. Development projects shall avoid active nests and, if necessary, require seasonal timing
constraints for riparian habitat clearing and an MBTA Special Purpose permit prior to the
removal of active nests of MBTA covered species.
Goal 5: Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and
protection of natural resources and features.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-5 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
Policy 5.1: Conserve the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, the Santa
Margarita River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and other important
landforms and historic landscape features through the development
review process.
Policy 5.2: Identify significant viewsheds to proposed projects that may be
preserved through the dedication of open space or the use of sensitive
grading, site design, and building techniques.
Policy 5.3: Encourage the use of clustered development and other site planning
techniques to maximize the preservation of permanent open space.
Policy 5.4: Retain and improve the quality of landscaping in parkways, public
slopes, rights-of-way, parks, civic facilities, and other public open areas.
Policy 5.8: Require re-vegetation of graded slopes concurrent with project
development to minimize erosion and maintain the scenic character of
the community.
Policy 5.11: Encourage the use of native vegetation where revegetation and
landscaping is to occur.
Implementation Program OS-24: Provide for a planned residential development process in the
Development Code to allow clustering of development and the dedication of open space for
conserving natural resources, views, and providing additional recreational opportunities.
City of Temecula Municipal Code
City of Temecula Heritage Tree Ordinance (Ord. 09-05 § 1)
The purpose of this Ordinance is to protect and preserve Oak, California Bay Laurel, California
Black Walnut, California Holly, and California Sycamore trees as well as other trees of special
significance to the community; and to justify special efforts to preserve and protect them from
development activity. Heritage Trees are defined as any specimen of the aforementioned species
that has been identified in a tree inventory in connection with the submittal of an application for a
discretionary permit and has reached the required diameter (= diameter at breast height [dbh] of
18 inches or more). As stipulated in Ordinance 09-05, Chapter 8.48.120, the Heritage Tree
Ordinance is not applicable to previously adopted Specific Plans or future Specific Plan Areas, as
such plans will contain their own requirements for protection and preservation of Heritage Trees.
Conservation Mitigation Fees
Temecula’s Municipal Code Chapter 15 regulates the implementation of the MSHCP within the
City Limits through a Conservation Mitigation Fee. The fee is to assist in providing revenue to
acquire and preserve vegetation communities and natural areas within the city and western
Riverside County which are known to support threatened, endangered or key sensitive
populations of plant and wildlife species. Each development project or portion thereof to be
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-6 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
constructed is required to pay these fees. The fee is calculated using an equivalent benefit unit
methodology. The current fee structure is as follows:
• Residential, density less than 8 dwelling units per acre - $1,651 per dwelling unit.
• Residential, density between 8.1 and 14 dwelling units per acre - $1,057 per dwelling
unit.
• Residential, density greater than 14.1 dwelling units per acre - $859 per dwelling unit.
• Commercial - $5,620 per acre.
• Industrial - $5,620 per acre.
3.3.2 Environmental Setting
Regional Setting
The approximately 270-acre project area is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County,
California. The project is situated west of Interstate 15, south of Rancho California Road, and
immediately north of the Santa Margarita River, within the Santa Margarita River watershed (see
Figure 2-1). Regional geographic features include the Santa Rosa Plateau and the Temecula
Escarpment to the west, the Santa Margarita Ecological Preserve and the Santa Margarita River to
the south, the Palomar Mountains to the southeast and large expanses of development within
Temecula Valley to the north and east.
Project Setting
Topography within the project includes steep hills and narrow, incised canyons with elevations
ranging from approximately 1,000 to 1,440 feet above mean sea level. Drainage on the project
site runs from west to east/northeast toward Murrieta Creek, which converges with Temecula
Creek, a tributary of the Santa Margarita River, which is located near the southeastern boundary
of the project. Undeveloped land abuts the project to the south; undeveloped land, rural
development and agriculture occur to the west; undeveloped land and urban development occur to
the north; and urban development and Murrieta Creek exist to the east of the project.
Sage scrub and chaparral dominate the vegetation within the project area with non-native
grassland dominating the lower, flatter areas along the eastern boundary; grading activities from
previously approved development have disturbed the northeastern corner of the project area. Soils
within the project area include Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loam, Escondido fine sandy
loam, Fallbrook rocky sandy loam, Garretson very fine sandy loam, Garretson gravelly very fine
sandy loam, Lodo gravelly loam, Lodo rocky loam, Ysidora gravelly very fine sandy loam, rough
broken land, riverwash, and terrace escarpments (Helix, 2015a).
The project area is in unsectioned lands of Township 8 South, Range 3 West and is shown on the
U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute Temecula quadrangle map (Figure 3 in Appendix C), within
the Murrieta Creek and Santa Rosa Plateau subunits (Subunits 1 and 6) of the MSHCP’s
Southwest Area Plan (Figure 4 in Appendix C). A portion of the project area lies in Cell Group
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-7 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
‘K’ (Cell Numbers 7077 and 7161; Figure 5 in Appendix C); the remainder lies in Independent
Cells (Cell Numbers 7078, 7164, 7166, 7258, 7264, 7355, and 7356).
Common Plants and Vegetation Communities
The nomenclatures used for the vegetation communities, indicated below in Table 3.3-1, are
based on the MSHCP Uncollapsed Vegetation Communities Classifications. The Preliminary
Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California by Robert F. Holland (1986)
was used as a supporting resource to help classify the vegetation communities onsite.
TABLE 3.3-1
EXISTING VEGETATION COMMUNITY ACREAGES
WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
Habitat Acres*
Riparian/Riverine Habitats
Riparian woodland 0.49
Southern willow scrub 0.38
Herbaceous wetland 0.08
Coast live oak woodland 0.64
Subtotal 1.59
Upland Habitats
Native grassland 0.1
Coast live oak woodland 6.5
Diegan coastal sage scrub 148.7
Southern mixed chaparral 68.6
Non-native grassland 26.6
Non-native vegetation 0.8
Disturbed habitat 13.5
Developed 4.3
Subtotal 269.1
TOTAL 270.7**
* Riparian/Riverine Habitats acres are rounded to the nearest 0.01; Upland
Habitats acres are rounded to the nearest 0.1.
** Due to a difference in rounding, the total acreage may vary slightly as
compared to total acreage in Table S-1 and Table 2-1.
SOURCE: Helix, 2015a
A complete list of plant species occurring within these communities, along with detailed
descriptions of the communities themselves and a detailed map of the extent and location of each
community is included in Appendix C.
Common Wildlife
The various vegetation communities within the project area provide habitat for a variety of
common wildlife species, such as Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), black phoebe (Sayornis
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-8 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
nigricans), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum), California
towhee (Melozone crissalis), California quail (Callipepla californica), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter
cooperii), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), red-
tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus), spotted towhee (Pipilo
maculatus), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), wren
(Thryomanes sp.), coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), mountain lion (Puma concolor),
and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). A complete list of wildlife species identified during
focused surveys is provided in Appendix C.
Sensitive Natural Communities
Sensitive natural communities are designated by CDFW, or in local policies and regulations, such
as the MSHCP. Such communities are generally considered to have important functions or values
for wildlife and/or are recognized as declining in extent or distribution, and are considered
threatened enough to warrant some level of protection. CDFW tracks communities it believes to
be of conservation concern through the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Global
(G) and State (S) Ranks are assigned to assist in determining the level of rarity and imperilment
of a given vegetation type. The Global rank is a reflection of the overall condition (rarity and
endangerment) of an element throughout its range. The State rank is a reflection of the condition
(rarity and endangerment) of an element within the state. An element ranking of G3 or S3 means
there are 10,000 – 50,000 acres throughout the element’s range or state, respectively. An element
ranking of S2 means there are 2,000 – 10,000 acres throughout the element’s state. The threat
designations behind the State rankings are as follows:
• very threatened
• threatened
• no current threats known
The CNDDB identified six sensitive vegetation communities occurring within the nine United
States Geological Society (USGS) quadrangle search area including Southern Coast Live Oak
Riparian Forest, Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, Southern Interior Basalt Flow
Vernal Pool, Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland, Southern Willow Scrub, and Valley
Needlegrass Grassland. It was determined during the various biological surveys for the project
that Southern Willow Scrub occurs on the project site, as well as four other sensitive natural
communities that have not been previously recorded in the region. The following CDFW-
sensitive natural communities were recorded within the project area:
• Riparian Woodland (= Southern Cottonwood Riparian Forest) – G3 S3.2
• Southern Willow Scrub – G3 S2.1
• Native Grassland – G3 S3.1
• Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub - G3 S3.1
• Southern Mixed Chaparral – G3 S3.3
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-9 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) is a governmental
agency formed through a Joint Powers Agreement among public agencies that today includes
Riverside County, the cities of Western Riverside County (including the City of Temecula), and
other public agencies. The RCA oversees, administers, and enforces the MSHCP. However, the
RCA may not limit County or City local land use authority or prevent a permittee from approving
a discretionary project. The City of Temecula is a permittee under the MSHCP.
As part of its management responsibilities over the MSHCP, the RCA tracks habitats within nine
zones established within the MSHCP area. These areas are called “Rough Steps” because they are
meant to help the RCA, USFWS, and CDFW evaluate whether conservation of specific habitats is
occurring in conjunction with development approvals. With the exception of Southern Mixed
Chaparral, all of the sensitive natural communities on the project site are tracked in Rough Step
Unit 5. Southern Mixed Chaparral does not have a Rough Step requirement and impacts are
covered under the MSHCP implementation structure. The other four vegetation communities are
considered sensitive natural communities due to their significance under the MSHCP. Impacts to
these communities are analyzed in Section 3.3.3, Impact Assessment.
Special-Status Species
Special-status species are defined as those plants and wildlife that, because of their recognized
rarity or vulnerability to various causes of habitat loss or population decline, are recognized by
federal, state, or other agencies as under threat from human-associated developments. Some of
these species receive specific protection in accordance with federal or state endangered species
legislation. Others have been designated as special-status on the basis of adopted policies and
expertise of state resource agencies or policies adopted by local governmental agencies such as
counties, cities, and special districts to meet local conservation objectives. Special-status species
include:
• Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, or are candidates for
possible future listing as threatened or endangered, under the FESA or the CESA;
• Species that meet the definitions of rare or endangered under CEQA Guidelines Section
15380;
• All of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B and Rank 2 meet the
definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (NPPA) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (CESA of the
CDFG, and are eligible for state listing;
• Species covered under an adopted NCCP Act/HCP, such as the MSHCP;
• Wildlife designated by CDFW as species of special concern;
• Wildlife "fully protected" in California (CFGC Sections 3511, 4700, and 5050); and
• Avian species protected by the MBTA and CFGC (Sections 3500 – 3516).
A total of 133 special-status species have been recorded in the vicinity (i.e., 9 USGS quadrangle
search) of the project area (CNDDB, 2015; USFWS, 2015; CNPS, 2015). Tables 3.3-2 and 3.3-3
provide a list of these special-status plant and wildlife species that have a moderate to high
potential to occur within the vicinity of the project site. Special-status species that have a low or
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-10 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
no potential to occur within the vicinity of the project site are not listed, but are included in the
complete list of special-status species in Appendix C1 of this EIR.
Special-Status Plants
A total of 80 special-status plant species were recorded in the vicinity of the project area. The
potential of these species to occur was based on elevations, known distributions, the type and
quality of soils, and vegetation communities present within the project area. The project area does
not occur within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) or a Criteria Area
Plant Species Survey Area (CASSA) per Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 of the MSHCP; therefore, no
focused plant surveys were required.
The potential for each to occur on the project area are based on the following definitions:
Low Potential: The project site and/or immediate vicinity provides low quality habitat for a
particular species, such as improper soils, disturbed or otherwise degraded habitat, improper
assemblage of desired vegetation, and/or the site is outside of the known elevation range of
the species.
Moderate Potential: The project site and/or immediate vicinity provides suitable habitat for
a particular species. For example, proper soils may be present, but the desired vegetation
assemblage or density is less than ideal; or soils and vegetation are suitable, but the site is
outside of the known elevation range of the species.
High Potential: The project site and/or immediate vicinity provide high quality or ideal
habitat (i.e., soils, vegetation assemblage, and topography) for a particular species and/or
there are known occurrences in the general vicinity of the project area.
Present: The species or vegetation community/habitat was observed within the project site
and/or immediate vicinity during surveys or the species has been previously reported within
the project area.
Presence/absence of species associated with Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool habitats under
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP require further assessment in the field, outside of the surveys
stipulated in Sections 6.1.3 - NEPSSA and 6.3.2 - CASSA; therefore, surveys were conducted
within the Riparian/Riverine areas. These species are discussed below under the heading Habitat
Conservation Planning – MSHCP.
During the various biological surveys, two special-status plant species were observed—
San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) and paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata). These
plant species are discussed in more detail below.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-11 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
San Diego ambrosia. San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) is listed as federally Endangered
by the USFWS and is considered rare, seriously threatened, or endangered by CNPS (CRPR List
1B.1); and a Narrow Endemic Plant Species under the MSHCP (Section 6.1.3 - NEPSSA). The
project lies outside of the NEPSSA for this species. San Diego ambrosia is found in chaparral,
coastal sage scrub, and foothill grasslands in alkali sandy loam or clay soils. Suitable onsite
habitat for this plant species is limited because of the lack of alkali sandy loam or clay soils
across the site. Approximately 300 San Diego ambrosia individuals were mapped (an area less
than 5,000 .square feet) in the central portion of the site, near the eastern project boundary in a
small inclusion of sandy river terrace soils.
Paniculate tarplant. Paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata) is listed as a plant of limited
distribution (watch list) in California by the CNPS (CRPR List 4.2). This species occurs in
coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools. Suitable onsite habitat includes
Diegan coastal sage scrub located throughout the central and southern regions of the site and
grasslands located on the eastern perimeter of the project boundary. Paniculate tarplant was
observed while performing onsite surveys in the northern portion of the site in areas graded for
previous development.
TABLE 3.3-2
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL OCCURANCE WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE
PROJECT AREA
Species
Listing Status
MSHCP/USFWS/CDFW/
CNPS
General Habitat
Potential for Species
Occurrence within the
Project Area
Plants
Ambrosia pumila
San Diego ambrosia
NE/FE/--/1B.1 Perennial rhizomatous herb found
in chaparral, coastal scrub, valley
and foothill grassland in alkali
sandy loam or clay soils. Persist
where disturbance has been
superficial, sometimes near
margins. Occurs from 20 – 415 m
and blooms from April – October.
Present. Species found
onsite during the various
biological surveys.
Astragalus pachypus var.
laegeri
Jaeger’s bush milk-vetch
AC/--/--/1B.1 Associated with coastal scrub,
chaparral, valley and foothill
grasslands and cismontane
woodlands. Found at elevations
from 365 - 915 m.
Moderate. Suitable
habitat present;
however, not found
during focused surveys.
Calochortus plummerae
Plummer’s mariposa lily
AC/--/--/4.2 Found in coastal scrub, chaparral,
valley and foothill grasslands,
cismontane woodlands and lower
montane coniferous forests; occurs
on rocky or sandy sites, usually of
alluvial or granitic material;
common after fire. At elevations of
100 – 1700 m.
Moderate. Suitable
habitat present;
however, not found
during various biological
surveys.
Calochortus weedii var.
intermedius
intermediate mariposa lily
AC/--/--/1B.2 Perennial bulbiferous herb found in
coastal scrub, chaparral, valley
and foothill grassland on dry, rocky
open slopes and rock outcrops at
elevations of 120 - 850 m. Blooms
from May - July.
Moderate. Suitable
habitat present;
however, not found
during various biological
surveys.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-12 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
TABLE 3.3-2
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL OCCURANCE WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE
PROJECT AREA
Species
Listing Status
MSHCP/USFWS/CDFW/
CNPS
General Habitat
Potential for Species
Occurrence within the
Project Area
Chorizanthe parryi var.
parryi
Parry’s spineflower
AC/--/--/1B.1 Annual herb found in coastal scrub
and chaparral, sometimes on the
interface of two vegetation types.
Associated with dry, sandy soils,
dry slopes and flats from 275 –
1220 m. Blooms from April – June.
Moderate. Suitable
habitat present;
however, not found
during various biological
surveys.
Chorizanthe polygonoides
var. longispina
long-spined spineflower
AC/--/--/1B.2 Annual herb found in chaparral,
coastal scrub, meadows, valley
and foothill grassland in gabbroic
clay soils from 30 – 1530 m.
Blooms from April – July.
Moderate. Suitable
habitat present;
however, not found
during various biological
surveys.
Clarkia delicata
delicate clarkia
--/--/--/1B.2 Within cismontane and chaparral
habitats on gabbro soils 235 –
1000 m.
Moderate. Suitable
habitat present;
however, not found
during various biological
surveys.
Deinandra paniculata
paniculate tarplant
--/--/--/4.2 Annual herb found in coastal
scrub, valley and foothill grassland,
and vernal pools from 25 – 940 m.
Blooms from April – November.
Present. Species found
onsite during various
biological surveys.
Dichondra occidentalis
western dichondra
--/--/--/4.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb in
chaparral, cismontane woodlands,
coastal scrub, and valley and
foothill grasslands. Occurring at 20
– 500 m.
Moderate. Suitable
habitat present;
however, not found
during various biological
surveys.
Harpagonella palmeri
Palmer’s grapplinghook
AC/--/--/4.2 Annual herb found in chaparral,
coastal scrub, and valley and
foothill grassland from 20 – 955 m.
Blooms from March - May.
Moderate. Suitable
habitat present;
however, not found
during various biological
surveys.
Horkelia cuneata ssp.
puberula
mesa horkelia
--/--/--/1B.1 Perennial herb found in chaparral,
cismontane woodland and coastal
scrub habitats; found in gravelly or
sandy sites from 70 – 810 m.
Blooms from February -
September.
Moderate. Suitable
habitat present;
however, not found
during various biological
surveys.
Horkelia truncata
Ramona horkelia
--/--/--/1B.3 Found in chaparral and
cismontane woodland. Habitats in
California include mixed chaparral,
vernal streams, and disturbed
areas near roads. Clay soils at
elevations of 400 - 1300 m.
Moderate. Suitable
habitat present;
however, not found
during various biological
surveys.
Lepidium virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson’s pepper-grass
AC/--/--/4.3 Annual herb found in scrublands-
chaparral and coastal scrub; dry,
sandy soils from 1 – 885 m.
Blooms from January – July.
Moderate. Suitable
habitat present;
however, not found
during various biological
surveys.
Piperia cooperi
chaparral rein orchid
--/--/--/4.2 Perennial herb that grows in
chaparral, cismontane woodland,
and valley and foothill grasslands
at 15 – 1585 m.
Moderate. Suitable
habitat present;
however, not found
during various biological
surveys.
Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
white rabbit-tobacco
--/--/--/2B.2 Perennial herb found in chaparral,
cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, and riparian woodland from
0 – 2,100 m. Blooms from July –
December.
Moderate. Suitable
habitat present;
however, not found
during various biological
surveys.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-13 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
TABLE 3.3-2
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL OCCURANCE WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE
PROJECT AREA
Species
Listing Status
MSHCP/USFWS/CDFW/
CNPS
General Habitat
Potential for Species
Occurrence within the
Project Area
Selaginella cinerascens
ashy spike-moss
--/--/--/4.1 Perennial rhizomatous herb in
chaparral and coastal scrub.
Found at elevations of 20 – 640 m.
Moderate. Suitable
habitat present;
however, not found
during various biological
surveys.
Western Riverside County MSHCP
Plants
CA = Criteria Area Plant Species under the MSHCP - additional focused surveys may be required if directed to do so by the Conservation
Report Generator and suitable habitat exists onsite
NE = Narrow Endemic Plant Species under the MSHCP - additional focused surveys may be required if directed to do so by the
Conservation Report Generator and suitable habitat exists onsite
AC = Species Adequately Conserved under the MSHCP (subject to the terms and conditions in the MSHCP [Table 2-2])
AS = Additional Surveys required
Federal Status (USFWS) State of California (CDFW)
FE – Federally listed as endangered SE – State-listed as endangered
FT – Federally listed as threatened ST – State-listed as threatened
FC – Federal candidate for listing
DE - Delisted
California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
1B – plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, and elsewhere
2 – plants are rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere
3 – plants about which more information is needed
4 – plants of limited distribution, a watch list
.1 – Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)
.2 – Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
.3 - Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known)
Special-Status Wildlife
A total of 52 special-status wildlife species were recorded within a nine-quadrangle query of the
CNDDB and USFWS GIS database (USFWS, 2015). The potential of these species to occur
within the project area is based on the sites’ vegetation communities and the results of the various
biological surveys. The site is within the CASSA for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia).
Protocol surveys for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) were conducted in spring of 2007 and
spring of 2014 by Helix. No burrowing owls were encountered during the focused surveys.
Environmental conditions within the project area are considered suitable for 19 of the 52 special-
status species recorded in the region, of which six have been documented onsite. Appendix C1 of
this EIR provides a listing of these special-status species and the potential for each of the species
identified in the CNDDB and USFWS to occur onsite. The categorizations for the potential for a
wildlife species to occur onsite are as follows:
Low Potential: The project site and/or immediate vicinity provides low quality habitat for a
particular species, such as improper disturbed or otherwise degraded habitat, improper
assemblage of desired vegetation, and/or the site is outside of the known range of the species.
Moderate Potential: The project site and/or immediate vicinity provides suitable habitat for
a particular species. For example, proper habitat may be present, but the desired vegetation
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-14 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
assemblage or density is less than ideal; or habitat suitable, but the site is outside of the
known range of the species.
High Potential: The project site and/or immediate vicinity provide high quality or ideal
habitat (i.e., vegetation assemblage and topography) for a particular species and/or there are
known occurrences in the general vicinity of the project site.
Present: The species was observed within the project site and/or immediate vicinity during
surveys or the species has been previously reported within the project area.
TABLE 3.3-3
SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL OCCURANCE WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE
PROJECT AREA
Species
Listing Status
MSHCP/USFWS/CDFW
General Habitat
Potential for Species
Occurrence within the
Project Area
Arthropods
Reptiles
Aspidoscelis hyperythra
orange-throated whiptail
AC/--/SC Inhabits low-elevation coastal
scrub, chaparral and valley-foothill
hardwood habitats, prefers washes
and other sandy areas with
patches of brush and rocks.
High. Suitable habitat
occurs onsite; however,
this species was not
observed during various
biological surveys.
Crotalus ruber rubber
northern red-diamond
rattlesnake
AC/--/SC Found in chaparral, woodland,
grassland and desert areas.
Occurs in rocky, dense vegetation,
requires rodent burrows, cracks in
rocks or surface cover objects.
High. Suitable habitat
occurs onsite; however,
this species was not
observed during various
biological surveys. .
Phrynosoma
blainvillei
coast horned lizard
AC/--/SC Found in chaparral, coastal sage
scrub grassland, and wash
habitats. Sandy, rocky or gravelly
soils; friable soils.
High. Suitable habitat
occurs onsite.
Birds
Accipiter cooperi
Cooper’s hawk
AC/--/WL Found in riparian areas, and open
woodlands, chiefly of open,
interrupted or marginal type. Nests
in riparian growths of deciduous
trees and live oak woodlands.
Present. This species
was observed onsite.
Aimophila ruficeps
canescens
southern California rufous-
crowned sparrow
AC/--/WL Found in coastal sage scrub and
sparse, mixed chaparral, frequents
relatively steep, often rocky
hillsides with grass and forb
patches.
Moderate. Suitable
habitat occurs onsite;
however, this species
was not detected during
various biological
surveys.
Artemisiospiza belli belli
Bell's sage sparrow
AC/--/WL Lives in shrubland and chaparral
dominated by chamise or
California sagebrush in foothills
and coastal ranges. Nests either
on the ground or within shrubs
about three feet above ground-
level.
HIgh. Suitable habitat
occurs onsite; however,
this species was not
detected during various
biological surveys.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-15 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
TABLE 3.3-3
SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL OCCURANCE WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE
PROJECT AREA
Species
Listing Status
MSHCP/USFWS/CDFW
General Habitat
Potential for Species
Occurrence within the
Project Area
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
AC/--/ST Breed in desert, shrub steppe,
agricultural, and grassland
habitats. Nests in a variety of tree
species in existing riparian forests,
remnant riparian trees, shade trees
at residences and alongside roads,
planted windbreaks, and solitary
upland oaks. Typically do not nest
in large continuous patches of
woodland other than along edges
next to open habitats.
Moderate (nesting).
Suitable habitat occurs
onsite; however, this
species was not
detected during various
biological surveys.
Circus cyaneus
northern harrier
AC/--/SC Nests on ground in shrubby
vegetation, usually at marsh edge,
nest built of a large mound of
sticks in wet areas. Forages in
grassland, from salt grass in desert
sink to mountain marshes.
Present. This species
was observed flying
overhead onsite. Not
expected to breed
onsite.
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
AC/--/FP Nests near wet meadows and
open grasslands, dense oak,
willow or other tree stands.
Present. This species
was observed onsite.
Eremophila alpestris actia
California horned lark
AC/--/WL Found in short-grass prairie, “bald”
hills, mountain meadows, open
coastal plains, fallow grain fields
and alkali flats.
Present. This species
was observed onsite.
Icteria virens
yellow-breasted chat
AC/--/SC Nests in riparian forest, riparian
woodland and riparian scrub.
High. Suitable habitat
occurs onsite near
Santa Margarita River;
however, this species
was not detected during
various biological
surveys.
Lanius ludovicianus
loggerhead shrike
AC/--/SC Occurs in open habitats utilizing
shrubs, trees, pots, fences, and
low utility lines for perches,
specifically prefers open foothill
and valley woodlands with some
canopy and foraging perches.
Forages in edge habitats, and in
particular prefers shrubs adjacent
to grasslands.
Moderate. Suitable
habitat occurs onsite;
however, this species
was not detected during
various biological
surveys.
Polioptila californica
californica
coastal California
gnatcatcher
AC/FT/SC Coastal sage scrub habitat in arid
washes, on mesas or on slopes of
coastal hills. Permanent resident of
coastal sage scrub below 2500 ft.
Present. A single
California gnatcatcher
was observed during the
least Bell's vireo
surveys.
Setophaga petechia
yellow warbler
AC/--/SC Nests in riparian vegetation,
particularly well-defined forests.
Present. Suitable
habitat occurs onsite
near Santa Margarita
River; this species was
detected during various
biological surveys.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-16 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
TABLE 3.3-3
SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL OCCURANCE WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE
PROJECT AREA
Species
Listing Status
MSHCP/USFWS/CDFW
General Habitat
Potential for Species
Occurrence within the
Project Area
Vireo bellii pusillus
least Bell’s vireo
AS/FE/SE Low riparian vegetation near
vicinity of water or dry river
bottoms, below 2000ft. Nests are
placed along margins of bushes or
on twigs projecting into pathways,
usually willow, baccharis or
mesquite.
Moderate. Suitable
habitat occurs onsite
near Santa Margarita
River; however, focused
surveys were performed
in 2014 and this species
was not detected.
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
AC/--/SC Found in deserts, grasslands,
woodlands, and forests. Most
common in open, dry habitats with
rocky areas for roosting.
Moderate. Suitable
habitat occurs onsite;
however, this species
was not observed during
various biological
surveys.
Chaetodipus fallax fallax
northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
AC-/--/SC Found in coastal scrub, chaparral,
grasslands, sagebrush, etc.
Moderate. Suitable
habitat occurs onsite;
however, this species
was not observed during
various biological
surveys.
Puma concolor
Mountain lion
AS/--/SC Needs large tracks of open space
and suitable cover.
Present. Radio tracking
studies have shown
mountain lion use
directly adjacent to
project.
Lepus californicus bennettii
San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
AC/--/SC Associated with open grassland
and brushland, and coastal sage
scrub habitats in southern
California
Moderate. Suitable
habitat occurs onsite;
however, this species
was not observed during
various biological
surveys.
Legend:
Western Riverside County MSHCP
Wildlife
WS = Wetland Species under the MSHCP – additional surveys may be required as part of wetlands mapping per the MSHCP
AS = Additional surveys may be required for these species within locations shown on survey maps as described in Section 6.3.2 of the
MSHCP.
AC = Adequately Conserved Species under the MSHCP (subject to the terms and conditions in the MSHCP [Table 2-2 footnotes ‘e’ & ‘f’])
Federal Status (USFWS) State of California (CDFW)
FE – Federally listed as endangered SE – State-listed as endangered
FT – Federally listed as threatened ST – State-listed as threatened
FC – Federal candidate for listing FP – Fully protected species
DE - Delisted SC – State Species of Special Concern
WL – Watch List Species
As shown in Table 3.3-3, 13 special-status wildlife species have a moderate potential to occur
onsite and six species were observed or detected onsite during the various biological surveys.
Wildlife species that were observed onsite are discussed in more detail below.
Cooper’s hawk. Cooper's hawk is on the CDFW Watch List and is “Adequately Conserved”
under the MSHCP. This species inhabits and nests in riparian forests and live oak woodlands.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-17 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
Suitable habitat onsite includes a small band of riparian woodland that runs adjacent to the Santa
Margarita River and is located along the southern border of the project area and coast live oak
woodland scattered throughout the southeast boundary. Cooper’s hawk was detected while
performing onsite surveys and is noted as present.
Northern harrier. The northern harrier is a CDFW Species of Special Concern and is
“Adequately Conserved” under the MSHCP. This species nests in shrubby vegetation near
marshes and forages in grasslands. Suitable onsite habitat for the northern harrier is located in the
small strip of riparian habitat that runs along the southern border of the project area, as well as the
grasslands, located along the eastern boundary. The northern harrier was detected while
performing onsite surveys and is noted as present.
White-tailed kite. The white-tailed kite is Fully Protected under the CDFW and is listed as
“Adequately Conserved” under the MSHCP. This species is commonly found in oak woodlands,
grasslands, meadows, and marshes. Suitable habitat onsite includes coast live oak woodlands
scattered throughout the southern portion of the site and grasslands located primarily near the
eastern border of the project area. The white-tailed kite was detected while performing onsite
surveys and is noted as present.
California horned lark. The California horned lark is on the CDFW Watch List and is
“Adequately Conserved” under the MSHCP. The California horned lark inhabits short-grass
prairies, mountain meadows, and open coastal plains. Suitable habitat onsite includes grasslands
located primarily on the eastern boundary of the project area. The California horned lark was
detected while performing onsite surveys and is noted as present.
Coastal California gnatcatcher. The coastal California gnatcatcher is listed as federally
Threatened by the USFWS, Species of Special Concern by the CDFW, and “Adequately
Conserved” under the MSHCP. The coastal California gnatcatcher inhabits coastal sage scrub in
arid washes, mesas, and slopes of coastal hills. Suitable onsite habitat for this species is located
within the Diegan coastal sage scrub community that is dominant throughout the central and
southern portion of the project area. One individual was detected during one of the focused
surveys for the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus).
Yellow warbler. The yellow warbler is a CDFW Species of Special Concern and is “Adequately
Conserved” under the MSHCP. This species requires a close proximity to water and generally
inhabits and nests in riparian habitats, often within willows and cottonwoods. Suitable onsite
habitat includes a small band of riparian woodland that runs adjacent to the Santa Margarita River
near the southern border of the project area; and the yellow warbler was observed during focused
surveys for the least Bell’s vireo.
Mountain lion. In California, the mountain lion is legally classified as a California Specially
Protected Species and is Adequately Conserved under the MSHCP. They need large tracks of
open space and suitable cover and are known to occur within the Santa Rosa Plateau and
surrounding ecological areas. University of California (UC) Davis Wildlife Health Center
Southern California Mountain Lion Project (MLP), run by Dr. Winston Vickers, actively
monitors mountain lion movement in the immediate vicinity using radio collars. Recent mountain
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-18 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
lion location data has been examined and findings incorporated into this analysis. Mountain lions
have been recorded directly adjacent to the south and east project boundaries within Murrieta
Creek and the Santa Margarita River. The nearest recorded citing to the east of the project was
near the eastern border of the South Parcel (Figure 10a, Appendix C). Data points collected by
MLP have documented mountain lion to utilize the escarpment, plateau and Santa Margarita
River for travel and live-in habitat; one instance documented travel in the southern portion of
Murrieta Creek.
Jurisdictional Resources (Wetlands and Waters)
As shown on Figure 9 of Appendix C, the project site contains a network of ephemeral drainages
supporting upland (non-riparian) vegetation that traverse the site from west to east; all of which
are tributary to Murrieta Creek. Riparian habitat occurs in scattered stands along a handful of
drainages in the southern half of the area, as well as in one area adjacent to the Santa Margarita
River. The functions of the upland-vegetated ephemeral drainages (riverine habitat) are primarily
water conveyance, sediment transport, and energy dissipation (hydrologic regime and flood
attenuation). The vegetated drainages (riparian habitat) also provide the same functions as the
unvegetated drainages, along with toxicant trapping and filtering, and live-in habitat for various
animal species.
A formal jurisdictional delineation was conducted by Helix on April 12, 2013. Table 3.3-4
summarizes the results of the delineation report, which is included in Appendix M of this Draft
EIR.
TABLE 3.3-4
WETLANDS AND WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (USACE)/STATE OF CALIFORNIA (RWQCB)
Jurisdictional Area Acres Length (feet)
Wetland Waters
Riparian Woodland 0.49 442
Non-Wetland Waters
Non-Wetland 0.70 16,349
TOTAL 1.19 16,791
SOURCE: Helix, 2015a
Federal Jurisdiction
Waters of the U.S. under USACE jurisdiction within the project area total 1.19 acres, including
0.70 acre of non-wetland Waters of the U.S. (ephemeral drainages) and 0.49 acre of Wetland
Waters of the U.S., which consist of riparian woodlands including southern willow scrub and
coast live oak habitat (Appendix M).
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-19 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
State and County Jurisdiction
Waters of the State under the RWQCB jurisdiction within the project area are the same as the
USACE, and total 1.17 acres, including 0.70 acre of non-wetland Waters of the State (ephemeral
drainages) and 0.49 acre of Wetland Waters of the State (riparian woodland) (Appendix M), as
depicted in Table 3.3-4 above.
Areas under CDFW jurisdiction within the project area total 2.56 acres, including 0.49 acre of
riparian woodland, 0.38 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.08 acre of herbaceous wetland, 0.64 acre
of coast live oak woodland, and 0.97 acre of streambed. All of the CDFW areas are considered
Riparian/Riverine under the MSHCP, as depicted in Table 3.3-5 below.
TABLE 3.3-5
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE JURISDICTIONAL STREAMBED AND MSHCP
RIPARIAN/RIVERINE RESOURCES
Jurisdictional Area Acres Length (feet)
Riparian Woodland 0.49 442
Southern willow scrub 0.38 369
Herbaceous wetland 0.08 136
Coast live oak woodland 0.64 291
Streambed 0.97 15,553
TOTAL 2.56 16,791
SOURCE: Helix, 2015a
Wildlife Movement Corridors
The main features described in the conservation language of the MSHCP Criteria Cells/Cell
Groups affected by the project are wildlife movement corridors that include Proposed Linkage 10
(upland and Santa Margarita River), and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek).
Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 consists of portions of Temecula and Pechanga Creek to the
east of the project site and terminates at Interstate 15, approximately 1,800 feet southeast of the
southern boundary of the South Parcel; thus, this linkage would not be affected by the project.
Proposed Constrained Linkage 9, Proposed Constrained Linkage 10, Proposed Constrained
Linkage 11, and Proposed Constrained Linkage 12 also provide additional linkages west of the
project site from the Santa Rosa Plateau to San Diego County to the south, which eventually
connects with the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, and potentially to the Palomar Mountains
to the east. Combined, these linkages provide valuable redundancy of connections between the
Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve.
The vegetation communities targeted for conservation in the Criteria Cell language provide the
guidelines for the proposed linkages. The conceptual location of proposed linkages in the
MSHCP and in the vicinity of the project is shown in Figure 3.3-1. The following is a description
of each proposed linkage affected by the project.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-20 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
16
18
14
17
9 10
15
11
14
17
13
11 24
18
14
9 12 10
13
8
E
A
MA
F
A
G
J
B
7
2
7
65
3
JPR Log No. 14-05-27-01
!^
Proposed Linkages
Constrained Linkage
Linkage
!!!!!!Existing Channel
Existing Cores & Linkages
Constrained Linkage
Core
Linkage
Proposed Cores & Habitat Blocks
Core
Proposed Extension of Existing Cores
Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 3.3-1
MSHCP Proposed Linkages
and Core Areas
SOURCE: Dudek
0 4
Miles
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
Proposed Linkage1 10
As described in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP, Proposed Linkage 10 consists of an upland
connection in the southwest region of the Plan Area extending from Existing Core F (Santa Rosa
Plateau Ecological Reserve) in the north to Existing Core G (Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve)
in the south. Private lands compose the entirety of the linkage, which consists of upland habitat
complementary to the riparian linkage provided between these two Cores by Proposed
Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek). This linkage, which is only somewhat constrained by
existing urban development, provides for movement between these two Cores for species such as
bobcat and mountain lion. Although the linkage is somewhat lengthy at 5.5 miles, it is also nearly
a mile wide and thus provides live-in habitat for many species. Surrounding planned land uses are
somewhat evenly divided between Rural Mountainous and City (Murrieta and Temecula). In
areas of the linkage bordering cities, treatment of edge conditions will be necessary to maintain
the proper habitat and movement functions of the linkage. Guidelines pertaining to
Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge factors such as lighting, urban runoff,
toxics, and domestic predators are presented in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. These Guidelines
are further discussed below under the heading Habitat Conservation Planning – MSHCP.
Based on a review of current aerial photographs (Google Earth Pro [date: 1/8/2013]) as well as
2002 aerial photographs (Google Earth [date: 5/21/2002]), the existing conditions of Proposed
Linkage 10 have only changed slightly since adoption of the MSHCP. Rural, residential
development currently exists to the west of the project that was not included in the original
description of Proposed Linkage 10 in the MSHCP although the 2002 aerial photograph shows a
very similar rural residential and agricultural matrix to what is present today. The original
description of the linkage being nearly a mile wide is still applicable if one includes the rural
residential areas (which includes the escarpment and top of escarpment) that wildlife still use as a
movement corridor. Proposed Linkage 10 wraps around the South Parcel and connects with
Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 which encompasses the Murrieta Creek corridor.
Proposed Constrained2 Linkage 13
Per Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP, Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 consists of Murrieta Creek,
located in the southwestern region of the Plan Area. Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 connects
Existing Core F (Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve) in the north to Proposed Linkage 10.
This linkage is constrained along most of its length by existing urban development and
agricultural use, as well as the planned land use surrounding the linkage. This linkage ranges in
width from 1,800 to 2,500 feet. The majority of the project lies outside of this linkage except for
the South Parcel which proposes development near Murrieta Creek. Guidelines pertaining to
Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge factors such as lighting, urban runoff,
toxics, and domestic predators, in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, and discussed under Habitat
1 Linkage means a connection between Core Areas with adequate size, configuration and vegetation characteristics to
generally provide for “live-in” habitat and/or provide for genetic flow for identified Planning Species. Areas
identified as Linkages in the MSHCP may provide movement habitat but not live-in habitat for some species,
thereby functioning more as movement corridors. It is expected that every Linkage will provide Live-In Habitat for
at least one species. 2 Constrained Linkage means a constricted connection expected to provide for movement of identified Planning
Species between Core Areas, where options for assembly of the connection are limited due to existing patterns of
use.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-22 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
Conservation Planning – MSHCP, below, are directly applicable to Proposed Constrained
Linkage 13.
Maintaining high quality riparian habitat within the linkage and along the edges for species such
as yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, and least Bell’s vireo, which have key populations
located in or along the creek is a high priority. Maintenance of existing floodplain processes and
water quality along the creek is also important to the western pond turtle and the arroyo chub in
this area.
Western Bypass
The project proposes to construct the Western Bypass, a proposed four-lane thoroughfare along
the western boundary of the project that would allow through-traffic to bypass Old Town
Temecula and help relieve traffic congestion. The Western Bypass was initially identified in the
City’s 1991 General Plan and is currently reflected in the Circulation Element of the City’s 2005
General Plan. The approved alignment starts at the future approved bridge that will cross
Murrieta Creek at Temecula Parkway, and runs west then north, parallel to and west of the project
boundary, continuing north of the project site along the undeveloped escarpment. The Western
Bypass is a Covered Activity3 under the MSHCP, and its approved alignment was determined to
be consistent with the goals for Proposed Linkage 10.
As part of the project, the current approved route of the Western Bypass would be realigned to
move the roadway further east and to reroute the northern portion through the project site,
connecting with Vincent Moraga Road and ultimately to Rancho California Road on the north.
This re-alignment reduces the roadway length from approximately 2.7 miles to 1.3 miles. This
EIR analyzes the impacts of the Western Bypass on the environment, and compares the impact of
the currently approved alignment with the project’s proposed alignment. The future bridge over
Murrieta Creek would be constructed by the developer of Altair along with the construction of the
Western Bypass as proposed, to complete the connection of the Western Bypass with Temecula
Parkway. However, the environmental analysis in this EIR does not include impacts associated
with the future bridge over Murrieta Creek as these impacts were previously analyzed in an
approved Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (City of Temecula, 2009; SCH No.
2009061038). A General Plan Amendment for the proposed roadway re-alignment is being
requested by the project applicant.
Habitat Conservation Planning – MSHCP
The following section summarizes the existing conditions of the project as they relate to the
MSHCP, specifically the implementation structure described in Sections 3.0 and 6.0 of the
MSHCP. A detailed discussion of each section is also included in Appendix C of this EIR.
3 Covered Activities means certain activities carried out or conducted by Permittees, Participating Special Entities,
Third Parties Granted Take Authorization and others within the Plan Area, and described in Section 7.0 of the
MSHCP, that will receive Take Authorization under the Section 10(a) Permit and the NCCP Permit, provided these
activities are otherwise lawful.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-23 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
MSHCP Subunits and Criteria Cells – MSHCP Section 3.0
The project is within the Southwest Area Plan; Subunit 1 – Murrieta Creek and Subunit 6 – Santa
Rosa Plateau. Figure 3.3-2 shows the MSHCP Subunits in relation to the project. The following
are conservation goals within these Subunits that relate to the project.
Subunit 1: Murrieta Creek
• Maintain habitat connectivity within Murrieta Creek from the confluence of Temecula
Creek to Cole Creek for wildlife movement and Conservation of wetland species.
• Maintain linkage area for bobcat.
• Maintain habitat connectivity within Murrieta Creek from the confluence of Temecula
• Maintain the area of Murrieta Creek at the confluence of Pechanga Creek, Temecula
Creek, and Santa Margarita River for mountain lion Linkage.
Subunit 6: Santa Rosa Plateau
• Conserve large blocks of woodland and forest habitat.
• Maintain Core and Linkage Habitat for bobcat.
• Maintain Core and Linkage Habitat for mountain lion.
Figure 3.3-3 shows the location of Criteria Cells in relation to the project. A portion of the
project site lies in Cell Group K’ (Cell Numbers 7077 and 7161). The remainder of the project
site lies in Independent Cells (Cell Numbers 7078, 7164, 7166, 7258, 7264, 7355, and 7356).
Table 3.3-6 (shown later in this section) provides a summary of the MSHCP’s Cell conservation
criteria and the project’s land area within each Cell. The MSHCP proposes to conserve upland
habitats in Cell Group K’ and Cells 7164, 7166, 7258, 7264, 7355, and 7356 in order to
contribute to the assembly of Proposed Linkage 10, as well as riparian habitats in Cells 7078,
7166, and 7264 to contribute to the assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta
Creek).
The MSHCP proposes that upland habitat within Cell Group K’ and each of the Cells listed above
remain connected as part of Proposed Linkage 10. Additionally Cell Group K’ is proposed to be
connected to upland habitat in Cell Group J’ to the west.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-24 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
S a n t a M a r g a r i t a R i v e r
Via Santa Rosa C a m i n o E s t r i b o
Temecula
Parkway
R
R a n c h o C a l i f o r n i a R o a d
W i n c h e s t e r R o a d
W
a
s
hin
gto
n A
v
e
n
u
e
R
a
n
c
h
o C
alifornia R
o
a
d
SU5 - French Valley/
Lower Sed co Hills
SU1 - Murrieta Creek
Not a Part
Not a Part
Not a Part
Not a Part
Not a Part
Not a Part
SU1 - Murrieta Cre ekSU6 - Santa Rosa Pla teau
SU6 - Santa Rosa Pla teau
SU6 - Santa Ros a Plateau
SU6 -
Santa Rosa Plateau
15
79
Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 3.3-2
MSHCP Subunits
SOURCE: Helix Environmental Planning
Boundary
MSHCP Subunits
Approved I-15/SR-79 Interchange
Approved Western Bypass Bridge Crossing
0 4000
Feet
Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 3.3-3
MSHCP Criteria Cells
and Cell Group
SOURCE: Dudek
0 2000
Feet
Cell with Unique ID
Cell Group with Identifier
Proposed Development
Proposed MSHCP Conservation
American Indian Lands (Not a Part)
Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands
Preexisting Conservation Agreements
San Jacinto Wildlife Area Additional Acquisition
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
TABLE 3.3-6
MSHCP CONSERVATION CRITERIA
Cell
Group
Cell
Number
USGS
Section
Acre(s)
On Site
Cell/Cell Group Conservation Criteria Project Location In
Cell/Cell Group
K’ 7077 11 (NW) 8.1 Conservation within this Cell Group will
contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage
10. Conservation within this Cell Group will
focus on chaparral and grassland habitat.
Areas conserved within this Cell Group will
be connected to chaparral habitat proposed
for conservation in Cell Group J' to the west
and in Cell #7164 to the east. Conservation
within this Cell Group will range from 35-45
percent of the Cell Group focusing in the
northern portion of the Cell Group.
The property lies along
the eastern edge of the
Cell Group and
encompasses
approximately 1.7 percent
of the Cell Group (8.1
acres). No conservation
is proposed.
7161 11 (SW)
7254† 14 (NW)
7078 11 (NE) 3.9 Conservation within this Cell will contribute
to assembly of Proposed Constrained
Linkage 13. Conservation within this Cell
will focus on riparian scrub, woodland, and
forest habitat along Murrieta Creek. Areas
conserved within this Cell will be connected
to riparian scrub, woodland, and forest
habitat proposed for conservation in Cell
#7021 to the north and in Cell #7079 to the
east. Conservation within this Cell will
range from 15-25 percent of the Cell
focusing in the northeastern portion of the
Cell.
The property lies in the
southwest portion of the
Cell and encompasses
approximately 2.5 percent
of the Cell (3.9 acres).
7164 11 (SE) 92.3 Conservation within this Cell will contribute
to assembly of Proposed Linkage 10.
Conservation within this Cell will focus on
chaparral and grassland habitat. Areas
conserved within this Cell will be connected
to chaparral habitat proposed for
conservation in Cell Group K' to the west, in
Cell #7258 to the south, and in Cell #7166 to
the east. Conservation within this Cell will
range from 70-80 percent of the Cell
focusing in the southwestern portion of the
Cell.
The property
encompasses
57.8 percent of Cell 7164
(92.3 acres).
7166 12 (SW) 27.6 Conservation within this Cell will contribute
to assembly of Proposed Constrained
Linkage 13 and Proposed Linkage
10.Conservation within this Cell will focus on
riparian scrub, woodland, forest, and
grassland habitat along Murrieta Creek and
on additional chaparral habitat within the
Cell. Areas conserved within this Cell will be
connected to riparian scrub, woodland and
forest habitat proposed for conservation in
Cell #7079 to the north, to chaparral,
grassland, riparian scrub, woodland and
forest habitat proposed for conservation in
Cell #7264 to the south and to chaparral
habitat proposed for conservation in Cell
#7164 to the west. Conservation within this
Cell will range from 35-45 percent of the Cell
focusing in the southwestern portion of the
Cell.
The property
encompasses
17.2 percent of Cell 7166
(27.6 acres in the
southwest corner).
7258 14 (NE) 5.3 Conservation within this Cell will contribute
to assembly of Proposed Linkage 10.
Conservation within this Cell will focus on
chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat.
Areas conserved within this Cell will be
connected to chaparral habitat proposed for
The property lies in the
northeast portion of
Cell 7258 and
encompasses 3.3 percent
of the Cell (5.3 acres).
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-27 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
TABLE 3.3-6
MSHCP CONSERVATION CRITERIA
Cell
Group
Cell
Number
USGS
Section
Acre(s)
On Site
Cell/Cell Group Conservation Criteria Project Location In
Cell/Cell Group
conservation in Cell #7164 to the north and
to chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat
proposed for conservation in Cell #7264 to
the east. Conservation within this Cell will
range from 30-40 percent of the Cell
focusing in the northeastern portion of the
Cell.
7264 13 (NW) 68.3 Conservation within this Cell will contribute
to assembly of Proposed Constrained
Linkage 13 and Proposed Linkage 10.
Conservation within this Cell will focus on
riparian scrub, woodland, forest, grassland,
and coastal sage scrub habitat along
Murrieta Creek and on additional chaparral,
grassland and coastal sage scrub habitat
within the Cell. Areas conserved within this
Cell will be connected to grassland, riparian
scrub, woodland, forest, and chaparral
habitat proposed for conservation in Cell
#7166 to the north and to chaparral and
coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for
conservation in Cell #7258 to the west and
Cell #7355 to the south. Conservation
within this Cell will range from 70-80 percent
of the Cell focusing in the western portion
and eastern edge of the Cell.
The property
encompasses
42.7 percent of the Cell
(68.3 acres).
7355 13 (SW) 34.3 Conservation within this Cell will contribute
to assembly of Proposed Linkage 10.
Conservation within this Cell will focus on
chaparral, woodland, forest, and coastal
sage scrub habitat. Areas conserved within
this Cell will be connected to chaparral and
coastal sage scrub habitat proposed for
conservation in Cell #7264 to the north and
Cell #7356 to the east. Conservation within
this Cell will range from 40-50 percent of the
Cell focusing in the northeastern portion of
the Cell.
The property
encompasses
21.5 percent of the
northeast portion of the
Cell (34.3 acres).
7356 13 (SE) 31.0 Conservation within this Cell will contribute
to assembly of Proposed Linkage 10 and
Proposed Constrained Linkage 13.
Conservation within this Cell will focus on
chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat
and on riparian scrub, woodland, and forest
habitat along Temecula Creek. Areas
conserved within this Cell will be connected
to chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat
proposed for conservation in Cell #7355 to
the west and to riparian scrub, woodland,
and forest habitat proposed for conservation
in Cell #7357 to the east. Conservation
within this Cell will range from 50-60 percent
of the Cell focusing in the western and
southeastern portions of the Cell.
The property lies in the
western and southwestern
portions of Cell 7356 and
encompasses
19.4 percent of the Cell
(31.0 acres).
†Not a part of the project
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-28 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Resources – MSHCP Section 6.1.2
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP focuses on protection of Riparian/Riverine areas and Vernal Pool
habitats capable of supporting MSHCP Covered Species.
Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitats
As shown in Table 3.3-1, there are 2.56 acres of Riparian/Riverine habitat within the project area,
which includes 0.97 acre of unvegetated streambed. Riparian habitat occurs in scattered stands
along a handful of drainages in the southern half of the project site, as well as in one area adjacent
to the Santa Margarita River. The property does not support vernal pools but does have a few
small basins and road ruts that ponded water immediately following rain events (Appendix C). As
noted, these human-made features do not qualify as Riparian/Riverine or Vernal Pools under the
MSHCP, and do not possess habitat indicators that would support vernal pools.
Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Plants
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP provides a list of plant species that have potential to occur in
Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool habitats, and require further analysis outside of surveys and
analyses required by Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2. The MSHCP lists 23 sensitive plant species that
have potential to occur in Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool habitats as defined in Section 6.1.2
of the MSHCP, which includes the following species:
• California black walnut (Juglans californica var. californica)
• Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii)
• Coulter’s matilija poppy (Romneya coulteri)
• San Miguel savory (Clinopodium chandleri)
• Spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis)
• Graceful tarplant (Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata)
• California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica)
• Prostrate navarretia (Navarretia prostrata)
• San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii)
• Orcutt’s brodiaea (Brodiaea orcuttii)
• Thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia)
• Fish’s milkwort (Polygala cornuta var. fishiae)
• Lemon lily (Lilium parryi)
• San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior)
• Oscillated Humboldt lily (Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum)
• Mojave tarplant (Deinandra mohavensis)
• Vernal barley (Hordeum intercedens)
• Parish’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes gracilis var. parishii)
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-29 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
• Slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras)
• Santa Ana River woolly-star (Eriastrum densifolium spp. sanctorum)
• Brand’s phacelia (Phacelia stellaris)
• Mud nama (Nama stenocarpum)
• Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens)
Lemon lily, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, Mojave tarplant, Parish’s meadowfoam, Santa Ana
River woolly-star, and Brand’s phacelia have known distributions well above the elevations of the
project, occur well north or east of the project, and were not observed during the various
biological surveys conducted by Helix. These species are not discussed further in this EIR. The
remaining species have a distribution that encompasses the project site or that occur in vegetation
communities/habitats found on or near the project. The non-herbaceous species (e.g., trees and
shrubs) are identifiable regardless of the time of year; however, they were not observed during the
various biological surveys and are therefore not discussed further in this EIR. These include
Engelmann oak, California black walnut, San Miguel savory, Coulter’s matilija poppy, and Fish’s
milkwort.
Spreading navarretia, California Orcutt grass, prostrate navarretia, San Diego button-celery,
thread-leaved brodiaea, Orcutt’s brodiaea, vernal barley, and smooth tarplant are associated with
vernal pools, mesic clay substrate, saline flats and depressions, mesic grasslands, playas, or
similar habitats. However, none of these species were found during the Riparian/Riverine and
Vernal Pool habitat assessments or other surveys onsite conducted by Helix. They are not
expected to occur because no vernal pools were found onsite.
The four remaining species (graceful tarplant, oscillated Humboldt lily, slender-horned spine
flower, and mud nama) are herbaceous species that would have been in flower and readily
identifiable during the surveys; however, they were not observed during the various biological
surveys. These species are each discussed in greater detail below and include specific habitat
information that greatly decreases their probability of occurrence onsite.
Graceful tarplant has a fairly scattered distribution, with known occurrences concentrated within
the Santa Ana Mountains and Foothills, primarily within U.S. Forest Service lands (Helix 2015a).
Within western Riverside County, graceful tarplant is restricted to coastal scrub, chaparral,
cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grasslands at
elevations below 600 meters (1,969 feet). The species has a low potential to occur onsite as it was
not observed during the various biological surveys conducted when the species would have been
in flower and readily identifiable.
Oscillated Humboldt lily occurs in openings in oak canyons, chaparral, and yellow pine forest.
Within western Riverside County, this species is restricted to canyons along the east slope of the
Santa Ana Mountains and the north slope of the Palomar Mountains. The project site does not
support suitable canyon habitat for the species and is located outside of the known range of the
species.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-30 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
Slender-horned spineflower occurs in chaparral and coastal sage scrub on alluvial fans; however,
this habitat subset is absent from the project site.
Three populations of mud nama are known from Riverside County, with two occurring along the
San Jacinto River. Mud nama is restricted to muddy embankments of marshes and swamps and
within lake margins and riverbanks; however, this habitat does not exist within the project site
and this species was not observed during various biological surveys.
Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Wildlife
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP lists 11 special-status wildlife species that have potential to occur in
Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool habitats in the region, which includes the following species:
• Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni)
• Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)
• Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae)
• Arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus)
• Mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa)
• California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii)
• Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
• Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)
• Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)
• Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)
• Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis)
The property does not support vernal pools but does have a few small basins and road ruts that
were documented holding ponded water immediately following a rain event in March 2007. As
noted, these human-made features do not qualify as Riparian/Riverine or Vernal Pools under
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. The NRCS soil data reports these soils as "well drained", highly
permeable soil and are not suitable for vernal pool development. Nonetheless, the applicant
conducted wet-season and dry-season surveys for Riverside fairy shrimp and vernal pool fairy
shrimp in 2014-2015 (Helix 2015f and 2015g). These surveys were negative.
The Santa Ana sucker is restricted to perennial streams in the Santa Ana River watershed.
Perennial streams do not occur within the project area and the USFWS species profile shows that
the Santa Ana sucker is not known to occur south of Lake Mathews (Helix, 2015a).
No suitable habitat for the three amphibian species (arroyo toad, mountain yellow-legged frog, or
California red-legged frog) occurs within the project area. Therefore, such species do not have a
potential to occur.
No appropriate habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher or yellow-billed cuckoo occurs within
the project area. A small amount of riparian woodland suitable for least Bell’s vireo occurs at the
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-31 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
southern tip of the project area; however, this habitat would not be impacted by the project.
Several small patches of riparian habitat considered to be marginally suitable occur within the
Western Bypass footprint; however, none of the aforementioned species were encountered.
Both the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) occur
primarily in and adjacent to open water habitats, with the falcon possibly occurring in
ephemeral/perennial riparian areas. No suitable habitat occurs within the project area for the bald
eagle. The peregrine falcon has potential to occur offsite in the riparian habitat along the Santa
Margarita River, south and west of the project, although this species was not observed during any
of the project surveys.
Narrow Endemic Plants (NEPSSA) – MSHCP Section 6.1.3
The project site does not have NEPSSA requirements for plant species. Therefore, no focused
NEPSSA surveys are required.
Urban/Wildland Interface – MSHCP Section 6.1.4
As described in Section 6.8, Appendix C, the project occurs adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation
Area, and proposes to contribute to additional conserved lands. As such, the project is required to
adhere to the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines described in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP to
reduce/prevent potential impacts to the lands proposed to contribute to the MSHCP Conservation
Area by the development. The interface guidelines are described below:
Drainage
Proposed Developments in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate
measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the
MSHCP Conservation Area is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing
conditions. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface
runoff from developed and paved areas into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Stormwater systems
shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant
materials or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem
processes within the MSHCP Conservation Area. This can be accomplished using a variety of
methods including natural detention basins, grass swales or mechanical trapping devices. Regular
maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems.
Toxics
Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or
generate bioproducts such as manure that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife
species, Habitat or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such
chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Measures such as those
employed to address drainage issues shall be implemented.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-32 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
Lighting
Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species
within the MSHCP Conservation Area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated
in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased.
Noise
Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate
setbacks, berms or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area
resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations and guidelines related to land use noise
standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be
subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards.
Invasives
When approving landscape plans for Development that is proposed adjacent to the MSHCP
Conservation Area, Permittees shall consider the invasive, non-native plant species listed in Table
6-2 and shall require revisions to landscape plans (subject to the limitations of their jurisdiction)
to avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of Development that are adjacent to the
MSHCP Conservation Area. Considerations in reviewing the applicability of this list shall include
proximity of planting areas to the MSHCP Conservation Areas, species considered in the planting
plans, resources being protected within the MSHCP Conservation Area and their relative
sensitivity to invasion, and barriers to plant and seed dispersal, such as walls, topography and
other features.
Barriers
Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers, where
appropriate in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic
animal predation, illegal trespass or dumping in the MSHCP Conservation Area. Such barriers
may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and/or other appropriate
mechanisms.
Grading/Land Development
Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP
Conservation Area.
Vegetation Mapping – MSHCP Section 6.3.1
Figures 8 and 9 in Appendix C provide detailed maps illustrating the locations and extent of each
vegetation community and Riparian/Riverine habitat (respectively) described above. Table 3.3-1
provides the acreages for the various vegetation communities.
Additional Survey Needs (CASSA) – MSHCP Section 6.3.2
Plants
The project site does not have CASSA requirements for plant species. Therefore, no focused
CASSA surveys or mitigation is required under the MSHCP.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-33 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
Amphibians and Mammals
The project is not within a CASSA for amphibian or mammal species. Therefore, no focused
surveys or mitigation is required under the MSHCP.
Burrowing Owl
The project is within the CASSA for burrowing owl. Surveys for burrowing owl were conducted
in 2007 and again in 2014 within suitable habitat (i.e., the upland vegetation communities and
disturbed habitat across the site). No burrowing owls or burrowing owl sign was observed during
the focused surveys.
Fuels Management – MSHCP Section 6.4
The project area is adjacent to a proposed MSHCP Conservation Area. The project has been
designed so that all fuel modification requirements are confined to within the project area and do
not extend into the Conservation Area.
Planned Roadway Criteria – MSHCP Section 7.5.1
The Western Bypass would be constructed as part of the project. In addition, although not
permitted under this project, the project would construct the Western Bypass Bridge over
Murrieta Creek. Per Section 7.5.1 of the MSHCP, the ultimate alignment and design of planned
roadways, bridges, and interchanges are subject to the following design, siting, and construction
guidelines:
• Planned roads will be located in the least environmentally sensitive location feasible,
including disturbed and developed areas or areas that have been previously altered.
Alignments will follow existing roads, easements, right-of-ways, and disturbed areas, as
appropriate to minimize habitat fragmentation.
• Planned roads will avoid, to the greatest extent feasible, impacts to Covered Species and
wetlands. If wetlands avoidance is not possible, then any impacts to wetlands will require
issuance of and mitigation in accordance with a federal 404 and /or state 1600 permit.
• Design of planned roads will consider wildlife movement requirements, as further
outlined below under Guidelines for Construction of Wildlife Corridors.
• Narrow Endemic Plant Species will be avoided; if avoidance is not feasible, then
mitigation as described in the Narrow Endemics Plant Policy will be implemented.
• Any construction, maintenance, and operation activities that involve clearing of natural
vegetation will be conducted outside the active breeding season (March 1 through
June 30).
• Prior to design and construction of transportation facilities, biological surveys will be
conducted within the study area for the facility including vegetation mapping and species
surveys and/or wetland delineations. The appropriate biological surveys to be conducted
will be based on field conditions and recommendations of the project manager in
consultation with a qualified biologist. The results of the biological resources
investigations will be mapped and documented. The documentation will include
preliminary conclusions and recommendations regarding potential effects of facility
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-34 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
construction on MSHCP Conservation Area resources and methods to avoid and
minimize impacts to MSHCP Conservation Area resources in conjunction with project
siting, design, construction, and operation. The project biologist will work with facility
designers during the design and construction phase to ensure implementation of feasible
recommendations.
The Western Bypass is a planned roadway as defined in Section 7.5.1 of the MSHCP, and as a
result will need to comply with these criteria. The MSHCP has assumed that the impact footprint
for the Western Bypass would be 100 feet in width.
3.3.3 Impact Assessment
Thresholds of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to biological resources may be
considered significant if the project would:
Floral and Faunal
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.
Riparian/Riverine and Other Sensitive Communities
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or
USFWS.
• Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Wildlife Corridors
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Local Policies and Conservation Plans
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance.
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
A direct impact consists of a modification, disturbance, or destruction of a sensitive biological
resource that would result from project-related activities, such as the removal of a wetland. An
indirect impact would be an impact to protected plant and wildlife species or habitat from project-
related development that has the potential to indirectly affect the species or habitat, such as the
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-35 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
introduction of invasive plant species or increased noise levels. Temporary impacts are often
considered to be reversible and temporary in nature, such as noise generated during construction.
Permanent impacts are impacts that are considered to be irreversible.
Floral and Faunal
Special-Status Plants
Two special-status plants were observed during the various biological surveys: San Diego
ambrosia and paniculate tarplant. Approximately 300 San Diego ambrosia were mapped in the
central portion of the project site, near the eastern property boundary. Potential permanent
impacts to these species include trampling, crushing, trimming, or completely removing the
plants during construction. Potential indirect impacts include introduction of invasive weeds that
could out-compete special-status plants via construction equipment and personnel. The San Diego
ambrosia and paniculate tarplant are considered adequately conserved by the Western Riverside
County MSHCP and impacts are covered under the implementation structure of the MSHCP.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
The San Diego ambrosia is considered adequately covered under the MSHCP; however, the
applicant has agreed to voluntarily translocate the San Diego ambrosia population found on the
project site as part of project development (see Section 2.3.6, Project Description).
Migratory Birds and Special-Status Wildlife
Activities associated with construction of the project may potentially impact special status
wildlife and migratory birds including Cooper’s hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite,
California gnatcatcher, and California horned lark, which were observed or recorded on or near
the Project. Direct and indirect impacts to nesting raptors and migratory birds could occur during
construction through the removal of suitable habitat, including mature trees and shrubs if habitat
clearing were to occur during breeding season. Potential direct impacts include the destruction of
active nests; potential indirect impacts include interference with reproductive success due to
noise, vibration, and/or visual disturbances. The MTBA and the CFGC (3503 and 3503.5)
consider the loss of active nests (nests with eggs or young) of all native bird species unlawful.
Consequently, the potential loss or abandonment of nests of bird species as a result of
construction-related activities would be considered a significant impact.
Impact BIO-1: Activities associated with construction of the project could have a significant
impact on special status avian wildlife and migratory birds including Cooper’s hawk, northern
harrier, white-tailed kite, and California horned lark.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1: To the extent feasible, clearing and grubbing activities shall
take place outside of the avian breeding season, which occurs from February 1 to September 15.
If clearing and grubbing activities are necessary during the breeding season, a focused survey for
active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist having
demonstrated experience conducting breeding bird and nest surveys. The survey shall occur no
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-36 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
more than 7 days prior to any clearing, grubbing, construction or ground-disturbing activities. If
active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project area, the nest shall not be
disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest
on their own and are no longer relying on the nest for survival). A 500-foot construction setback
from any active raptor nesting location (or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist,
based on species, construction activity, the birds’ response/habituation to human presence, and/or
topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest) 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. A 300-foot construction setback (or a distance to be
determined by the qualified biologist, based on species, construction activity, and the birds’
response/habituation to human presence, and/or topographic features that could limit construction
activity disturbance to the nest) shall be established for all other migratory birds. If no active
nests are identified, construction may commence. All construction setbacks shall be clearly
demarcated in the field with appropriate material (flagging, staking, construction fencing, etc.)
and verified by a qualified biologist. Such fencing shall be maintained and monitored until the
nest is confirmed to be inactive.
If an avoidance buffer is not feasible, as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with
the City, noise walls or other noise attenuation devices may be installed as needed to prevent
disturbance to the nest.
Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Burrowing Owl
The project falls within a CASSA for burrowing owl, thus a protocol-level survey has been
performed for burrowing owl. No burrowing owls were detected or observed during the focused
surveys. However, suitable habitat occurs within the upland vegetation communities and
disturbed habitat across the project site. Burrowing owls may colonize the project site between
the completion of focused surveys and the start of construction. Individuals present during ground
disturbing activities have the potential to be killed through burrow collapse from construction
equipment or vehicles. MSHCP protocol within the CASSA for burrowing owl requires a pre-
construction clearance survey if burrows or suitable habitat exist regardless of positive or
negative findings.
Impact BIO-2: The project could have a significant impact on burrowing owl or suitable
burrowing owl habitat during construction.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2: Suitable burrowing owl habitat identified on the project site
shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist using the methods described in the Burrowing Owl
Survey Instructions for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (EPD, 2006) no
more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbing activities to determine presence or absence of
burrowing owl. If no burrowing owls are identified, no additional mitigation is necessary and
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-37 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
activities may commence. If a burrowing owl is detected, the City of Temecula and the RCA will
be notified.
If burrowing owls are found on the project site, the applicant shall implement the following
measure:
Take of active nests shall be avoided. Passive or active relocation (use of one way doors and
collapse of burrows), as approved by the RCA, may occur when owls are present outside the
nesting season (March 1 - August 31). If active relocation is selected, translocation sites for the
burrowing owl shall be created in the MSHCP Conservation Area for the establishment of new
colonies. Translocation sites will be identified, taking into consideration unoccupied habitat areas,
presence of burrowing mammals, existing colonies and effects to other MSHCP covered species.
Selected translocation sites shall be coordinated with CDFW and USFWS prior to translocation
site development.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Pre-construction surveys during the nesting season for burrowing owls and remedial action taken
should an active nest be found would adequately avoid potentially significant impacts to
burrowing owls during construction.
Mountain Lion
The mountain lion is adequately conserved by the MSHCP; however, mountain lions are also
protected under the CFGC. UC Davis Wildlife Health Center Southern California MLP actively
monitors mountain lion movement in the immediate vicinity of the project using radio collars.
Mountain lions have been recorded near the west, south and east project boundaries within
Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River (Figure 3.3-4). The nearest recorded citing to the
east of the project was near the eastern boundary of the South Parcel.
As cited in Volume II of the MSCHP:
Human presence also may have adverse effects on mountain lion behavior, and in
particular range use and foraging activities. For example, Van Dyke et al. (1986) studied
the reactions of mountain lions to logging and human activity and found that near human
presence, lion activity peaks shifted to periods after sunset compared to areas with no
human activity where activity peaks occurred within two hours of sunset and sunrise. In
addition, juvenile lions encountered humans more frequently than adult lions, suggesting
that dispersing juveniles are at relatively high risk of encounters with humans. Selected
home ranges of both adults and juveniles were in areas with lower road densities, no
recent timber sales, and few or no human residences. Human developments have intruded
upon, greatly reduced and fragmented this required habitat, thus resulting in apparent
increased interactions between humans and mountain lions (e.g., Torres et al. 1996).
This interaction has resulted in adverse impacts on mountain lions in addition to habitat
loss and fragmentation: increased mortality of lions from vehicular collisions; and
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-38 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
apparent loss of fear of humans by lions and consequently more frequent aggressive
behavior toward humans (especially by juvenile lions).
Direct impacts on mountain lions during construction are not anticipated. Temporary nighttime
construction may be required near the intersection of Vincent Moraga and Rancho California
Road (due to traffic on Rancho California Road), but would not occur in any areas adjacent to
existing or proposed Conservation Areas. As such, potential indirect impacts associated with
nighttime construction are anticipated to be low. During operation, the Western Bypass could
increase the potential for direct mortality if mountain lions were to attempt to cross the Western
Bypass. Indirect impacts on mountain lions and other wildlife associated with increased
urban/wildland interface during construction and post-construction, such as lighting, noise, and
barriers may occur. The project would be subject to the MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface
Guidelines. Project related impacts would be mitigated through compliance with these Guidelines
and mitigation measures identified below. Also, see discussion under the heading Wildlife
Corridors, below, for additional information on project impacts to the movement of mountain
lions and other wildlife.
Impact BIO-3: The urban/wildland interface associated with the construction and operation of
the project could have a significant effect on mountain lions and other wildlife.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-6b, MM-BIO-7a, MM-BIO-
7b, MM-BIO-7c, MM-NOI-1a and MM-NOI-1b.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3: The following Best Management Practices shall be adhered
to:
• Prior to the issuance of any clearing, grubbing, or grading permit for the project, a
qualified biologist (Project Biologist) with a minimum of 3 years of experience in field
supervision on construction sites, shall be retained by the applicant to oversee compliance
with the protection and avoidance measures for biological issues associated with the
project. The Project Biologist shall have the authority to halt construction activities in the
event of noncompliance.
• The Project Biologist shall be onsite during initial ground disturbing activities, including,
but not limited to: vegetation removal, tree removal or trimming, grading, and restoration
landscaping to ensure project activities remain in compliance with all applicable
biological resource permits.
• Intentional killing or unauthorized collection of plant and wildlife species shall be
prohibited.
• Workers shall be prohibited from bringing pets and firearms to the project site, and from
feeding wildlife.
• Proposed and existing Western Riverside MSHCP Conservation Areas shall be protected
in place by the installation of orange silt fencing. Fencing shall be maintained in working
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-39 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
order and inspected weekly. Fencing repair shall occur within 2 working days following
inspection.
• All trash and food items shall be contained in closed containers and trash removed daily
to reduce the attractiveness to opportunistic predators such as common ravens and feral
cats and dogs.
• All fueling of construction vehicles shall be within designated areas beyond 100 feet of
any drainage course, and be contained using appropriate protection measures.
• Nighttime construction shall be prohibited in areas directly abutting or within 200 feet of
existing or project-proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas. Nighttime construction which
does occur outside these areas shall use directional lighting to minimize the impacts of
increased artificial nighttime lighting.
• All construction equipment and vehicles shall not idle for more than 45 minutes to
minimize ambient noise produced by the project.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
The MSHCP promotes the conservation and recovery of biological resources in western Riverside
County and provides coverage for FESA and CESA incidental take for listed species. Project
impacts to the mountain lion and other wildlife are mitigated through the existing MSHCP under
an existing incidental take permit. The project is subject to the Urban/Wildland Interface
Guidelines in the MSHCP, Section 6.1.4. Consistency with these Guidelines (as demonstrated
below under the heading Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines Consistency) and implementation
of the above referenced mitigation measures would result in the project having a less-than-
significant impact on mountain lions and other wildlife.
Riparian/Riverine and other Sensitive Natural Communities
Sensitive natural communities include riparian and riverine habitat and other sensitive natural
communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or designated by the
CDFW or USFWS will be impacted as a result of project implementation.
Sensitive CDFW designated natural communities include riparian woodland, southern willow
scrub (riparian), native grassland, Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral; thus
impacts to these communities would be considered significant under CEQA.
Riparian and Riverine Communities
Riparian and riverine habitat, as defined by Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP and by the CDFW, are
present onsite. The project design would avoid impacts to 1.32 acres (53 percent) of the Riparian/
Riverine habitats on the property. The project will permanently impact 1.24 acres of Riparian/
Riverine habitat including 0.38 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.08 acre of herbaceous wetland,
0.14 acre of coast live oak (riparian) woodland, and 0.64 acre of unvegetated streambed.
Impacts associated with the Western Bypass total 0.57 acre (46 percent of project impacts)
include 0.34 acre of southern willow scrub (89 percent of project impacts), 0.04 acre of
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-40 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
herbaceous wetland (50 percent of project impacts), and 0.19 acre of streambed (30 percent of
project impacts) and, therefore, could not be avoided. These impacts have been reduced over
what would have occurred on site with the previously approved Western Bypass alignment, and
even more significantly, what would have been impacted offsite. Based on aerial photographic
review, at least eight drainage features would have been impacted under the previously approved
Western Bypass alignment that are no longer being impacted.
Avoidance of impacts to 0.14 acre of streambed and 0.04 acre of herbaceous wetland east of the
proposed Western Bypass is not feasible because of the need to grade the site in a configuration
to meet requirements for the higher density development proposed for the site. Impacts to 0.11
acre of streambed in the northwestern portion of the site are limited to small unvegetated drainage
features within the previously approved footprint for the Ridge Park project. Remaining impacts
of 0.20 acre of streambed, 0.15 acre of coast live oak woodland, and 0.04 acre of southern willow
scrub are the result of grading for the South Parcel and residential development southwest of the
Western Bypass.
Impacts to Riparian/Riverine habitats would require compensatory mitigation to adequately
replace riparian and riverine impacts to levels less than significant. The mitigation strategy and
replacement habitat would be determined through the preparation and approval of a
Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) for Riparian/Riverine
Habitats as required by the MSHCP, and a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) (if
required) by the CDFW. Impacts to Riparian (vegetated) resources would be mitigated at a 3:1
ratio for both temporary and permanent impacts and accomplished by one, or a combination of,
the following options:
• Offsite habitat restoration;
• Purchase of credits from an In-lieu Fee program; or
• Purchase of credits from a mitigation bank.
The mitigation may be one of these options or may be a combination of these options and would
be determined through discussions with the City, USFWS and CDFW, and recorded in the
DBESP and HMMP. The DBESP and HMMP would contain a mitigation strategy that
demonstrates adequate compensatory replacement of habitat functions and values, and be subject
to the approval of the City, USFWS, and CDFW. The Riverine resources (i.e., unvegetated
streambed) impacts would be mitigated at 1:1 due to their lower quality than the riparian habitat,
through the same options. Suitable mitigation ratios are depicted in Table 3.3-7 below.
Impact BIO-4: Implementation of the project could have a substantial adverse effect on
riparian/riverine habitat.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-41 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
TABLE 3.3-7
MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO CDFW & RIPARIAN/RIVERINE RESOURCES
Vegetation Type Impacts Mitigation Ratio Mitigation Required
Riparian woodland 0.00 3:1 0
Southern willow scrub 0.38 3:1 1.14
Herbaceous wetland 0.08 3:1 0.24
Coast live oak woodland 0.14 3:1 0.42
Streambed 0.64 1:1 0.64
TOTAL 1.24 -- 2.44
SOURCE: Helix, 2015a
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-4a: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, the
applicant shall obtain all necessary agency permits for impacts to jurisdictional waters, wetlands
and riparian resources, including USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB. Impacts to riparian habitat shall
be mitigated at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio. Impacts to unvegetated channel shall be mitigated at a
minimum of a 1:1 ratio. Mitigation for both temporary and permanent impacts shall be
accomplished by one or more of following options: on- or off-site habitat restoration; purchase of
credits from an in-lieu fee program; and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank. If a
Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is required by any of the respective resource agencies
(USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW), it shall be prepared according to agency requirements and shall
include, at a minimum, the following information:
• Location and detailed maps of the mitigation and revegetation areas
• An evaluation of the existing function and values, and a description of the function and
values to be achieved through compensatory mitigation
• Detailed plant and seed mix requirements
• Detailed planting plan
• Specific and measurable five-year success criteria
• Five-year maintenance and monitoring requirements
• Invasive species management
• Irrigation requirements including the requirement to be off of irrigation for at least two
years prior to final sign-off
• Securing of a bond or line of credit to guarantee success of the compensatory mitigation
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-4b: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, a
DBESP shall be approved by the RCA to address impacts to 1.24 acres of riparian/riverine
habitat. The DBESP shall include the following information:
• Definition of the project area
• A written project description, demonstrating why an avoidance alternative is not possible
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-42 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
• A written description of biological information available for the project site including the
results of resource mapping
• Quantification of unavoidable impacts to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools
associated with the project, including direct and indirect effects
• A written description of project design features and mitigation measures that reduce
indirect effects, such as edge treatments, landscaping, elevation difference, minimization
and/or compensation through restoration or enhancement
• A baseline biological assessment of the resources being impacted, used for comparison of
biological equivalency
• A written description of the proposed habitat mitigation, including habitat type, location,
functional lift, and long-term stewardship responsibility
• A finding demonstrating that although the proposed project would not avoid impacts, the
habitat mitigation would be biologically equivalent or superior to that which is being
impacted and would result in a net equivalent or superior ecological condition
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
The project proposes to compensate for impacts to riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio and impacts to
unvegetated channel at a 1:1 ratio. The mitigation ratio and method will ultimately be determined
during the wetland permitting process through the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, as applicable.
Compliance with state and federal regulatory agency requirements and approval of a DBESP by
the RCA would adequately mitigate for impacts to wetlands.
Federal Jurisdictional Wetlands
Federally protected wetlands protected under Section 404 of the CWA would be impacted as a
result of project implementation. Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. impacts total 0.47 acre and
9,186 linear feet of drainage. The applicant will be required to apply for a permit from the
USACE under Section 404 of the CWA and mitigate appropriately for impacts to regulated
wetlands and waters. Mitigation ratios will be set during regulatory permit process; however a
minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio for impacts to ephemeral drainages/unvegetated channel is required
under the federal “no net loss” policy.
Impact BIO-5: The project could have a significant impact on federally protected wetlands.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-4a and MM-BIO-4b.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Sensitive Vegetation Communities and Habitat
Direct impacts as a result of construction activities associated with the project would include the
permanent removal of vegetation that may be utilized for habitat for both common and sensitive
wildlife. Indirect impacts associated with construction of the project include fugitive dust and
increased noise levels due to heavy equipment operations occurring in the areas. Indirect impacts
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-43 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
to habitat could include alterations to existing topographical and hydrological connections,
increased erosion and sediment transport, and the establishment of non-native and invasive
weeds. Operational impacts include disturbances associated with increased human presence.
Table 3.3-8 shows project impacts to vegetation communities.
Project implementation will result in permanent impacts to 181.1 acres of vegetation
communities, which includes 137 acres of CDFW sensitive communities. Table 3.3-8 breaks
down the anticipated impact acreage for each vegetation community found onsite. Plant and
wildlife species would be impacted by the project through the direct and permanent removal of
0.38 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.08 acre of herbaceous wetlands, 0.15 acre of coast live oak
woodland (riparian/riverine), 0.1 acre of native grassland, 0.1 acre of coast live oak woodland
(upland), 103 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 34.8 acres of southern mixed chaparral, 17.1
acres of non-native grassland, 0.1 acre of non-native vegetation and 23.4 acres of disturbed
habitat. These upland habitats support species protected under the MTBA, including habitat for
raptors (foraging) and nesting birds. Therefore, impacts to sensitive vegetation communities are
considered significant.
TABLE 3.3-8
PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
Habitat
Acres*
Existing Impacts
Riparian/Riverine Habitats
Riparian woodland 0.49 0.00
Southern willow scrub 0.38 0.38
Herbaceous wetland 0.08 0.08
Coast live oak woodland 0.64 0.15
Subtotal 1.59 0.61
Upland Habitats
Native grassland 0.1 0.1
Coast live oak woodland 6.5 0.1
Diegan coastal sage scrub 148.7 103.0†
Southern mixed chaparral 68.6 34.8
Non-native grassland 26.6 17.1
Non-native vegetation 0.8 0.1
Disturbed habitat 13.5 23.4‡
Developed 4.3 1.9
Subtotal 269.1 180.5
TOTAL 270.7 181.1
* Riparian/Riverine Habitats are rounded to the nearest 0.01; upland communities are rounded to the
nearest 0.1. † Includes offsite impacts totaling 1.1 acres. ‡ Includes offsite impacts totaling 0.1 acre.
SOURCE: Helix MSHCP Consistency Report dated January 2015 (Helix, 2015a).
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-44 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
Impact BIO-6: Implementation of the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect
on sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by
CDFW or USFWS.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-4b and MM-BIO-7c.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-6a: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, or
any phase thereof, the applicant shall pay Local Development Mitigation fees, as determined by
the City of Temecula Municipal Code Chapter 15, to offset impacts to sensitive habitat and
covered sensitive species. As provided for in the RCA’s applicable fee ordinance and/or adopted
resolutions, the applicant may request discretionary approval from the RCA fee credits for land
conserved onsite that contributes toward the Reserve Assembly of the MSHCP. Any such request
and approval shall not otherwise diminish or void the applicant’s obligation to pay the required
Local Development Mitigation fees.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO 6b: At the time of final map recordation for the project, or any
phase thereof, lands identified to contribute to Linkage Areas and open space areas of the project
(Conserved Lands) and included on the final map shall be conserved in perpetuity through the
recordation of conservation easements in favor of the RCA or deed transfer of said parcels to the
RCA. Conserved Lands shall include all areas identified for the continued preservation and
functionality of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. The project shall
conserve onsite a minimum of 82.77 acres, which have been identified at a Criteria Cell level to
include Cells 7077, 7161, 7078, 7164, 7258, 7264, 7355 and 7356.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
The payment of development mitigation fees (MM-BIO-6a) and the conservation of lands in
favor of the Western Riverside RCA (MM-BIO-6b) would adequately mitigate for impacts to
sensitive habitat covered under the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
Wildlife Corridors
According to the MSHCP and current scientific studies on and adjacent to the Santa Rosa Plateau
and escarpment, there are documented terrestrial and riparian wildlife corridors on and in the
vicinity of the project, particularly along Murrieta Creek, the Santa Margarita River, and the
slopes of the Santa Margarita Escarpment for mountain lion, bobcat and other wildlife. The
project would impact wildlife corridors identified in the MSHCP, including Proposed Linkage 10
and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, through reduction in width and the effects of
urban/wildlife interaction; however, it would not preclude the use of these linkages for wildlife
movement (Helix, 2015a). Given the distance of Proposed Constrained Linkage 14 from the
project site (approximately 1,800 feet) and its location (east of Interstate 15), the project would
have no direct or indirect effect on this linkage (Helix, 2015a). Figure 3.3-4 provides a closer
view of the linkages nearest the project site (Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained
Linkage 13).
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-45 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
Linkage 12
Linkage 11
Linkage 10
Linkage 9
Linkage 13
Linkage 10
!"a$
5.6 ac
4.0 2 a c
1.7 4 a c
41. 08 ac
14. 88 ac
15. 52 ac
14. 23 ac
13. 46 ac
J
J'
O'
M'
L'
K'
N'
M'
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
W
\
W
H
C
\
W
H
C
-
0
2
_
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
W
e
s
t
\
M
a
p
\
B
I
O
\
M
S
H
C
P
\
F
i
g
1
0
b
_
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
M
t
n
L
i
o
n
D
a
t
a
.
m
x
d
W
H
C
-
0
2
1
0
/
1
6
/
1
5
-
C
L
01
MilesN
*Mountain Lion Point Data Plotted by HELIX from UC Davis Wildlife Health Center Southern California Mountain Lion Project maps.
Point Data Should Be Considered Approximations. May Not Include all Data.
Project Boundary
Project Footprint
2007 Approved Western Bypass Limits of Disturbance
Not Targeted for Conservation, but Conserved On Site
Not Targeted for Conservation, but Conserved Off Site
Not Targeted for Conservation and Impacted
Additional City Conserved Lands
MSHCP Cell Group
MSHCP Criteria Cell
Conservation Areas
RCA Acquisitions
County Boundary
!.Mountain Lion*
Core Linkage Conceptual Reserve Design
Linkage
Core
Linkage 10
4"/5"304"1-"5&"6&$0-0(*$"-3&4&37&
4"/."3("3*5"&$0-0$*$"-3&4&37&
/LQNDJH
SANTA ROSA
SANTA MARGARITA ECOLOGICAL RESERVE
Linkage 14
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.!.
!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
Linkage 12
Linkage 11
Linkage 10
Linkage 9
Linkage 13Linkage 10
!"a$
5.6 ac
4.0 2 a c
1.7 4 a c
41. 08 ac
14. 88 ac
15. 52 ac
14. 23 ac
13. 46 ac
J
J'
O'
M'
L'
K'
N'
M'
I:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
W
\
W
H
C
\
W
H
C
-
0
2
_
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
W
e
s
t
\
M
a
p
\
B
I
O
\
M
S
H
C
P
\
F
i
g
1
0
b
_
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
M
t
n
L
i
o
n
D
a
t
a
.
m
x
d
W
H
C
-
0
2
1
0
/
1
6
/
1
5
-
C
L
0 1MilesN
*Mountain Lion Point Data Plotted by HELIX from UC Davis Wildlife Health Center Southern California Mountain Lion Project maps.
Point Data Should Be Considered Approximations. May Not Include all Data.
Project Boundary
Project Footprint
2007 Approved Western Bypass Limits of Disturbance
Not Targeted for Conservation, but Conserved On Site
Not Targeted for Conservation, but Conserved Off Site
Not Targeted for Conservation and Impacted
Additional City Conserved Lands
MSHCP Cell Group
MSHCP Criteria Cell
Conservation Areas
RCA Acquisitions
County Boundary
!.Mountain Lion*
Core Linkage Conceptual Reserve Design
Linkage
Core
Linkage 10
4"/5"304"1-"5&"6&$0-0(*$"-3&4&37&
4"/."3("3*5"&$0-0$*$"-3&4&37&
/LQNDJH
Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 3.3-4
Linkages Near the Project Site
SOURCE: Helix Environmental Planning
*Mountain Lion Point Data Plotted by HELIX from UC Davis Wildlife Health Center Southern California Mountain Lion Project maps.
Point Data Should Be Considered Approximations. May Not Include all Data.
0 1
Mile
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
The project is located within the Murrieta Creek and Santa Rosa Plateau subunits of the
MSHCP’s Southwest Area Plan; Subunit 1 – Murrieta Creek and Subunit 6 –Santa Rosa Plateau
(Figure 3.3-2). Subunits 1 and 6 of the Southwest Area Plan include a list of biological issues and
considerations that relate to conservation goals of the MSHCP, and specifically for maintaining
wildlife corridors. Subunit 1 includes the southern portion of the project including Murrieta Creek
and the confluence with the Santa Margarita River, which is situated on the southern boundary of
the Project, and contains wildlife linkages 10 and 13. Subunit 6 includes the northeastern portion
of the project and includes upland habitats associated with Proposed Linkage 10.
MSHCP Subunit conservation goals relevant to the project are listed below:
Subunit 1: Murrieta Creek (Includes Murrieta Creek, Santa Margarita River, Proposed
Linkage 10, Proposed Constrained Linkage 13)
• Maintain habitat connectivity within Murrieta Creek from the confluence of Temecula
Creek to Cole Creek for wildlife movement and Conservation of wetland species
(Linkage 13).
• Maintain linkage area for bobcat (Linkages 10, 13 and 14).
• Maintain the area of Murrieta Creek at the confluence of Pechanga Creek, Temecula
Creek, and Santa Margarita River for mountain lion linkage (Linkage 14).
Subunit 6: Santa Rosa Plateau (Includes Proposed Linkage 10)
• Conserve large blocks of woodland and forest habitat.
• Maintain Core and Linkage Habitat for bobcat and mountain lion.
A goal for both Subunit 1 and 6 is to maintain core and linkage habitat for mountain lion and
bobcat. Areas of exurban development are known to increase the potential for mountain
lion/human interaction and human caused mortality in mountain lion (Vickers, 2015; Dickson and
Beier 2002; Kertson et. al. 2011). In addition, bobcats are susceptible to negative impacts of
highways, however they are known to utilize habitat in vegetation cover planted within 328 feet
of the highway (Cain et al. 1999).
In a 2015 published study by Dr. Winston Vicker on mountain lion movement in Southern
California (Vickers, 2015), the most common sources of mortality were vehicle collisions (28
percent of deaths) and mortalities resulting from depredation permits issued after mountain lions
killed domestic animals (17 percent of deaths). The study finds that impermeable barrier to
mountain lion movements have resulted in genetic restriction and demographic isolation of the
small mountain lion population in certain areas; and concludes that highways that bisect habitat or
divide remaining “conserved” habitat, and associated ongoing development, threaten to increase
threats to survival. Therefore an in-depth analysis of impacts to the wildlife corridors affected by
this project has been conducted.
In September 2015, at the request of CDFW, Helix prepared a corridor modeling study to assess
potential changes or impacts to mountain lion movement between the Santa Margarita Ecological
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-47 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
Reserve and Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve, specific to Proposed Linkage 10 for the
project (Helix 2015c). The modeling approach was based on the use of CorridorDesigner, the
model developed as part of the South Coast Missing Linkages study. Helix relied on the
CorridorDesigner ArcGIS Toolbox Tutorial and model available on the corridordesign.org
website. The model does not determine whether a corridor or linkage is viable or not. Rather, it
determines where the best locations for a linkage or corridor are based on the parameters in the
model.
The corridor model identifies the routes within a given study area that have the least cumulative
cost for movement through the study area based on habitat type, topographic position, and
distance from roadways. Cost distance of each pixel is the lowest possible cumulative resistance
from that pixel to terminuses in each habitat block, in this case the Santa Margarita Ecological
Reserve and Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve. The authors of the CorridorDesigner model
have assumed that habitat suitability and habitat permeability are synonyms, but admit that this
assumption is uncertain. Thus they simply define resistance or travel cost as the inverse of
suitability or permeability. The more suitable (or permeable) the habitat, the less resistance or
travel cost to move from one habitat block to another.
The model outputs corridor width “slices,” with each corridor width slice representing the most
“permeable” or suitable percentage of the landscape for that particular corridor width slice. For
example, the 1 percent slice represents the most permeable/suitable 1 percent of the landscape
connecting the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve.
The lower the number, the higher the permeability/suitability. Methodology and assumptions for
the Altair model are specifically defined in Helix’s September 1, 2015 memo to Ambient
Communities (Helix 2015d).
The model determines suitability of each pixel individually, and then cumulatively, to determine
the least cost for a mountain lion to move through a given area. Each slice or corridor width is a
nested set of lowest cost-distance pixels, with the lowest cost being the center of the slice and the
highest cost being the outer slice (10 percent slice, 5 percent slice). The model does not determine
whether a corridor or linkage is viable or not. It just determines where the best locations for a
linkage or corridor are based on the parameters in the model. A broader slice (i.e. higher
percentage) means increasingly higher cost-distance values.
Published literature indicates that areas adjacent to development can have a “zone of negative
influence” of 0 to 1,970 feet. This zone of negative influence may result in reduced usage of these
areas both in time and spatially, with the first 490 feet being most heavily avoided by all
population demographics. The use of the area of 490 to 1,970 feet is more variable depending on
the age, sex and breeding status of mountain lions (Dickson &. Beier, 2002, Kertson et al, 2011).
Reproductive behaviors such as mating, giving birth, and early rearing of kittens would be
expected to be most negatively impacted or possibly eliminated within this zone of negative
influence, especially within the first 490 feet. Additionally hunting activities would also be
expected to be reduced. Mountain lions tend to avoid roadways when establishing territories, but
once the territory has been established with a roadway within that territory, these roadways tend
not to be avoided and can be a source of mortality (Dickson and Beier 2002).
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-48 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
Proposed Linkage 10 Impacts
Proposed Linkage 10 is an upland connection extending from the Santa Rosa Plateau Reserve
(Core Area F) to the northwest of the Project to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (Core
Area G) to the southwest of the project. Linkage 10 also connects with Proposed Constrained
Linkage 13, which runs along Murrieta Creek, connecting to areas to the north. This linkage is
important for movement of bobcat and mountain lion between the two preserves and runs almost
entirely on private lands. Proposed Linkage 10, when measured from the edge of proposed
development (Western Bypass, South Parcel, and residential development) to actual homes to the
west in Subunit 1, varies from 600 feet to well over 2,300 feet. The linkage north of the project
site varies from 200 feet wide at its narrowest point at the northern end of the linkage to as much
as 3,670 feet in width.
The Western Bypass is a Covered Activity under the MSHCP and its original configuration was
determined to be consistent with the goals for Proposed Linkage 10 under the original MSHCP
approvals. Project design features of the Western Bypass that would reduce or avoid impacts as
compared to the current approved alignment include: 1) terminating the northern section at
Vincent Moraga Road/Rancho California Road, thereby eliminating 7,700 linear feet of the
northern portion of the current approved alignment and avoiding eight drainage crossings, 2)
designing a split roadway to minimize grading impacts, and 3) pulling the alignment further east
to increase the width of the wildlife corridor. These project design features would avoid 55 acres
of impacts to sage scrub, chaparral and other habitats within Proposed Linkage 10, based on the
City’s previous grading study for the Western Bypass. In addition, overall impacts to wildlife
movement along this stretch of Proposed Linkage 10 would be reduced over the current approved
route due to a wider corridor.
The construction of the Western Bypass would affect mountain lion and other wildlife movement
through corridor width reduction, noise and light impacts and potential mortality due to the
impacts with vehicles. Potential long-term indirect impacts could include the introduction of
trash, which may potentially affect mountain lions and other wildlife. Other possible impacts
include a reduction in hunting/feeding and effects on reproductive behaviors.
The South Parcel falls within both Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13, and would
be set back approximately 900 feet from the Santa Margarita River. This linkage area provides an
east-west connection that crosses beneath I-15 along the Santa Margarita River, that was assumed
to maintain the gene pool and genetic diversity of the mountain lion population on both sides of
the freeway as part of the review and approval of the MSHCP. However, based on radio collar
data, there may no longer be mountain lion movement underneath I-15 at this location. There is a
100-foot vertical cliff between the Santa Margarita riverbed and the South Parcel situated on the
plateau above. Future buildings on the South Parcel would not be directly visible from the Santa
Margarita River bottom. In addition, the project applicant will construct a 10-foot tall berm and
landscape buffer along the southern portion of the South Parcel, as part of the project, to screen
adjacent conserved lands.
According to both Dr. Vicker (2014, 2015) and Helix (2015c), it is anticipated that there will be
some reduction in overall suitability of Linkage 10 due to the reduction in linkage width and
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-49 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
increased urban/wildlands interface. Reproductive behaviors such as mating, giving birth and
early rearing of kitten would be expected to be most negatively impacted or possibly eliminated
in the area nearest to the project. Hunting/feeding would also be reduced. In addition, movement
(migration between larger conserved areas, territory maintenance and other reasons) is expected
to be reduced (Vickers, 2014).
To assess the corridor options for the mountain lion and assess if those options would change
with the proposed project, the CorridorDesigner model was run with three scenarios: (1) without
the Project, (2) with the Project including the Civic Site4, and (3) with the Project but without the
Civic Site. The model results show that for all three assumptions (No Project, Project with Civic
Site, and Project without Civic Site), there are two primary “least cost” corridor options: one
along the escarpment and one approximately 2.5–3.0 miles west of the project. There is also a
spur approximately 1 mile west of the escarpment that connects the Santa Margarita Ecological
Reserve with the escarpment linkage. It should be noted that the model did not attempt to address
additional corridor options further to the west. Proposed Constrained Linkage 9, Proposed
Constrained Linkage 10, Proposed Constrained Linkage 11, and Proposed Constrained Linkage
12 also provide additional linkages west of the Project site from the Santa Rosa Plateau to the
Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and San Diego County to the south, and potentially to the
Palomar Mountains to the east. Combined, these linkages provide valuable redundancy of
connections between the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological
Reserve.
The CorridorDesigner model was run under the No Project conditions, which identified most of
the project footprint habitat suitability as “Suboptimal, but ok for Breeding,” the second most
suitable habitat for mountain lion movement, ranked just below the “Optimal” category.
Figure 3.3-5 shows the CorridorDesigner model output for the No Project habitat suitability and
slides, and the Project and Project without Civic Site output for slices. With each slice
representing the most “permeable” or suitable percentage of the landscape for that particular slice
(corridor width), the majority of the project is included in the 5 percent and 10 percent slices for
the escarpment corridor in the No Project run. Approximately 60–70 percent of the Civic Site
falls within the 10 percent slice, and the remainder in the 5 percent slice. The higher the
percentage, the higher the “cost” or “resistance” to travel through the route. The optimal output
would be in the 1 percent range; thus, it is assumed that this would be a preferable route with the
least resistance to travel. Under the No Project model the western third of the project falls within
the 5 percent suitability “slice” (corridor width) and the eastern two-thirds (excepting a few areas)
falling within the 10 percent suitability slice.
4 In the context of the CorridorDesigner model, the Civic Site refers to the approximately 19 acres of land within the
55-acre South Parcel that would be subject to development activities.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-50 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
SANTA ROSA PLATEAU ECOLOGICAL RESERVE
SANTA MARGARI TA ECOL OGICAL RE SERVE
I:\PR
OJE
CT
S\W\W
HC
\WHC
-02_
Villag
eW
est\Ma
p\BIO\WildlifeCorridorStudy
\Co
rridorDe
sign
Fill_EntireProject_
VegU
p
da
te
s.mx
d
WHC-0
2
08/1
0/15
-C
L
Figure #
WESTERN BYPASS A ND ALTAIR PROJECT
Modelled Corridors - Entire Project
06,000
FeetN
Study A rea
Wildland Bl ock
!(Mountain Lion Sig h tin g
Pro je ct Footprint
1% Corridor
5% Corridor
10% Corr idor
Habit at Suitabilit y
Absolute n o n-habitat
Str ongly avo i ded
Occa siona lly used; not b reeding hab ita t
Subo p ti mal but OK fo r br eeding
Optimal
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
SANTA ROSA PLATEAU ECOLOGICAL RESERVE
SANTA MARGARI TA ECOL OGICAL RE SERVE
I:\PR
OJE
CT
S\W\W
HC
\WHC-02_
Villag
eW
est\Ma
p\BIO\WildlifeCorridorStudy
\Co
rridorDe
sign
_NoP
roje
ct_Veg
U
pd
ates.m
xd
W
HC-02
08
/10
/1
5 -CL
Figure #
WESTERN BYPASS A ND A LTAIR PROJECT
Modelled Corridors - No Proje ct
06,000
FeetN
Study Area
Wildland Bl ock
Pro je ct Footprint
!(Mountain Lion Sig h tin g
1% Corridor
5% Corridor
10% Corr id or
Habit at Suita bilit y
Absolute n o n-habit at
Str ongly avoi ded
Occa siona lly used; not b reeding hab ita t
Subo p ti mal but OK fo r br eed ing
Optimal
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
SANTA ROSA PLATEAU ECOLOGICAL RESERVE
SANTA MARGARI TA ECOL OGICAL RESERVE
I:\PR
OJE
CT
S\W\W
HC
\WHC
-0
2_Villag
eW
est\Ma
p\BIO
\WildlifeC
orrid
orS
tu
dy
\Su
bmittal\Attac
hD_
Corrido
rDesignFill_No
C
iv
icS
ite_
20
12
Veg.
mxd W
H
C-02
0
8/10/1
5
-CL
Attachment D
WE STERN BYPASS A ND ALTAIR PROJE CT
With Project, No Civic Site
06,000
FeetN
Project Footprint
Stu dy A rea
Wildland Bl ock
!(Mountain Lion Sig h ting
1% Corrido r
5% Corrido r
10% Corrid or
Habit at S ui ta bilit y
Ab sol u te n on-habitat
Str ongly avoi ded
Occasion a lly used; not b reeding habitat
Su boptimal but OK for br eeding
Optimal
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
SANTA ROSA PLATEAU ECOLOGICAL RESERVE
SANTA MARGARI TA ECOL OGICAL RE SERVE
I:\P
ROJECT
S\W\W
HC\WHC-0
2_
Villag
eW
est\Ma
p\BIO\WildlifeCorrid
orS
tu
dy
\CorridorDe
sign
Fill_N
o
Pro
je
ct_Veg
Upd
ates.m
xd
W
HC-02
08
/10
/1
5 -CL
Figure #
WESTERN BYPASS A ND A LTAIR PROJECT
Modelled Corridors - No Proje ct
06,000
FeetN
Study Area
Wildland Bl ock
Pro je ct Footprint
!(Mountain Lion Sig h tin g
1% Corridor
5% Corridor
10% Corr id or
Habit at Suita bilit y
Absolute n o n-habit at
Str ongly avoi ded
Occa siona lly used; not b reeding hab ita t
Subo p ti mal but OK fo r br eed ing
Optimal
Project with Civic Site – Corridor Model Output No Project- Habitat Suitability Assessment Output
With Project, No Civic Site - Corridor Model Output No Project - Corridor Model Output
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
SANTA ROSA PLATEAU ECOLOGICAL RESERVE
SANTA MARGARITA ECOLOGICAL RESERVE
I:\PROJECTS\W\WHC\WHC-02_VillageWest\Map\BIO\WildlifeCorridorStudy\CorridorDesignFill_NoProject_VegUpdates.mxd WHC-02 08/10/15 -CL
Figure #
WESTERN BYPASS AND ALTAIR PROJECT
Modelled Corridors - No Project
06,000
FeetN
Study Area
Wildland Block
Project Footprint
!(Mountain Lion Sighting
1% Corridor
5% Corridor
10% Corridor
Habitat Suitability
Absolute non-habitat
Strongly avoided
Occasionally used; not breeding habitat
Suboptimal but OK for breeding
Optimal
Altair Specific Plan . 140106Figure 3.3-5Corridor Designer Output
SOURCE: Helix Environmental Planning
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
When the Project is added into the model, all but a narrow area at the western limits of the project
footprint that fell within the 5 percent and the 10 percent slice is eliminated from the corridor.
Thus the outer portion (5 percent and 10 percent slice) of the identified corridor which was less
easy to travel than the 1 percent “slice,” or the inner portion of the corridor, would be impacted.
When the Project but No Civic Site model was run, a larger portion of the Civic Site fell within
the 10 percent slice as compared with the No Project alternative, and the remainder of the Project
was eliminated from the corridor. Thus, travel through the Civic Site area was not eliminated but
became more costly for an animal to travel through it. With both the Project and Project but No
Civic Site model, the area west and outside of the project footprint remained unchanged and fell
within the 5 percent slice. Therefore, the model output indicated that the portion of the 5 percent
and 10 percent slice that falls within the project would be eliminated from the corridor (narrowing
the corridor), but the corridor permeability remains similar within this narrower section even with
the project being built.
In both the Project and Project with No Civic Site model, the model suggests that construction of
the project would result in the reduction in Linkage 10 wildlife corridor width. The model doesn’t
necessarily determine whether a corridor or linkage is viable or not; it determines where the best
locations for a linkage or corridor are based on the parameters in the model. The modeling also
indicates that the permeability of the linkage remains essentially the same with and without the
project for the area outside of the project footprint, which is consistent with the point that the
linkage will continue to be a linkage for mountain lion movement, despite the reduction in
corridor width as a result of project implementation.
In summary, based upon the existing biological information available for the project site and
larger region, existing literature, and MSHCP review, the conservation to be provided by the
project and project design features facilitate maintenance of the overall goals of Proposed
Linkage 10 and would not preclude the use of the linkage for the mountain lion by continuing to
allow for mountain lion movement and other wildlife along the escarpment between the Santa
Margarita Ecological Reserve and Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve. See Appendix C2 of
this EIR (Helix, 2015c) for a detail discussion of the corridor modeling and its conclusions,
prepared by Helix.
Impact BIO-7: The project could interfere with the movement of wildlife species, and with
established migratory wildlife corridors. The project could have direct and indirect impacts to the
movement of mountain lion and other wildlife in Proposed Linkage 10.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-6b, MM-NOI-
1a, MM-NOI-1b and MM-NOI-3.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-7a: The portion of Camino Estribo that lies between the South
Parcel and the main development area within the project footprint shall remain as a dirt road to
minimize vehicular speeds.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-52 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-7b: The applicant shall install permanent fencing along the
Western Bypass where the Bypass right-of-way is contiguous with existing or proposed MSHCP
Conserved Lands, to keep animals within the wildlife corridor. Prior to the issuance of any
construction permits for the project, the applicant shall prepare and submit a detailed fencing plan
for review and approval by the City Community Development Department, RCA, CDFW, and
USFWS. The fencing plan shall include, at a minimum, the fencing location, fencing
specifications, plant list, and method and timing of installation.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-7c: A Slope Revegetation Plan shall be prepared by the project
applicant. The Plan shall be submitted for approval to the City Community Development
Department prior to the construction of the Western Bypass. The Plan shall include, at a
minimum:
• The requirement to salvage and stockpile excavated topsoil up to the first six inches along
selected portions of the ground disturbance area for use in spreading as the top layer of
soil in restoring disturbed areas
• Equipment and methods for planting
• A planting plan, including the amount and species of seed necessary to revegetate the
target habitat types
• Success criteria for the revegetated areas over a five-year period following installation
• Specific Best Management Practices for erosion control during and after revegetation
• A requirement for five years of maintenance of the revegetated areas, including removal
of invasive species and irrigation (if necessary)
• A requirement for five years of monitoring to evaluate compliance with the success
criteria and to adjust maintenance activities using an adaptive management approach
• Identification of entity responsible for installation, maintenance, and monitoring
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Mitigation measures to reduce impacts to Linkage 10 include conserving approximately 83 acres
of land onsite within Linkage 10, retaining Camino Estribo as a dirt road to slow any traffic,
installing permanent fencing between Conserved Lands and the Western Bypass to reduce
potential human/wildlife interaction, and revegetating graded slopes along the Western Bypass
abutting existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas within Proposed Linkage 10 to
maximize the wildlife corridor width and functionality. The project would also be required to
adhere to the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines in the Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP.
Application of project design features that include locating the proposed Western Bypass as far
east as feasible, consistency with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines as required in Section
6.1.4 of the MSHCP and implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures would
result in less-than-significant impacts to wildlife movement within Proposed Linkage 10.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-53 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 Impacts
Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 is a riparian connection along Murrieta Creek, extending from
the Santa Rosa Plateau Reserve (Core Area F) which lies to the northwest of the project,
connecting to the Proposed Linkage 10 that provides the connection to the Santa Margarita
Ecological Reserve (Core Area G) to the southwest of the project. It is already constrained due to
urban development, agricultural use, nine existing vehicular bridges and one road through
Murrieta Creek. It will be further constrained by the construction of the Western Bypass Bridge
over Murrieta Creek.
A mountain lion has been tracked in the lower portion of Murrieta Creek, up to the approximate
location of the future Western Bypass Bridge crossing of Murrieta Creek, where further
movement upstream stops. It is assumed that the mountain lion then moves west towards the
escarpment. Murrieta Creek upstream of this point is likely not being used as a wildlife corridor
by mountain lions, based upon radio tracking information, because of the intense development on
both sides of the creek (Vickers, 2014).
The project lies outside of Murrieta Creek, however there is some proposed development adjacent
to Murrieta Creek in Cell 7356 associated with the South Parcel. The construction of the Western
Bypass Bridge (not a part of this CEQA analysis) would likely further reduce or eliminate use of
Murrieta Creek and adjacent uplands north of and at the bridge in this corridor for mountain lion,
bobcat and other wildlife movement. Construction of the South Parcel, which is situated
approximately 900 feet north of the confluence of Santa Margarita River and Murrieta Creek at
the south end of the project, would also reduce the corridor width that includes Murrieta Creek
and surrounding uplands along the length of the South Parcel. Specifically, development of the
South Parcel would reduce the width of Proposed Linkage 13 to between 258 feet and 548 feet
along Murrieta Creek, from just north of the future Western Bypass Bridge crossing, to the
confluence with the Santa Margarita River, at the south end of the project. Impacts from noise
and light, and the introduction of trash could have an effect on wildlife and their behavior patterns
along this reduced corridor width.
It should be noted that Linkage 13 north of the proposed Western Bypass Bridge is currently
constrained from existing urban development. Implementation of the project would result in
corridor widths not unlike what exist along this reach of Linkage 13. Overall, project impacts are
considered to be potentially significant.
Impact BIO-8: The project could interfere with the movement of wildlife species, and with
established migratory wildlife corridors. The project could have direct and indirect impacts to
Proposed Constrained Linkage 13.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-6b, MM-NOI-
1a, MM-NOI-1b and MM-NOI-3.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-54 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
Project features that would buffer wildlife activity along Proposed Constrained Linkage 13
include dense plantings on top of an approximately 10-foot high berm on the southern side of the
building area of the South Parcel, and the installation of “living walls” (green walls or modular
vegetated walls) on the south and west sides of buildings located on perimeter lots associated
with the South Parcel. The project would also be required to adhere to the Urban/Wildland
Interface Guidelines in the Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Application of project features,
consistency with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines as required in Section 6.1.4 of the
MSHCP and implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures would result in less-
than-significant impacts to wildlife movement within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13.
Local Policies and Conservation Plans
City of Temecula Heritage Tree Ordinance (Ord. 09-05 § 1)
As stipulated in Ordinance 09-05, Chapter 8.48.120, the Heritage Tree Ordinance is not
applicable to previously adopted Specific Plan or the proposed Altair Specific Plan, as such plans
will contain their own requirements for protection and preservation of Heritage Trees. The project
is therefore not subject to the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance.
City of Temecula General Plan
Table 3.3-9 evaluates the project’s consistency with open space and conservation policies and
goals in the City of Temecula General Plan. As detailed in Table 3.3-9, the project would be
consistent with the General Plan goals and policies that pertain to the project.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-55 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
TABLE 3.3-9
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
General Plan Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
Open Space and Conservation Element
Goal 3: Conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern, wildlife movement corridors, and general biodiversity.
Policy 3.1 Require development proposals to identify significant biological resources and
provide mitigation, including the use of adequate buffering and sensitive site planning
techniques, selective preservation, provision of replacement habitats; and other
appropriate measures.
Consistent. The project has identified significant biological resources and proposed
mitigation, including the use of adequate buffering and sensitive site planning
techniques, selective preservation, provision of replacement habitats; and other
appropriate measures.
Policy 3.2 Work with State, regional and non-profit agencies and organizations to
preserve and enhance significant biological resources.
Consistent .The project has worked with State and regional organizations to preserve
and enhance significant biological resources. The City and project proponents have met
with local non-profit organizations regarding the wildlife corridors.
Policy 3.3 Coordinate with the County of Riverside and other relevant agencies in the
adoption and implementation of the Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan.
Consistent .The project has coordinated with the County and the RCA regarding the
implementation of the MSHCP.
Policy 3.4 Encourage developers to incorporate native drought resistant vegetation,
mature trees, and other significant vegetation into site and landscape designs
for proposed projects.
Consistent .The project would revegetate slopes adjacent to Conserved Lands with
native plants.
Policy 3.5 Maintain an inventory of existing natural resources in the City. Consistent. The project has provided a compendium of biological resources recorded
within the project.
Policy 3.6 Limit recreational use of designated open space areas where there are
sensitive biological resources as needed to protect these resources.
Consistent. The project has been designed, to the extent possible, to separate out
proposed open space areas from areas allowing recreational use.
Policy 3.7 Maintain and enhance the resources of Temecula Creek, Pechanga Creek,
Murrieta Creek, Santa Gertrudis Creek, Santa Margarita River, and other waterways to
the ensure the long-term viability of the habitat, wildlife, and wildlife movement corridors.
Consistent. The construction of the Civic Center could impede wildlife movement at the
intersection of Temecula and Murrieta Creeks. However, implementation of MM-BIO-1b,
MM-BIO-4, MM-BIO-5b and MM-BIO-8a-c will result in the project being consistent with
this policy.
Goal 5: Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features.
Policy 5.1 Conserve the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, the Santa
Margarita River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and other important landforms and
historic landscape features through the development review process.
Consistent. To the extent possible the western escarpment has been preserved.
Proposed dedicated open space has been included as part of the project elements.
Policy 5.2 Identify significant viewsheds to proposed projects that may be preserved
through the dedication of open space or the use of sensitive grading, site design, and
building techniques.
Consistent. The project proposes to dedicate and preserve open space area that will
protect viewsheds.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-56 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
TABLE 3.3-9
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
General Plan Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
Policy 5.3 Encourage the use of clustered development and other site planning
techniques to maximize the preservation of permanent open spaces.
Consistent. The project has incorporated cluster design and other site planning
elements, including the realignment of the Western Bypass to maximize preservation of
open spaces.
Policy 5.4 Retain and improve the quality of landscaping in parkways, public slopes,
rights-of-way, parks, civic facilities, and other public open areas.
Consistent. Chapter 9, Design Guidelines and Chapter 10, Development Standards of
the Altair Specific Plan identifies conceptual landscape plans for enhancing public
spaces, parkways, roundabouts, parks, and entry monument areas along with an
extensive plant list for use in both public and private areas.
Policy 5.8 Require re-vegetation of graded slopes concurrent with project development
to minimize erosion and maintain the scenic character of the community.
Consistent. Slopes adjacent to open space areas and the Western Bypass abutting the
Conserved lands will be restored to coastal sage scrub.
Policy 5.11 Encourage the use of native vegetation where revegetation and landscaping
is to occur.
Consistent. Slopes adjacent to open space areas and the Western Bypass abutting the
Conserved lands will be restored to coastal sage scrub.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-57 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
MSHCP Consistency
The project falls within the jurisdiction of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Compliance
with the MSHCP Implementing Agreement would provide assurances that future projects would:
(1) be in compliance with the provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act, the California
Endangered Species Act, and the National Community Conservation Program Act; (2) adequately
provide for the conservation and protection of the Covered Species Adequately Conserved and
their habitats in the MSHCP Plan Area; and (3) provide adequate mitigation such that wildlife
agencies will not require additional mitigation from permittees, with respect to Covered Species
Adequately Conserved, except as provided for in the Implementing Agreement.
MSHCP Rough Step Habitats
Habitat gains (conservation) and habitat losses (impacts) are tracked by the RCA in order to
maintain Rough Step within each subunit of the MSHCP area (the project occurs in Rough Step
Unit 5). This is to ensure that the MSHCP Reserve design is being implemented successfully and
in-line with the goals of the MSHCP. Unit 5 is currently in Rough Step; however, to ensure each
vegetation community located within the project area (that is tracked in Unit 5) remains in Rough
Step, the applicant must conserve a certain number of acres for every acre of impact. These
conservation ratios are re-evaluated each year by the RCA using a formula included in Section
6.7 of the MSHCP.
Riparian scrub, woodland and forest, coastal sage scrub, woodlands and forests, and grasslands
are the habitats that occur onsite that have Rough Step requirements for Rough Step Unit 5. The
other major habitat type that occurs on site is chaparral, which does not have a Rough Step
requirement for Rough Step Unit 5. The project will impact 0.38 acre of riparian
scrub/woodland/forest, 103 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 0.15 acre of coast live oak
woodland/forest, and 22.6 acres of grassland habitats. Impacts to these vegetation communities
would require mitigation according to Table 3.3-10 to ensure compliance with the MSHCP.
• Riparian scrub, woodland and forest required conservation is 1.94 acre. The project will
conserve 0.49 acre resulting in a 1.45-acre shortfall for conserved lands onsite.
• Coastal sage scrub required conservation is 32.5 acres. The project will conserve
40.9 acres, exceeding the requirement by 8.4 acres.
• Woodland/forest required conservation is 0.14 acre. The project will conserve 0.49 acre,
exceeding the requirement by 0.35 acre.
• Grassland required conservation is 8.0 acres. The project will conserve 4.0 acres,
resulting in a 4.0-acre shortfall.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-58 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
TABLE 3.3-10
ROUGH STEP CONSISTENCY
Habitat
Acres that Must Be
Acquired for Each Acre
Developed1
Acres
Impacted
Required
Conservation
Acres
Conserved
Riparian scrub, woodland, forest 5.111 0.38 1.94 0.49*
Coastal sage scrub 0.316 103.0 32.5 40.9
Woodlands and forest 0.926 0.15 0.14 0.49
Grasslands 0.352 22.6 8.0 4.0
1Based on Rough Step Units and Vegetation Table from RCA
*Does not include anticipated conservation of 1.45 acres that will be needed to mitigate impacts.
SOURCE: Helix 2015a.
The project has an onsite shortfall for riparian habitat of 1.45 acres. This shortfall will be met
through mitigation requirements for impacts to jurisdictional riparian and riverine resources.
There is a 4.0-acre shortfall for grassland. Because Rough Step Unit 5 currently exceeds Rough
Step requirements for riparian scrub, woodland, forest, and grassland habitats, the project would
not cause Rough Step Unit 5 to be out of Rough Step.
Preservation of onsite Rough Step habitats, in addition to required compensatory mitigation for
impacts to southern willow scrub and coast live oak riparian woodland at a 3:1 ratio would
mitigate for the deficiency of 1.45 acres of Rough Step riparian habitat not met onsite.
Impact BIO-9: The project would have an onsite shortfall of conserved acres for impacts to
riparian and grassland habitat.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-4b, MM-BIO-6a and MM-
BIO-6b.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
With implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures the project would be in Rough
Step with the MSHCP reserve goals and impacts would be less than significant.
NEPSSA and CASSA Consistency
The project is consistent with the MSHCP regarding NEPSSA and CASSA requirement, since the
site occurs outside of the area identified in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP as requiring focused
surveys for NEPSSA plant species, and 6.3.2 requiring focused surveys for CASSA plant species.
Impacts to special-status plant species identified in Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 and those species
considered “adequately conserved” would be covered under the MSHCP.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-59 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
Riparian and Riverine Consistency
Impacts to riparian and riverine habitat could result in the project being inconsistent with the
conservation goals of the MSHCP for this habitat type. See under the heading Riparian/Riverine
and other Sensitive Natural Communities, above, for a detailed discussion on project impacts and
mitigation to riparian and riverine habitats.
Impact BIO-10: Project impacts to riparian/riverine habitat could result in the project being
inconsistent with the MSHCP.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-4a and MM-BIO-4b.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Implementation of the above mitigation measures requiring mitigation for impacts to riparian and
riverine habitat would result in the project being consistent with MSHCP goals regarding this
habitat type.
Fuel Modification Consistency
Project fuel modification zones would not extend into the existing or project-proposed MSHCP
Conservation Areas. As such, the project would be consistent with the Fuel Modification
Guidelines in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines Consistency
The project is required to adhere to the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines outlined in Section
6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands occur directly to the south of the
Project along the Santa Margarita River. In addition, MSHCP Conserved Lands occur along
portions of the western project boundary. Additional lands within the project site would be set
aside for preservation that contribute to Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage
13. See above under the headings Flora and Fauna and Wildlife Corridors, above, for a detailed
discussion on urban/wildland interface impacts to plant and wildlife species and wildlife
movement.
Impact BIO-11: Project impacts at urban/wildland interface areas could result in the project
being inconsistent with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-6b, MM-BIO-
7a, MM-BIO-7b, MM-BIO-7c, MM-NOI-1a, MM-NOI-1b, MM-NOI-3, MM-HYD-1, MM-
HYD-2, and MM-HYD-3.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-60 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
With the implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures the project would be
consistent with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines, as demonstrated below.
Drainage
Storm drainage facilities will be design in compliance with the engineering standards of the City
of Temecula and Riverside County. In addition, the developer would be required to obtain
coverage under the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit. The Construction General
Permit requires the development to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Program (SWPPP) by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). The QSD-prepared SWPPP would
identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of stormwater
discharges during construction and describe the implementation and maintenance of various
BMPs to reduce or eliminate the potential for sediment or pollutants to come into contact with
stormwater runoff during construction. Implementation of mitigation measures requiring these
actions would ensure that a MSHCP Conservation Area adjacent to the project would not be
adversely affected by stormwater runoff.
Toxics
Measures require that the project obtain a NPDES Construction General Permit and prepare a
SWPPP which will include measures that cover the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous
materials during construction. In addition, containment and spill cleanup will be encompassed in
SWPPP to prevent hazardous materials from spreading off the property. Regarding project
operation, any businesses that would store hazardous materials and/or waste at its business site
would be required to submit a Hazardous Materials Management Plan in accordance with the
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Both the federal and State governments require all
businesses that handle more than a specified amount of hazardous materials to submit an annual
business plan to the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The CUPA responsible for
the City of Temecula is the Riverside County Environmental Health Department (RCDEH). The
RCDEH requires all new commercial and other users to follow applicable regulations and
guidelines regarding storage and handling of hazardous waste so that accidental spills or releases
are minimized and spill response supplies are readily available. In accordance with the Uniform
Fire Code (UFC), the City of Temecula Fire Department conducts site inspections to ensure
hazardous materials are stored and handled properly and safety supplies are readily accessible.
Lighting
Measures have been incorporated measures to ensure that nighttime lighting during construction
and operation is shielded to maintain ambient lighting conditions in the MSHCP Conservation
Area.
Noise
Mitigation Measures require that the project will adhere to the City’s noise standards for
construction and operation as applicable to the project. In addition, noise attenuation measures
such as building setbacks and landscape buffers in places where the project may affect a MSHCP
Conservation Area are included in the project.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-61 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
Invasives
The landscape guidelines in the Altair Specific Plan and the plant list in Appendix A of the Plan
encourage the use of native and non-native plant materials appropriate for the development areas;
and stipulate that in areas adjacent to MSHCP Conserved Lands and/or native open space, plant
species identified in Table 6-2 of the MSHCP shall not be used.
Barriers
A mitigation measure requires the project to construct permanent fencing along the proposed
Western Bypass where the roadway is adjacent to Proposed Linkage 10. Also, project features
include the installation of berms/landscaping along the south side of the building pads located
within the South Parcel, adjacent to Proposed Constrained Linkage 13.
Grading
No manufactured slopes will extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area.
Wildlife Corridor Consistency
The two wildlife corridors affected by the project are Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed
Constrained Linkage 13. See under the heading Wildlife Corridors, above, for a detailed
discussion on the project’s impact on these wildlife corridors. In summary, because the project
would constrain Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 there is a potentially
significant effect on corridor functionality.
Impact BIO- 12: The project could have a significant effect on Proposed Linkage 10 and
Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, and, therefore, could be inconsistent with the MSHCP
regarding wildlife corridors.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-6b, MM-BIO-
7c, MM-NOI-1a and MM-NOI-1b.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Application of project features and implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures
which include such things as light and glare standards for the development, permanent fencing
between Proposed Linkage 10 and the proposed Western Bypass, conservation of land within
Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13, noise reduction measures and application of
BMPs during construction, slope revegetation for manufactured slopes along the edge of
Proposed Linkage 10 and the proposed Western Bypass, and adherence to operational exterior
noise standards would result in the project being consistent with the MSHCP regarding wildlife
corridors.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-62 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
MSHCP Goals & Objectives, Subunit and Criteria Cell/Cell Group Acreage
Consistency
The following is an excerpt from Section 3.3.1 of the MSHCP that defines the Criteria Review
Consistency Process under the MSHCP:
Application of the Reserve Assembly guidance provided in the MSHCP is intended to
occur sequentially, beginning at the broad, landscape scale and proceeding through the
individual Cell Criteria. This sequential approach is important to achieve the desired
outcome, which, as noted above, is a reserve configuration that provides significant
blocks of Habitat and minimizes internal fragmentation. When individual projects are
considered, Permittee, staff and applicants should first examine the project in the context
of the overall MSHCP Conservation Area by relating the project to the MSHCP
Conservation Area description in Section 3.2.2 of the Plan and the descriptions of the
applicable Cores and Linkages in Section 3.2.3 of the Plan. The descriptions of the Cores
and Linkages include factors such as variable target acreages and perimeter to area ratios,
as well as species, configuration and management issues, and all of those factors should
be reviewed to provide a context for the review of the particular individual project. Staff
and applicants can then have a common understanding of the reserve configuration
requirements of the MSHCP in the general project area. After such an understanding of
the context, staff and applicants should look at the particular individual project more
specifically to examine how it might contribute to, or conflict with, assembly of the
MSHCP Conservation Area consistent with reserve configuration requirements.
The sequential process should continue with identification of the specific Area Plan and
Area Plan Subunit within which the particular individual project is located. Planning
Species and Biological Issues and Considerations as well as variable target acreages for
the overall Area Plan and Area Plan Subunit should be reviewed between Permittee staff
and the applicant along with any available project specific biological information.
Planning Species and Biological Issues and Considerations that apply to the specific
project should be identified. Not all Planning Species and Biological Issues and
Considerations for a particular Area Plan or Area Plan Subunit will apply to every
project.
The process should continue with a review of the specific Criteria for the identified Cell
or Cell Group within which the project site is located. The first criterion for each Cell or
Cell Group is the identification of the applicable Core or Linkage. This relationship of the
project to the applicable Core or Linkage should already have been identified and
discussed as part of the first steps in the sequential process. The next criteria for each Cell
or Cell Group are the identification of Vegetation Communities toward which
Conservation should be directed along with connectivity requirements. These criteria
should be considered for each individual project based on the context established through
the earlier review of Cores and Linkage and the overall MSHCP Conservation Area
description. Finally, the project should be examined with respect to the percentage
conservation portion of the Cell Criteria, which is the last criterion provided for each Cell
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-63 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
and Cell Group. While achieving the precise percentage conservation criterion for each
Cell or Cell Group would ultimately result in assembly of 153,000 acres of Additional
Reserve Lands as envisioned in the MSHCP, it should be noted that achievement of the
variable target acreages will be measured on a Core and Linkage or Area Plan and Area
Plan Subunit basis, not on an individual project or Cell/Cell Group basis [Emphasis
added]. As noted in the discussion of Reserve Assembly Accounting in Section 6.7,
adjustments are anticipated during the long-term MSHCP implementation process to
respond to new information and baseline changes.
The project’s consistency with Area Plan Subunit and Cell/Cell Group conservation acreage goals
is summarized below.
Helix conducted an acreage consistency analysis for Subunit 1 and 6, and at the Cell/Cell Group
level for the project (Appendix C3 of this EIR). It was determined that while the project does not
meet specific Criteria Cell acreage goals for every Cell, the project would not preclude
achievement of reserve assembly target acreages in Subunit 1 – Murrieta Creek, or Subunit 6 –
Santa Rosa Plateau within the MSHCP Southwest Area Plan due to the availability of other
undeveloped and rural residential lands not yet under conservation. Therefore, the project is
consistent with the MSHCP on the Subunit level, relative to the ability to achieve reserve
assembly target acreages.
In the lead-agency/RCA Joint Project Review (JPR 14-05-27-01), the RCA advised that if based
on only the individual Cell Criteria, the project would be inconsistent with the MSHCP as it
would fall short of the targeted conservation acreage for certain Cells. MSHCP Section 3.3.1,
page 3-123, more broadly states that the conservation goal is to be determined “on a Core and
Linkage or Area Plan and Area Plan Subunit basis, not on an individual project or Cell/Cell
Group basis.” Taking into consideration the broader analysis set forth above and in accordance
with the above-cited MSHCP reserve assembly guidance, the project would be consistent with the
Area Plan, Subunit and Cell/Cell Group conservation acreage goals of the MSHCP.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Planned Roadway Criteria Consistency
Section 7.5.1 of the MSHCP sets out Planned Roadway Criteria Guidelines for planned roadways
that are Covered Activities. These criteria are listed in Section 3.3.1 of this EIR. The project is
required to adhere to the Planned Roadway Criteria. The Western Bypass is a MSHCP Covered
Activity and has been redesigned as a part of the project.
Impact BIO-13: Project design and construction of the Western Bypass, a Covered Activity,
could result in the project being inconsistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria of the MSHCP.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-4b, MM-BIO-
6b, MM-BIO-7c.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-64 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures would result in the project being
consistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria, as demonstrated below. The numbered items
correlate to the order of criteria bullet points listed in Section 7.5.1 of the MSHCP (shown under
the heading Planned Roadway Criteria – MSHCP Section 7.5.1, above).
1) The Western Bypass has been redesigned to be located in the least environmentally
sensitive location feasible to accommodate its circulation purpose. The redesign would
eliminate over 7,700 linear feet of roadway from the northern portion of the property to
its previous connection at Via Industria. It is now planned to tie into the existing Vincent
Moraga Drive through existing graded pads. The Western Bypass begins the approved
bridge at Temecula Parkway which sets the feasible road alignment at the southern end of
the project. This new alignment reduces the length by 50 percent of the current approved
Western Bypass and approximately 55 acres of sage scrub, chaparral and other habitats
would be avoided with the proposed realignment based on the City’s previous grading
study for the Western Bypass alignment.
The MSHCP assumed a 100-foot width for the Western Bypass – this 100-foot width is
considered part of the Covered Activity under the MSHCP. Areas beyond this width were
not included as part of the Covered Activity. Based on this, the 7,700 linear feet of
roadway that has been eliminated through redesign represents approximately 17.1 acres
of previously covered impacts that are being eliminated by the project.
Within the project boundaries, the proposed re-alignment would impact 15.09 acres using
the 100-foot width assumption from the MSHCP. When the graded slopes are included,
the alignment would impact a total of 35.98 acres. This compares with 16.96 acres and
54.16 acres, respectively, for the previous covered alignment.
2) Impacts to covered species and wetlands would be avoided to the extent feasible. Impacts
associated with the Western Bypass total 0.57 acre (46 percent of project impacts) and
include 0.34 acre of southern willow scrub (89 percent of project impacts), 0.04 acre of
herbaceous wetland (50 percent of project impacts), and 0.19 acre of streambed (30
percent of project impacts). These impacts could not be avoided due to roadway design
constraints. Where it is infeasible to avoid impacts to wetlands, impacts will be offset
through implementation of mitigation.
3) Design of planned roadways considered wildlife movement by locating the alignment as
far east as possible; thereby, maximize the corridor width and functionality for Proposed
Linkage 10.
4) Narrow Endemic Plant Species have been avoided and one species (San Diego ambrosia)
will be voluntarily translocated.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-65 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Biological Resources
5) Any construction, maintenance, or operation activities that involve clearing of natural
vegetation will be conducted outside the active breeding season to the extent feasible.
6) Prior to design of the Western Bypass, biological surveys were conducted within the
study area for the facility including vegetation mapping and species surveys and/or
wetland delineations. The results of the biological resources investigations were be
mapped and documented. The documentation included preliminary conclusions and
recommendations regarding potential effects of facility construction on MSHCP
Conservation Area resources and methods to avoid and minimize impacts to MSHCP
Conservation Area resources in conjunction with project siting, design, construction, and
operation. The project biologist has worked with facility designers during the design
phase to ensure implementation of feasible recommendations.
Altair Specific Plan 3.3-66 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
This section addresses the potential impacts of the project to cultural resources in the project
vicinity in accordance with the significance criteria established in Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines. This chapter is based on the following sources: Phase I Archaeological Assessment
for the Ridge Park Project, City of Temecula, California, prepared by Brian F. Smith and
Associates (Stropes and Smith, 2013), Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program
(PRIMP), Ridge Park Project, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, prepared by Brian
F. Smith and Associates (Kennedy and Wirths, 2013) and Altair Specific Plan EIR Project,
Temecula, Riverside County, California: Archaeological Investigation Report prepared by ESA
(Ehringer et. al., 2015).
This chapter addresses the potential impacts of the project on cultural resources. Cultural
resources include prehistoric and historic sites, structures, districts, places, and landscapes, or any
other physical evidence associated with human activity considered important to a culture, a
subculture, or a community for scientific, traditional, religious or any other reason. Under CEQA,
paleontological resources, although not associated with past human activity, are grouped within
cultural resources. For the purposes of this analysis, cultural resources may be categorized into
the following groups: archaeological resources, historic resources (including
architectural/engineering resources), contemporary Native American resources, human remains,
and paleontological resources.
Archaeological resources are places where human activity has measurably altered the earth or left
deposits of physical remains. Archaeological resources may be either prehistoric-era (before
European contact) or historic-era (after European contact). The majority of such places in
California are associated with either Native American or Euro-American occupation of the area.
The most frequently encountered prehistoric or historic Native American archaeological sites are
village settlements with residential areas and sometimes cemeteries; temporary camps where food
and raw materials were collected; smaller, briefly occupied sites where tools were manufactured
or repaired; and special-use areas like caves, rock shelters, and rock art sites. Historic-era
archaeological sites may include foundations or features such as privies, corrals, and trash dumps.
Historic resources include standing structures, infrastructure, and landscapes of historic or
aesthetic significance that are generally 50 years of age or older. In California, historic resources
considered for protection tend to focus on architectural sites dating from the Spanish Period
(1529–1822) through World War II (WWII) and Post War era facilities. Some resources,
however, may have achieved significance within the past 50 years if they meet the criteria for
exceptional significance. Historic resources are often associated with archaeological deposits of
the same age.
Contemporary Native American resources, also called ethnographic resources, can include
archaeological resources, rock art, and the prominent topographical areas, features, habitats,
plants, animals, and minerals that contemporary Native Americans value and consider essential
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
for the preservation of their traditional values. These locations are sometimes hard to define and
traditional culture often prohibits Native Americans from sharing these locations with the public.
Paleontology is a branch of geology that studies the life forms of the past, especially prehistoric
life forms, through the study of plant and animal fossils. Paleontological resources represent a
limited, non-renewable, and impact-sensitive scientific and educational resource. As defined in
this section, paleontological resources are the fossilized remains or traces of multi-cellular
invertebrate and vertebrate animals and multi-cellular plants, including their imprints from a
previous geologic period. Fossil remains such as bones, teeth, shells, and leaves are found in the
geologic deposits (rock formations) where they were originally buried. Paleontological resources
include not only the actual fossil remains, but also the collecting localities, and the geologic
formations containing those localities.
3.4.1 Environmental Setting
Natural Setting
The approximately 270-acre project area is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County,
California. The project is situated west of Interstate 15, south of Rancho California Road, and
immediately north of the Santa Margarita River, within the Santa Margarita River watershed.
Regional geographic features include the Santa Rosa Plateau and the Temecula Escarpment to the
west, the Santa Margarita Ecological Preserve and the Santa Margarita River to the south, the
Palomar Mountains to the southeast and large expanses of development within Temecula Valley
to the north and east.
Topography within the project includes steep hills and narrow, incised canyons with elevations
ranging from approximately 1,000 to 1,440 feet above mean sea level. Undeveloped land abuts
the project to the south; undeveloped land, rural development and agriculture occur to the west;
undeveloped land and urban development occur to the north; and urban development and
Murrieta Creek exist to the east of the project. Sage scrub and chaparral dominate the vegetation
within the project area with non-native grassland dominating the lower, flatter areas along the
eastern boundary; grading activities have disturbed the northeastern corner of the project area.
Prehistoric Setting
The chronology of coastal southern California is typically divided into three general time periods:
the Early Holocene (11,000 to 8,000 Before Present [B.P.]), the Middle Holocene (8,000 to 4,000
B.P.), and the Late Holocene (4,000 B.P. to A.D. 1769). Within this timeframe, the archaeology
of southern California is generally described in terms of cultural “complexes.” A complex is a
specific archaeological manifestation of a general mode of life, characterized archaeologically by
technology, particular artifacts, economic systems, trade, burial practices, and other aspects of
culture.
Early Holocene (11,000 to 8,000 B.P.)
While it is not certain when humans first came to California, their presence in southern California
by about 11,000 B.P. has been well documented. At Daisy Cave, on San Miguel Island, cultural
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-2 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
materials have been radiocarbon dated to between 11,100 and 10,950 years B.P. (Byrd and Raab,
2007). On the mainland, radiocarbon evidence confirms occupation of the Orange County and
San Diego County coast by about 9,000 B.P., primarily in lagoon and river valley locations
(Gallegos, 2002). In western Riverside County, few Early Holocene sites are known to exist. One
exception is site CA-RIV-2798, which contains deposits dating to as early as 8,580 B.P.
(calibrated) (Grenda, 1997). During the Early Holocene, the climate of southern California
became warmer and more arid and the human population, residing mainly in coastal or inland
desert areas, began exploiting a wider range of plant and animal resources (Byrd and Raab, 2007).
The primary Early Holocene cultural complex in coastal southern California was the San
Dieguito Complex, occurring between approximately 10,000 and 8,000 B.P. The people of the
San Dieguito Complex inhabited the chaparral zones of southwestern California, exploiting the
plant and animal resources of these ecological zones (Warren, 1967). Leaf-shaped and large-
stemmed projectile points, scraping tools, and crescentics are typical of San Dieguito Complex
material culture.
Middle Holocene (8,000 to 4,000 B.P.)
During the Middle Holocene, there is evidence for the processing of acorns for food and a shift
toward a more generalized economy in coastal and inland southern California. The processing of
plant foods, particularly acorns, increased, a wider variety of animals were hunted, and trade with
neighboring regions intensified (Byrd and Raab, 2007).
The Middle Holocene La Jolla Complex (8,000–4,000 B.P.) is essentially a continuation of the
San Dieguito Complex. La Jolla groups lived in chaparral zones or along the coast, often
migrating between the two. Coastal settlement focused around the bays and estuaries of coastal
Orange and San Diego counties. La Jolla peoples produced large, coarse stone tools, but also
produced well-made projectile points, and milling slabs. The La Jolla Complex represents a
period of population growth and increasing social complexity, and it was also during this time
period that the first evidence of the exploitation of marine resources and the grinding of seeds for
flour appears, as indicated by the abundance of millingstones in the archaeological record (Byrd
and Raab, 2007).
Contemporary with the La Jolla Complex, the Pauma Complex has been defined at inland sites in
San Diego and Riverside counties (True, 1958). The Pauma Complex is similar in technology to
the La Jolla Complex; however, evidence of coastal subsistence is absent from Pauma Complex
sites (Moratto, 1984). The Pauma and La Jolla complexes may either be indicative of separate
inland and coastal groups with similar subsistence and technological adaptations, or, alternatively,
may represent inland and coastal phases of one group’s seasonal rounds. The latter hypothesis is
supported by the lack of hidden and deeply buried artifacts at Pauma sites, indicating that these
sites may have been temporary camps for resource gathering and processing.
Late Holocene (4,000 B.P. to A.D. 1769)
During the Late Holocene, native populations of Southern California were becoming less mobile
and populations began to gather in small sedentary villages with satellite resource-gathering
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-3 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
camps (Byrd and Raab, 2007). Evidence indicates that the overexploitation of larger, high-ranked
food resources may have led to a shift in subsistence towards a focus on acquiring greater
amounts of smaller resources, such as shellfish and small-seeded plants (Byrd and Raab, 2007).
Around 1,000 B.P., an episode of sustained drought, known as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly
(MCA), occurred. While the effects of this environmental change on prehistoric populations are
still being debated, it did likely lead to changes in subsistence strategies in order to deal with the
substantial stress on resources (Jones and Schwitalla, 2008). In coastal southern California,
beginning before the MCA but possibly accelerated by it, conditions became drier and many
lagoons had been transformed into saltwater marshes. Because of this, populations abandoned
coastal mesa and ridge tops to settle nearer to permanent freshwater resources (Gallegos, 2002).
Although the intensity of trade had already been increasing, it reached its zenith in the Late
Holocene, with asphaltum (tar), seashells and steatite being traded from southern California to the
Great Basin. Major technological changes appeared as well, particularly with the advent of the
bow and arrow, which largely replaced the use of the dart and atlatl (Byrd and Raab, 2007). Small
projectile points, ceramics, including Tizon brownware pottery, and obsidian from Obsidian Butte
(Imperial County), are all representative artifacts of the Late Holocene.
It has been postulated that as early as 3,500 B.P., a Takic-speaking people arrived in coastal Los
Angeles and Orange counties, having migrated west from inland desert regions (Kroeber, 1925;
Sutton, 2009). By around 1,500 to 1,000 B.P., Takic language and cultures had spread to the
south and inland to the east. These new arrivals, linguistically and culturally different from earlier
coastal populations, may have brought new settlement and subsistence systems with them, along
with other new cultural elements. This migration has been postulated as being a factor in several
of the significant changes in material culture seen in the Late Holocene (such as the use of
smaller projectile points and pottery), as well as the introduction of cremation as a burial practice.
The San Luis Rey culture (divided into San Luis Rey I [A.D. 1400 to 1750] and San Luis Rey II
[A.D. 1750 to 1850]) represented the Late Period in southwestern Riverside County and northern
San Diego County (Moratto, 1984). San Luis Rey I village sites contain manos (hand stones),
metates (grinding slabs), bedrock mortars, shell artifacts, and triangular arrow points. In addition
to these features, San Luis Rey II sites are characterized by the presence of pottery, pictographs,
and the cremation of the dead (Moratto, 1984).
San Luis Rey settlement patterns in the upper San Luis Rey River drainage are typified by
seasonally occupied lowland villages located in proximity to water sources, and highland villages
occupied in the late summer and fall for acorn collection (True and Waugh, 1982). However,
settlement patterns within southwestern Riverside County are less well known. The available
information, stemming primarily from survey data, indicates that four primary site types existed
within the region during the Late Period: field camps, resource procurement locations, residential
bases, and villages (Mason, 1999). Resource procurement locations and field camps, the most
common site types, contain a limited assemblage of artifacts and subsistence remains, primarily
lithic debitage, some tools, fire affected rock, and small amounts of animal bones and charred
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
seeds and nuts. This indicates that these types of sites were used primarily for focused activities
and short-term occupancy.
Villages and residential bases, on the other hand, show evidence for long-term occupation by
large groups of people. Villages were occupied year round, while residential bases were occupied
seasonally. Artifacts and features found at both village and residential bases, including large
amounts of faunal and botanical remains, numerous high-quality tools, fire-affected rock, and
anthrosols, indicate a wide range of activities (Mason, 1999). Bedrock mortars point to the
processing of seeds and acorns, and ceremonial activities are evidenced by the presence of
pictographs, petroglyphs, and cupules within village sites.
Ethnographic Setting
Native Americans living in the project area at the time of Spanish contact are now known as the
Luiseño, after the Mission San Luis Rey to which many of them were relocated. The language of
the Luiseño people has been identified as belonging to the Cupan group of the Takic subfamily,
which is part of the larger Uto-Aztecan language family (Bean and Shipek, 1978). Luiseño
territory includes portions of northern San Diego, southern Orange, and Riverside Counties, and
would have encompassed a diverse environment including lagoons and marshes, coastal areas,
inland river valleys, foothills, and mountains. The neighbors of the Luiseño to the north and
northwest were the Juaneño, Gabrielino, and Serrano; to the east were the Cahuilla and Cupeño;
and to the south were the Kumeyaay.
The Luiseño subsisted on small game, coastal marine resources, and a wide variety of plant foods
such as grass seeds and acorns. Luiseño houses were conical thatched reed, brush, or bark
structures. The Luiseño inhabited permanent villages centered around patrilineal clans, with each
village headed by a chief, or not (Kroeber, 1925; Sparkman, 1908). Seasonal camps associated
with villages were also used. Each village or clan had an associated territory and hunting,
collecting, and fishing areas. Villages were typically located in proximity to a food or water
source, or in defensive locations, often near valley bottoms, streams, sheltered coves or canyons,
or coastal strands (Bean and Shipek, 1978). It is estimated that there may have been around 50
Luiseño villages with a population of about 200 each at the time of the first Spanish contact
(Bean and Shipek, 1978).
Today, there are six federally recognized tribes in California who share Luiseño tribal affiliation,
language, and culture, including the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians (Pechanga), Rincon Band
of Mission Indians (Rincon), Soboba Band of Mission Indians (Soboba), La Jolla Band of
Mission Indians (La Jolla), Pala Band of Mission Indians (Pala), and the Pauma Band of Luiseno
Indians (Pauma). The Pechanga tribe is historically affiliated with the project area.
Pechanga Tribal Perspective
The following information is incorporated here in order to provide a Tribal perspective on the
project area and vicinity. The following section provides a summary of information previously
provided to ESA by Lisa Woodward, Ph.D., Archivist for the Pechanga (Woodward, 2012).
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-5 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
Summary of Luiseño Origin Narrative
According to traditional Luiseño beliefs, the world was created at 'Éxva Teméku (EXH-vah teh-
MEH-koo), located at the convergence of the Murrieta and Temecula Creeks. 'Éxva is translated
as a “place of sand” and Teméku means, "sun place." The original inhabitants of Temecula have
always lived within hail of their Creation place.
According to the Luiseño Creation account, in the beginning there was nothing Kíwvish 'atáxvish
(KEYW -vish ah-TAH-vish) meaning 'empty', 'unpopulated.' Several periods of time passed
during which things began to take shape. This is where the Luiseño Origin recounted in ancestral
songs say Túukumit (TOO-koo-mit, Father Night Sky) and Tamáayawut (Ta-MAI-yah-whoot,
Mother Day Earth) created the world. When Túukumit and Tamáayawut became one, their first
offspring were earth and sand, which in Luiseño are 'éxla (EXH-Ia) and 'éxval (EXH-vol). 'Éxva
Teméeku [is therefore in reference to the first offspring of Túukumit and Tamáayawut (Elliott,
1999). Their children were known as the first people or Káamalam (KAH-mah-lam) and were all
things, including mammals, birds, trees, fog, and rocks. The birth of the world took place near the
confluence of what is now known as the confluence of the Temecula River and Murrieta Creek
which form the Santa Margarita River.
The last of the Káamalam-born was Wuyóot (We-YOHT). He was innately gifted with
knowledge and he knew how to make the first food, tóovish (TOH-vish, white clay), to feed the
Káamalam. It is said Wuyóot gave the people ceremonial songs when he lived at 'Éxva Teméeku,
which are still sung today (Dubois, 1908). According to the Creation narratives, Wuyóot was
poisoned, and in an attempt to be cured, he visited several hot springs throughout the area that is
now recognized as Luiseño territory. Several of the traditional songs relate this account of the
people taking the dying to various hot springs, which included Churúkunuknu $ákiwuna,
Murrieta Hot Springs, meaning 'sliding place where hot water bubbles', and 'iténgvu Wumówmu,
the hot springs at Lake Elsinore, where he died at the end of his journey. As he traveled to these
various springs, Wuyóot also named the increments of time that had passed, which became the
months of the Luiseño calendar. During this time, he taught the First People all of his knowledge
(Dubois, 1908; Roberts, 1933).
Upon Wuyóot’s death, he was taken to 'Éxva Teméeku and cremated. Wuyóot's passing was the
first death of the Káamalam. Death did not exist before this time. The Káamalam were so
overcome with grief that the quail, roadrunner, and woodpecker cut their hair. This is a mourning
custom still practiced today. The rocks and trees cried. Wuyóot's death frightened the people, but
to console the Káamalam, he was resurrected as Móyla (moon). Before that event, night had only
been known to be full of darkness. The Káamalam knew Móyla-Wuyóot would always be with
them. It is said after Wuyoot's death, they called a Grand Council at Káamalam Pomkí, located in
the hills above 'Éxva Teméeku. During this Council the Káamalam discussed who would become
food, since tóovish (white clay) would no longer be provided by Wuyóot. After several arguments
as to why certain Káamalam should not become food, it was determined that $úkat (SHOE-cut,
deer) would be sacrificed. Upon the conclusion of this meeting, the First People dispersed to all
corners of Creation, which is now recognized as Luiseño territory.
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-6 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
Teméku/Temecula Village
When looking at the entire footprint of precontact Luiseño villages, they are much like towns
today. Such is the case with Teméku/Temecula, the village encompasses other named places
within it; Yamíinga, Wankí, and Pávkun. These areas are located within 2 to 3 miles from the
Santa Margarita River, east along Temecula River to what is now known as Butterfield Stage
Road, located approximately 4 miles east of the project area. This would be the equivalent to the
City of Temecula with the areas of "Rainbow Canyon," "Vail Ranch" and "Redhawk." and which
are all located within the boundary. So, when looking at a village, such as Teméku, which has a
long rich documented history, assigning hard and fast boundaries is difficult. The 30+ sites
located along Temecula Creek represent thousands of years of continuous occupation in the
Valley. While archaeologists deem these sites individual "habitation areas," the Tribe sees them
as one village with different components.
In addition to the Creation place of ‘Éxva Teméku, there are four other key components to
Teméku Village. Wankí, located on the bluff where the old Vail ranch house stands, was the area
where religious observances took place, where the ceremonial enclosure was located. The place
name is actually the old form of the Luiseño word “wamkish,” which means "ceremonial
enclosure." The retention of the old form of the name indicates this place has been in use for a
long time. Human burials were also encountered in this area when the land was developed.
Yamíinga, located at the old Vail Ranch headquarters (now known as the Kohls/Walmart
shopping center, located approximately 2.75 miles east of the project area) is derived from the
word yáama, meaning "to endure, last a long time," is the name for the location of the historic
village component which contained the adobe homes. This word is also an old term for an entity
in the Luiseño creation account, yáamay, the "one who endures," which represents femininity in
the world before the First People were born. Because we have two archaic terms located within
the larger village of Teméku, which are places both in view of the creation place, it indicates this
area is an important place to the indigenous people and has been inhabited for a long time.
Adjacent to Yamíinga and Wankí, is a place called Temét Kari 'aq, meaning where the sun rises
and located on the bluff across the river from the Vail Ranch headquarters, which is an important
event in the Creation story and also tied to the name "Temecula.
Historical Significance of the Origin Area and Teméku Village
The first direct European impact on the people of Teméku was the establishment of Mission San
Luis Rey in 1798. The Valley became known as "Temecula" and a satellite rancho was
established for the Mission (Engelhardt, 1921). In an attempt to "rebrand" a traditional religious
place into a Catholicized one, the Mission built a warehouse at ‘Éxva Teméku. The valley
produced large amounts of grain for the mission, which sustained a population of about 300
people. When ‘Éxva Teméku was studied in the late 1940s several mission era artifacts were
discovered including floor and roof tiles (McCown, 1955).
Once the missions were secularized in 1834, large ranchos were created from the church land
holdings. In the 1840s three land grants were created in the Temecula Valley: the Temecula,
Little Temecula, and Pauba Ranchos. After the ranchos passed to several different owners,
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-7 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
Domingo Pujol, Francisco Sanjurjo and Juan Murrieta purchased the majority of the Little
Temecula, Temecula, and Pauba ranchos. During this time, landowners in California began to
impose property taxes and leases upon the Indians who lived on the now privately owned
ranchos. The owners were successful in obtaining a Writ of Ejectment from the San Francisco
courts on the grounds that the Indians could not prove title to the land. The new owners told the
Temecula Indians they could remain in their homes if they signed leases, which they refused to
do. On September 20, 1875, under orders from the District Court of San Francisco, Sheriff
Nicholas Hunsaker of San Diego and approximately twenty armed men evicted the Temecula
Indians from their traditional village. The Temecula village was located along both sides of
Temecula Creek near what is now known as the Redhawk housing development and the Home
Depot shopping center, located approximately 2.60 miles east of the project area.
The writ contained the names of 52 heads of household, representing over 200 inhabitants. The
armed posse led by Sheriff Hunsaker, which included the owners of the ranch as well as local
landowners Louis Wolf and Jose Gonzales, drove wagons to the Indians’ homes and loaded their
belongings. The eviction took place over three days. The Indians did not fight back because
anyone resisting would be shot. The people protested by sitting down and refusing to move their
belongings. The women wailed and the men lowered their heads and covered their faces. The
posse arrived with wagons and loaded their belongings onto them. They were then forced to leave
the village following behind the wagons. They had to abandon their crops and most of their
livestock. The posse shouted insults and threw stones to get them to move along. They traveled
along a trail which now closely follows Loma Linda road. Once they were off the rancho, the
men threw all their possessions onto the ground, smashing pottery that contained food and
belongings. The people were dumped along what is now known as Loma Linda Road near the
intersection of what is now Pechanga Parkway and Rainbow Canyon road. John Magee, who was
the former owner of the Little Temecula Rancho, had a store near the area where the people were
dumped (the adobe ruin still stands and is located on Pechanga Golf Course). Magee was married
to Custoria Nesecat, a Temecula (Pechanga) Indian. The evictees who remained in the valley
settled on Magee's land along the foothills near two springs called Táavishpa (TAH-vish-pa) and
Túuchaana (TOO-cha-nah) while some moved to Pechanga Canyon where they sunk wells and
planted crops.
It wasn't until, June 27, 1882, under Executive Order by President Chester A. Arthur, the
Pechanga Reservation was established. The name is derived from a spring at the foot of the
mountain named Péchaq (PEH-chaq) meaning "water is dripping." Jackson returned to Pechanga
in May 1883 and reported that the people had built houses and large tracts of land were planted in
grain while the neighboring white man's crops on the lands from which they were driven were
poor and "hardly worth cutting."
Due to lack of water, farming on the reservation was difficult and making a living was a
challenge. In the early 1900s several families moved away from Pechanga to find work. The
people who stayed were employed as cowboys, ranch hands, and domestics on the local
households. The original inhabitants of the valley have always lived and continue to live within
hail of their Creation place and in their ancestral homelands.
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-8 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
Development of the Temecula Valley and Its Effect on the Village
During the ranching era, the landscape of the Valley did not change much, until 1965, when the
Vail Ranch was sold to a development corporation. In the 1980s and 1990s full-scale
development of the valley began and the Temecula Village broken up and recorded as separate
archaeological sites under CEQA. In Temecula Valley (through which the Temecula Creek
flows) there are over 30 individual recorded “sites.” However, only studies conducted on the Vail
Ranch complex discuss the Indian village located within the ranch boundaries. Several published
sources discuss the "historic" village but fail to make any connection to the precontact village and
its population. In actuality, the precontact village and historic village of Teméku/Temecula span
the entire valley, as outlined above.
Historic Setting
The first European presence in what is now southern California came in 1542, when
Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo led an expedition along the coast. Europeans did not return until 1769,
when the expedition of Gaspar de Portolá traveled overland from San Diego to San Francisco.
The Riverside County area received its first European visitors during the early and mid-1770s,
shortly after the beginning of Spanish colonization of Alta California in 1769. The first known
European to set foot in this area was a Franciscan padre, Father Juan Norberto de Santiago, who
traveled into the Temecula Valley in October 1797. Santiago was on an expedition out of Mission
San Juan Capistrano seeking a site for a new mission. With his party of seven soldiers, he came
upon what is now Lake Elsinore, and then traveled southward through the Temecula Valley and
on to the Pacific Ocean (City of Temecula, 2011).
In the late 18th century, the Spanish began establishing missions in California and forcibly
relocating and converting native peoples. Throughout California, disease and hard labor took a
toll on the native populations; by 1900, the Native Californian population had declined by over
90 percent (Cook, 1978). In addition, native economies were disrupted, trade routes were
interrupted, and native ways of life were significantly altered.
The Luiseño Indians inhabited the Temecula Valley prior to the arrival of non-native settlers
(Bibb, 1972; Van Horn, 1974). Mexican and European ranchers began settling in the Temecula
Valley in the late 18th century. Mission San Juan Capistrano was founded 30 miles east of the
project area in 1776. In 1798, Father Juan Norberto de Santiago founded the Mission of San Luis
Rey de Francia, 20 miles to the southwest of the project area. The Mission established a satellite
rancho in the Valley, known as “Temecula.” The Temecula Valley became the principal grain
producer for Mission San Luis Rey. Nearer to the project area, the smaller asistencia San Antonio
de Pala, about 10 miles southeast of Temecula, was founded in 1816 (Van Horn, 1974). In 1821,
Mexico, which included much of present-day California, became independent from Spain, and
during the 1820s and 1830s, the California missions were secularized. Mission property, although
it was supposed to have been held in trust for the Native Californians, was handed over to civil
administrators and then into private ownership. After secularization, many former Mission
Indians were forced to leave the Missions and seek employment as laborers, ranch hands, or
domestic servants (Horne and McDougall, 2003).
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-9 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
Locally, three land grants were awarded during the Mexican period. The 26,608-acre Temecula
Rancho, which included the project area along with much of the Temecula and Murrieta valleys,
was deeded to Felix Valdez in 1844. The 26,597-acre Pauba Rancho was awarded to Vicente
Moraga the same year. In 1845, the 2,283-acre Little Temecula Rancho was granted to Pablo
Apis, a Luiseño Indian. The Little Temecula Rancho encompassed some of the most fertile land
in the Temecula Valley, and was strategically situated on a trail between San Diego and northern
regions (Van Horn, 1974).
In 1848, gold was discovered in California, leading to a huge influx of people from other parts of
North America, and in 1850, California became part of the United States of America. The
opening of the Butterfield Overland Mail route in 1858, and later the California Southern
Railroad line in 1882 greatly increased the number of people coming to southern California
(Helmich, 2008; Lowell, 1985).
The major travel corridor through Temecula in the 19th century was known as the Southern
Emigrant Trail, and was the primary route by which prospectors and other immigrants travelled to
and through California (Brigandi, 2012). In addition, the trail became the route for the Butterfield
Overland Mail from 1858 to 1861. The stage company established a stop in Temecula at Louis
Wolf’s store, which was then the center of the village of Temecula. Temecula’s first post office
was established in 1859 at the stage stop (Brigandi, 2012).
As more and more settlers arrived, the United States government began to establish reservations
for the displaced Indians. In 1852, the Treaty of Temecula was signed by several Luiseño leaders.
The treaty would have given the Temecula Indians (primarily composed of Luiseño Indians) a
reservation and a program of assistance from the United States government (Van Horn, 1974).
However, the treaty was never ratified by the United States Congress. In 1869, local ranch
owners, including prominent Temecula residents Louis Wolf, Jose Gonzales, Francisco Sanjurjo,
and Juan Murrieta, petitioned the District Court in San Francisco to have the Temecula Indians
removed from the area. In 1875, the Temecula Indians were forcibly evicted from their
traditional lands and moved five miles. In 1882, the Pechanga Indian Reservation was established
by executive order of Chester A. Arthur (Brigandi, 2012). Farming in the reservation was
difficult, and in the early 20th century, many families moved away from the Pechanga Reservation
to ease the challenge of making a living. The remaining people worked with the local ranches as
ranch hands, domestics, and cowboys, thus being able live near their Creation place and ancestral
homelands.
In 1880, construction began on the California Southern Railroad, which would eventually connect
San Diego with the Santa Fe railroad line through the Cajon Pass, by way of Temecula. The
railroad established a new Temecula townsite across the creek from the railroad tracks, about
3.5 miles to the northwest of the old town. Drawn by the prospect of direct access to the railroad,
most residents relocated to the new townsite. The railroad also helped to create a granite
quarrying industry, which flourished in the late 19th century (Brigandi, 2012). However, the
tracks through Temecula Canyon were washed out in a flood in 1891, and never rebuilt.
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-10 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
In 1893, following a period of conflict and discontent between the cities of Riverside and
San Bernardino, portions of the Temecula and San Jacinto valleys, which were then in San Diego
County, joined with the City of Riverside in the formation of the new Riverside County (Horne
and McDougall, 2003).
Until the 1960s, the Temecula Valley was part of the Vail Ranch and was used primarily for
cattle ranching and agriculture. However, the last years of the 1960s and early 1970s witnessed
the beginnings of dramatic change in the Temecula Valley as the area began to experience its
growth as an urban area. This urban growth continued through the area’s incorporation as a city
in December 1989, into the present time. Wine production in Temecula began in the late 20th
century as well. The first vineyards were planted in the late 1960s and today several dozen
wineries can be found throughout the area (Brigandi, 2012).
Human Remains Setting
Several archaeological sites in the region are reported to have contained human remains. Many of
these sites are located along or at the confluence of perennial creeks and contain midden soils,
indicating long term seasonal use or habitation. There are five archaeological sites (CA-RIV-50, -
365, -644, -2536, and 3410/H) in the vicinity of the project area that have been reported by
previous researchers to contain human remains, including both cremations and inhumations.
Site CA-RIV-50 (a contributor to P-33-011443 – Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area [MCAA]),
located to the southeast of the project area, was first documented in the early 1940s. Previous
researchers have described the resource as a prehistoric habitation site consisting of midden soil,
ceramics, bedrock milling features, fire affected rock, and groundstone fragments (Bowles,
1982a). Two burials are noted on the 1964 archaeological site record update (Chartkoff and Kona,
1964). However, no further information on the remains is provided.
Similarly, site CA-RIV -365, located to the southwest of the project area, is a prehistoric
habitation site consisting of midden soil, bedrock milling features, groundstone fragments, lithics
(McCarthy, 1988). A site record update prepared in 1972 notes evidence of cremated human
remains (King, 1972a). No further information on the remains is provided.
Site CA-SBR-644, located to the north of the project area, was originally recorded in 1972. The
site is a prehistoric habitation site consisting of midden soil, lithic debitage, groundstone
fragments, ceramics. One burial eroding out of a creek bed was reportedly recovered by “public
employees” (Humbert and Hammond, 1972). In 1974, the University of California, Riverside,
conducted data recovery excavations at the site. The excavation revealed a deep midden deposit
containing projectile points, lithic debitage, groundstone, and charcoal; however, no additional
evidence of human remains was encountered (Schlanger, 1974).
Site CA-RIV-3410/H, a large 35-acre prehistoric site located to the east of the project area, is an
extensive surface artifact scatter containing a variety of artifacts, including Desert side-notched
and Cottonwood triangular projectile points, lithic debitage, groundstone fragments, stone
ornaments, shell, burnt bone, floral and faunal remains, and both prehistoric and historic-era
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-11 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
ceramics (Drover and Pinto, 1991). The site was subject to test excavation in 1988 and 2005, and
data recovery excavations in 1991 (Drover 1988; Drover and Pinto 1991; Dice 2001). The
excavations revealed a subsurface component containing projectile points, groundstone, stone
ornaments, lithic debitage, shell, ceramics, and faunal remains. During construction in 2003, at
least 19 full burials and three partial burials were documented (Lesley Irish, personal
communication, 2012).
Site CA-RIV -2536, located within the Pechanga Reservation to the southeast of the project area,
is a multicomponent site that contains a large prehistoric component that has been described as a
habitation site consisting of midden soil, bedrock milling features, a cupule rock, fire affected
rock, projectile points, and groundstone fragments (Love, 1994). A site update prepared in 1982
notes the presence of humans at the site (Napton 1982).
Paleontological Setting
According to surficial geological mapping of Tan and Kennedy (2000) at a scale of 1:24,000, the
project area is overlain by four geological units from oldest to youngest: Jurassic to Cretaceous
metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks (map unit Kjm; approximately 200-66 mya, Cretaceous
granodiorite of Rainbow (map unit Kr; 145-66 mya), early Pleistocene fanglomerate facies of the
Pauba Formation (map unit Qpf; approximately 1.8 mya-300,000 years ago), and the Early
Pleistocene sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation (map unit Qp; approximately 1.8 mya-
300,000 years ago). Immediately adjacent to the project area on the east are Pleistocene older
alluvial deposits. In general, the Mesozoic metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks crop out on
the western side of the project, the early Pleistocene Pauba Formation fanglomerates are found
east of the Mesozoic deposits in the central project area, except in the north, where they contact
the eastern project boundary; and the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation crops out on the
eastern side of the project. The Mesozoic igneous and metamorphic rocks mapped within the
project area are described by Tan and Kennedy (2000) as follow: the Jurassic to Cretaceous
metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks are described as low-grade metamorphic rocks, and the
granodiorite of Rainbow is considered a massive, medium to coarse grained with hornblende to
biotite mica constituting the mafic minerals. The sedimentary rocks within the project area consist
of the fanglomerate facies of the Pauba Formation, which consists of well-lithified, breccia and
mudstone that is poorly sorted, and the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation, which is
described as a moderately well-lithified, light brown sandstone and siltstone that is cross-bedded
(channel fill) (Tan and Kennedy, 2000).
Identification of Cultural Resources within the Project Area
EIC Records Search
A records search for the project was conducted in 2013, at the Eastern Information Center (EIC)
housed at University of California, Riverside. The records search included a review of all
recorded archaeological sites and cultural resource reports within a one-mile radius of the project
area. The records search also included a review of the National Register of Historic Place
(National Register), and the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Historic Property
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-12 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
Directory (HPD). Additional archival research was conducted for the project, including a review
of all available historic maps and aerial photographs.
The records search indicated that a total of 63 cultural resources studies have been conducted
within a one-mile radius of the project area. Of these 63 previous studies, five appear to include
portions of the project area. Approximately 100 percent of the project area has been included in
previous cultural resources surveys.
The records search indicated that a total of 52 cultural resources have been previously recorded
within the one-mile record search study area (Table 3.4-1). Of the 52 resources, ten (CA-RIV-50,
-270, -365,-1071, -1257, -1384, -3980 , -2134, and P-33-11222 and -12520) are prehistoric
archaeological sites, four (CA-RIV-1382, -4949, -4747, and P-33-12340) are historic-period
archaeological sites, 32 are historic-period built resources (see Table 3.4-1), five (P-33-12742, -
13511, -13712, -13726, and -14928) are prehistoric isolates, and one (P-33-11443) is a prehistoric
archaeological district known as the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area (MCAA). Of these 52
resources, four are located within the project area, including the MCAA (P-33-11443), one
prehistoric habitation site located within the MCAA (CA-RIV -270), one prehistoric artifact
scatter (CA-RIV -2134), and one prehistoric isolate (P-33-13712)1.
TABLE 3.4-1
CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN 1 MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA
P-
Number
(P-33-)
Trinomial
(CA-RIV-)
Other
Designation Type Description
Date
Recorded
000050 50 Temecula
Ranch
Prehistoric archaeological site Prehistoric habitation site 1940
000270 270 - Prehistoric archaeological site Prehistoric habitation site 1966
000365 365 - Prehistoric archaeological site Prehistoric habitation site 1965
001071 1071 - Prehistoric archaeological site Prehistoric temporary camp 1976
001257 1257 - Prehistoric archaeological site Prehistoric temporary camp 1973
001382 1382 - Historic-period archaeological
site
Historic gravesite consisting
of wooden head marker
1976
001384 1384 - Prehistoric archaeological site Prehistoric site consisting of
one bedrock mortar and one
grinding slick
1976
002134 2134* - Prehistoric archaeological site Prehistoric artifact scatter 1982
003980 3980 - Prehistoric archaeological site Prehistoric bedrock milling
features
1989
004747 4747 - Historic-period archaeological
site
Historic-period building
foundation
1992
1 In order to protect Native American cultural resources and archaeological resources from unauthorized collection or
vandalism, site location information has been redacted from the Draft EIR in accordance with federal and state laws
(NHPA, 54 U.S.C. Section 307103; ARPA, 16 U.S.C. Section 470hh; California Government Code Section
6254.10)
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-13 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
TABLE 3.4-1
CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN 1 MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA
P-
Number
(P-33-)
Trinomial
(CA-RIV-)
Other
Designation Type Description
Date
Recorded
004949 4949 - Historic-period archaeological
site
Historic-period building
foundation
1992
007737 - Palomar Hotel Historic-period built resource Vernacular wood-framed
hotel constructed in 1915
1982
007738 - First National
Bank
Historic-period built resource Concrete structure with
Classical Revival elements
constructed in 1914
1983
007739 - Machado
Store
Historic-period built resource A vernacular adobe
constructed in 1910
1983
007740 - Clogstone
Restaurant
Historic-period built resource Vernacular wood-framed
building constructed in 1932
1983
007741 - Knott’s
Garage
Historic-period built resource Wood-framed structure
constructed in 1910
1983
007742 - - Historic-period built resource Historic-period structure 1983
007750 - Welty Hotel Historic-period built resource Vernacular wood-framed
structure with a Monterey-
style front constructed in
1891
1983
007751 - Alec Escallier
House
Historic-period built resource Large vernacular wood-
framed building with
bungalow elements likely
constructed in 1927-28
1983
007752 - Friedeman
Meat Market
Historic-period built resource Vernacular wood-framed
structure constructed in 1901
1983
007754 - Immigrant
Office
Historic-period built resource Vernacular wood-framed
structure constructed in 1891
1983
007755 - Saint
Catherine’s
Church
Historic-period built resource Saint Catherine’s Church 1982
007756 - Al Burnam
House
Historic-period built resource Vernacular wood-framed
structure, date of construction
unknown
1982
007757 - - Historic-period built resource Bungalow-style residence
likely built in 1936
1982
007758 - McConville
House
Historic-period built resource Vernacular ranch house likely
constructed in the early
1890s
1982
007759 - Albert Neinke
House
Historic-period built resource Craftsman style bungalow
likely constructed in the early
1920s
1982
007760 - G.A. Burnham
House
Historic-period built resource Vernacular wood-framed
residence likely constructed
in the early 1880s
1982
007761 - - Historic-period built resource Historic-period structure 1983
007762 - - Historic-period built resource Historic-period structure 1982
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-14 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
TABLE 3.4-1
CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN 1 MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA
P-
Number
(P-33-)
Trinomial
(CA-RIV-)
Other
Designation Type Description
Date
Recorded
007763 - - Historic-period built resource Historic-period structure 1983
007764 - - Historic-period built resource Historic-period structure 1983
007765 - Harry Walters
House
Historic-period built resource Bungalow-style residence
likely constructed in the
1930s
1982
007767 - J.D. Welty
House
Historic-period built resource Vernacular wood-framed
residence in 1936
1983
007768 - Delgado
House
Historic-period built resource Bungalow-style residence
likely constructed in 1920
1983
007769 - Arviso House Historic-period built resource Wood-framed single story
structure constructed in 1920
2011
007770 - Pujol
Schoolhouse
Historic-period built resource Vernacular wood-framed
structure with Italianate
elements constructed prior to
1872
1982
007771 - - Historic-period built resource Historic-period structure 1983
007772 - French House Historic-period built resource Vernacular wood-framed
residence, date of
construction unknown
1982
007773 - Escallier
House
Historic-period built resource Mediterranean/Spanish
Revival residence likely
constructed in 1928
1982
007774 - Bill Friedemen
House
Historic-period built resource Colonial Revival residence
likely constructed in 1922
1982
011222 - - Prehistoric archaeological site Prehistoric rock art site 2001
011443* - Murietta Creek
Archaeological
Area
Archaeological district Prehistoric archaeological
district consisting of three
prehistoric sites (CA-RIV-50, -
270, and -365)
1972
012340 - - Historic-period built resource Railroad tracks 1989
012520 - - Prehistoric archaeological site Prehistoric bedrock milling
features
2002
012742 - - Isolate Prehistoric isolate 1988
013135 - - Historic-period built resource Historic-period structure 1986
013511 - - Isolate Prehistoric isolate 1982
013712* - - Isolate Prehistoric isolate 1982
013726 - - Isolate Ring of cobbles, likely
modern
1976
014392 - - Historic-period built resource Historic-period structure 1991
014928 - - Isolate Prehistoric isolate 2006
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-15 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
TABLE 3.4-1
CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN 1 MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA
P-
Number
(P-33-)
Trinomial
(CA-RIV-)
Other
Designation Type Description
Date
Recorded
019848 - Barron
Residence
Historic-period built resource Historic-period structure 2011
* Indicates resource is located within the project area
SOURCE: EIC, 2013
Resource P-33-11443: This resource is the MCAA, a 230-acre prehistoric archaeological district
originally documented in 1972 as consisting of three prehistoric residential sites (CA-RIV-50, -
270, and -365) (King, 1972b). The habitation sites within the MCAA are documented as
consisting of extensive midden deposits with associated bedrock mortars and grinding slicks
(King, 1972b). Of the three sites, one (CA-RIV -270) is located within the project area. Cremated
remains have been exposed within site CA-RIV -50 as a result of erosion and vandals (King,
1972b). Of the three sites, only CA-RIV -50 has been subject to formal subsurface investigation
(King, 1972b). A recent Master’s thesis completed by Myra Masiel-Zamora (2013) has
synthesized data collected from the Temeku Site (CA-RIV-50). However, the dearth of
subsurface investigation at the other two sites makes it difficult to draw conclusions as to whether
they represent discrete loci of a single large village, or if they were occupied at separate times
throughout prehistory (King, 1972b). Sites CA-RIV-50, -270, and -365 are listed as contributing
elements to the National Register-listed MCAA, which in turn is a contributor to the National
Register-listed Luiseño Ancestral Origin Landscape (Origin Landscape) Traditional Cultural
Property (TCP), described in more detail later in this section.
Resource CA-RIV-270: This resource is a prehistoric archaeological site previously documented
as consisting of midden deposits, groundstone artifacts, ceramic fragments, lithics, a portable
mortar fragment, as well as 20 bedrock milling features (Blackburn 1966; King 1972b; Bowles
1982b). The site measures 130 meters (north-south) by 66 meters (east-west) and has been
described as a habitation or occupation site (Blackburn, 1966; Bowles, 1982b). The site is located
within the MCAA and is a contributor to the National Register-listed district, and is listed in the
California Register of Historical Resources (California Register).
Resource CA-RIV-2134: This resource is a prehistoric archaeological site consisting of a
secondary lithic reduction scatter (Bowles, 1982c). The site was originally documented in 1982 as
measuring 133 meters (north-south) by 70 meters (east-west) and included 26 basalt flakes, one
projectile point, two preforms, and one mano (Bowles 1982c). Subsequent documentation of the
site in 1988 found that only a single unifacial mano fragment remained within the previously
mapped boundaries (Bonner, 1988). This resource has not been previously evaluated for listing in
the National Register or California Register.
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-16 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
Resource P-33-13712: This resource is a prehistoric isolate consisting of a mano and
hammerstone originally recorded in 1982 (Stropes and Smith, 2013). This resource has not been
previously evaluated for listing in the National Register or California Register.
Luiseño Ancestral Origin Landscape
A portion of the project area is located within the Origin Landscape, a TCP that was officially
listed in the National Register on October 30, 2014 under Criteria A, B, C, and D (Macarro,
2014); and by virtue of its National Register eligibility is automatically listed in the California
Register. The Origin Landscape TCP is located primarily in southwest Riverside County near the
City of Temecula, with a small portion located in northern San Diego County. The area includes
8.39 square miles, encompassing approximately 5,373 acres. The Origin Landscape TCP
represents where the Creation of the World occurred and where the Káamalam, Luiseño First
People, lived.
The Origin Landscape TCP was listed in the National Register under all four criteria (A–D) at
the local level of significance in the areas of Religion, Ethnic Heritage, Social History, and
Archaeology. The Origin Landscape TCP is eligible under Criterion A as a hilltop associated in
oral historical accounts with the founding of the Pechanga and is associated with events
significant to the cultural traditions of the Pechanga and the larger Luiseño community. The
Origin Landscape TCP is eligible under Criterion B for its association with the tribal prophet
Wuyóot and tribal leader Naxáchich. The Origin Landscape TCP is eligible under Criterion C
because it derives its importance from being a unified entity whose interconnected resources
reflect the cultural narrative. The Origin Landscape TCP is eligible under Criterion D for its
potential to yield important ethnographic, archaeological, and historic information about the
Luiseño people. The Period of Significance for the Origin Landscape TCP is from the Luiseño
Creation to the present (Macarro, 2014).
There are 28 contributing resources included in the Origin Landscape TCP: 19 archaeological
sites and nine places and landforms that are included in the Pechanga Origin Narrative (Macarro,
2014).
The 19 contributing archaeological sites include: P-33 -011222 (petroglyph circles), -012520
(bedrock milling features and cupules), -003063 (bedrock milling feature and lithic debitage), -
004264 (ground stone and lithic scatter), -014892 (rock shelter), -014894 (bedrock milling slick),
-014893 (bedrock milling features), -001860 (bedrock milling features and rock shelter), -000116
(pictograph), -007902 (bedrock milling features), -007903 (Magee’s homestead and rock quarry),
-007904 (ceramic and artifact scatter), -003330H (Magee adobe site), -014929 (bedrock milling
features), -14930 (bedrock milling features), -001071 (midden soil and lithic scatter), -014928
(metate fragment), -012742 (mano fragment), and -012517 (bedrock milling slicks). The MCAA
(P-33-011443), which includes sites CA-RIV -50, CA-RIV-270, and CA-RIV-365, is not included
as a contributing archaeological site to the TCP. Rather it is considered by the Pechanga to be part
of ‘Éxva Teméku, a contributing element of the TCP, and is described below.
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-17 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
The nine additional contributing resources include places and landforms that are referenced in the
Pechanga Origin Narrative. These resources include ‘Éxva Teméku (place where the world was
created), the footprints of the Káamalam (rocks with footprints of the First People), Káamalam
Pomkí’ (house of the First People), Churúuka (sliding place), Wexéwxi Pu’éska (crying rocks),
Táatamay (place where the First People lived when they were first born), Naxáchish (large
boulder), Takw$i (place where Naxáchish fell sick and died), and Táavishpa (place where the
Temecula Indians settled after they were evicted from their traditional homelands).
Historic Map and Aerial Review
Historic maps and aerial photographs were examined in order to provide historical information
about the project area and to contribute to an assessment of the project area’s archaeological
sensitivity. Available historic maps include the 1901 San Luis Rey 30-minute USGS topographic
quadrangle and the 1948 and 1968 Temecula 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangles. In
addition, historic aerial photographs from 1938, 1947, 1967, 1978, 1996, and 2005
(historicaerials.com, 2013) were also examined.
The historic topographic maps show the project area was largely undeveloped during the first
three-quarters of the twentieth century, whereas the areas immediately west of the project area
have seen a significant amount of development. The 1901 San Luis Rey topographic map shows
Temecula as well as a generally northwest-southeast oriented road located immediately east of
the northern portion of the project area, across Murrieta Creek. A generally northwest-southeast
trending railroad line is depicted in the northeastern portion of the project area and a northeast-
southwest trending dirt road is indicated in the southern portion of the project area. The 1948 and
1968 Temecula topographic maps show increased development within Temecula. Pujol Street is
depicted along the eastern boundary of the northern portion of the project area, and bisecting the
southern portion of the project area. A number of structures are indicated on both sides of Pujol
Street just outside the boundaries of the northern portion of the project area. The railroad line
indicated in the San Luis Rey topographic map is no longer depicted and no development is
shown within the project area.
The 1938 and 1947 historic aerial photographs show a number of residential structures directly
across Murrieta Creek from Old Town Temecula along Pujol Street. The structures are located
along the margins of the eastern boundary of the northern portion of the project area. Both
photographs also indicate possible agricultural fields located along Pujol Street on the eastern
margins of the southern portion of the project area. The 1967 and 1978 aerial photographs show
the expansion of residential development along the western boundary of the northern portion of
the project area and depict newly graded areas immediately west of Pujol Street. The 1996 map
show additional development within the immediate vicinity of the project area. The 1996
photograph shows that residential development extended further south along Pujol Street, and two
large graded areas are shown in the northern portion of the project area.
In summary, the historic map and aerial photograph review indicates that the project area has seen
very little development, while the areas immediately east of the project area have been developed
for residential purposes since at least the 1930s.
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-18 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
Native American Contact
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) maintains a confidential Sacred Lands File
(SLF) that contains sites of traditional, cultural, or religious value to the Native American
community. The NAHC was contacted on August 20, 2013 to request a search of the SLF. The
NAHC responded to the request in a letter dated August 22, 2013. The letter indicated that Native
American cultural resources are not known to be located within the project area. However, the
NAHC stated that there are Native American cultural resources in close proximity to the project
area, but did not provide further information on the locations of the resources.
On September 5, 2014, the Pechanga submitted a letter to the City via email and mail requesting
to consult with the City under Senate Bill (SB) 18 and to be added to the distribution list for the
proposed project. On March 11, 2015, the City sent letters via certified mail to the Pechanga,
Rincon, Soboba, La Jolla, Pala, Pauma, and San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians inviting them
to consult with the City under SB 18 (Appendix L of this Draft EIR). Since that date, the City has
engaged in SB 18 consultation with the Pechanga through regular contact, quarterly meetings,
and a project field visit (see next paragraph) and the requirements of SB 18 have been satisfied.
On January 20, 2015, representatives of the Pechanga, ESA, the City, and the Applicant met
onsite in order to discuss additional archaeological investigation in the project area. During the
meeting, the Pechanga stated that site CA-RIV -270 is a part of, or associated with, 'Éxva Teméku,
the Pechanga’s origin place, and that site CA-RIV -2134 is a tool manufacturing area associated
with 'Éxva Teméku. The Pechanga also indicated that a portion of the project area is within the
Origin Landscape TCP.
Phase I Pedestrian Survey
A cultural resources pedestrian survey of the project area was conducted on July 30 and 31, 2012
(Stropes and Smith, 2013). Surveyors systematically examined the project area on foot, with
survey transects not exceeding 15 meters (approximately 50 feet).
The project area is bounded by existing developments to the east and consists of steep slopes to
the west. The entire project area was accessible and subject to an intensive pedestrian survey.
Ground surface visibility during the survey was approximately 50 to 60 percent. A number of
disturbances were noted during the survey and included dirt road, cultivation, off-road vehicle
use, and pedestrian traffic.
During the survey, resource CA-RIV -270 was relocated and found to be consistent with previous
descriptions. Noted disturbances to the site include repeated “pot hunting” (i.e., unauthorized or
illegal collection of artifacts by the public) and erosion. However, the milling features and rock
outcrops appeared to be in good condition. The mapped locations of two previously recorded
resources (CA-RIV-2134 and P-33-13712) were re-surveyed; however, no surface evidence of
either resource was observed. No new cultural resources were identified during the pedestrian
survey.
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-19 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
Additional Archaeological Investigation
In order to determine whether cultural materials associated with site CA-RIV -270 extend into the
proposed area of direct impact (ADI)2, additional archaeological investigation was conducted
from June 1-5, 2015 (Ehringer et al., 2015). The investigation included a close-interval survey of
site CA-RIV -270 and redocumentation of the site’s surface manifestation and close-interval
survey and subsurface testing in portions of the proposed ADI, and included a combination of
close-interval survey, shovel scrapes, shovel test pits (STPs), and mechanical trenching in areas
of proposed disturbance in closest proximity to site CA-RIV-270 and where geoarchaeological
prediction suggested a likelihood of buried archaeological resources.
The geoarchaeological review indicated that a combination of the degree of slope and soil type
(primarily Escondido fine sandy loam [EcE2]) associated with the upslope areas of the proposed
ADI are generally not conducive to the presence of buried archaeological resources. In instances
where cultural materials may have been deposited on relatively steep slopes during the period of
human occupation in the area, significant quantities of sheet wash are not anticipated to have
accumulated to the extent that resources would be deeply buried. These areas are considered low
to moderately-low sensitivity for archaeological resources. The review also indicated that a
higher likelihood of buried resources might occur along areas of gentler slopes conducive to
human habitation and deposition of cultural materials, and soil types (Arlington and Greenfield
fine sandy loams [AtD2]), consistent with alluvial deposition.
Close-interval survey and a total of 51 shovel scrapes were conducted at site CA-RIV-270. A
total of four artifacts (A1-A4), including lithic flakes and a single groundstone fragment, plus a
total of nine bedrock milling stations and one cultural feature were documented. Site CA-RIV-
270 was re-recorded and a California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 form
update was prepared. Close-interval survey and a total of 132 shovel scrapes were conducted in
the proposed ADI. One isolated artifact (Altair-Iso-001, flake) was documented as a result of the
survey. Subsurface investigation of the proposed ADI included the excavation of 12 STPs and
eight trenches (totaling 350 linear feet). No artifacts were recovered from the STPs. One artifact
(Altair-Iso -002, unifacial mano) was recovered during the trenching.
The archaeological investigation did not identify any intact subsurface archaeological deposits
within the ADI and it does not appear that site CA-RIV-270 extends into the ADI. The lack of
identified intact subsurface archaeological materials reduces the likelihood of encountering buried
archaeological resources during project implementation, but does not preclude the possibility that
archaeological resources may be present in areas not subject to archaeological investigation. The
subsurface investigation was limited to a small sample of the entire area of proposed ground
disturbance and, in addition, dense vegetation (5–10% ground visibility) throughout most of the
project area may have obscured surface evidence of additional archaeological resources on the
close-interval survey.
2 A portion of the project proposed for ground disturbance.
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-20 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
Paleontological Resources
A paleontological records search conducted by the SBCM on November 16, 2008 (Scott, 2008;
In: Kennedy and Wirths, 2013) indicated that no vertebrate fossil localities have been identified
within the project area. However, the records search did indicate that over 400 fossil localities
have been documented in the vicinity of the project area. These fossil localities are known to
occur within the Pauba Formation sandstone facies (Qp) and underlying unnamed sandstone unit.
The Pauba Formation sandstone facies is found within the project area. Jefferson (1991a,b) listed
mammoth (Mammuthus), mastodon (Mammut), camel (Camelops), bison (Bison), horses (Equus
sp.), Tapir (Tapirus), and a multitude of microvertebrates, including, but not limited to, fish
(Gasterosteus aculeatus, Gila sp.), frogs (Rana sp., Bufo sp.), lizards (?Uta stansburiana,
Eumeces), snakes (?Lampropeltis sp., Crotalidae), birds (Aves), rabbits (Sylvilagus audubonii),
and several rodent species from the Pauba Formation near the project site.
Given the paleontological resources found within the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation
from areas near to the project, it is considered to have high paleontological sensitivity. The
fanglomerate facies of the Pauba Formation has undetermined sensitivity, as no fossils have been
reported from this unit; however, depending on the lithology present (fine-grained lenses), this
unit may produce significant paleontological resources. Metavolcanic, metasedimentary, and
plutonic igneous rocks do not normally yield significant paleontological resources due to the
intense heat and pressure associated with their formation. Therefore, Jurassic to Cretaceous
metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks and the Cretaceous granodiorite of Rainbow are
considered to have low paleontological sensitivity.
3.4.2 Regulatory Framework
Cultural Resources
Numerous laws and regulations require federal, state, and local agencies to consider the effects a
project may have on cultural resources. These laws and regulations stipulate a process for
compliance, define the responsibilities of the various agencies proposing the action, and prescribe
the relationship among other involved agencies (e.g., State Office of Historic Preservation [OHP]
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). The National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA); CEQA; and the California Register, Public Resources Code (PRC) 5024, are the
primary federal and state laws governing and affecting preservation of cultural resources of
national, state, regional, and local significance.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Archaeological resources are protected through the NHPA of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470f),
and its implementing regulation, Protection of Historic Properties (36 Code of Federal
Regulations [CFR] Part 800), the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, and the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. Prior to implementing an “undertaking” (e.g.,
issuing a federal permit), Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the
effects of the undertaking on historic properties (i.e., resources eligible for listing in the National
Register) and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-21 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
Preservation Officer (SHPO) a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that would
adversely affect properties eligible for listing in the National Register. As indicated in
Section 101(d)(6)(A) of the NHPA, properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to a
tribe are eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Under the NHPA, a resource is considered
significant if it meets the National Register listing criteria at 36 CFR 60.4. Compliance with
Section 106 is required whenever a project has a federal nexus, meaning that the project is on
federal land, receives federal funds, or is permitted by a federal agency.
The Section 106 process also includes provisions for the discovery of cultural resources after a
project has undergone the Section 106 review process. These provisions are outlined at 36 CFR
Part 800.13 (Post-Review Discoveries) and include the following:
(b) Discoveries without prior planning. If historic properties are discovered or unanticipated
effects on historic properties found after the agency official has completed the section
106 process without establishing a process under paragraph (a) of this section, the agency
official shall make reasonable efforts to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects to
such properties and:
(3) If the agency official has approved the undertaking and construction has
commenced, determine actions that the agency official can take to resolve adverse
effects, and notify the SHPO/THPO [Tribal Historic Preservation Officer], any
Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that might attach religious and cultural
significance to the affected property, and the Council within 48 hours of the
discovery. The notification shall describe the agency official's assessment of National
Register eligibility of the property and proposed actions to resolve the adverse
effects. The SHPO/THPO, the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and the
Council shall respond within 48 hours of the notification. The agency official shall
take into account their recommendations regarding National Register eligibility and
proposed actions, and then carry out appropriate actions. The agency official shall
provide the SHPO/THPO, the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and the
Council a report of the actions when they are completed.
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register was established by the NHPA as “an authoritative guide to be used by
federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s historic
resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or
impairment” (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 36 Section 60.2). The National Register
recognizes both historical-period and prehistoric archaeological properties that are significant at
the national, state, and local levels.
To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a resource must be significant in American
history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures,
and objects of potential significance must meet one or more of the following four established
criteria (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995):
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-22 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of our history.
B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Unless the property possesses exceptional significance, it must be at least 50 years old to be
eligible for National Register listing (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995).
In addition to meeting the criteria of significance, a property must have integrity. Integrity is
defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance” (U.S. Department of the Interior,
1995). The National Register recognizes seven qualities that, in various combinations, define
integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain
historic integrity, a property must possess several, and usually most, of these seven aspects. Thus,
the retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its
significance.
Traditional Cultural Properties
A TCP is defined as a property that is “eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of
its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that
community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the
community” (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Cultural Resources, National
Register Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Properties, page
1). Bulletin 38 states that the term “Traditional” is used to describe those “beliefs, customs, and
practices of a living community of people that have been passed down through the generations,
usually orally or through practice.” Bulletin 38 uses the National Register definition of “culture”
to mean “the traditions, beliefs, practices, lifeways, arts, crafts, and social institutions of any
community, be it an Indian tribe, a local ethnic group, or the people of the nation as a whole.”
Bulletin 38 states that “[t]he traditional cultural significance of a historic property … is
significance derived from the role the property plays in a community’s historically rooted beliefs,
customs, and practices. Examples of properties possessing such significance include:
• a location associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its
origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world;
• a rural community whose organization, buildings and structures, or patterns of land use
reflect the cultural traditions valued by its long-term residents;
• an urban neighborhood that is the traditional home of a particular cultural group, and that
reflects its beliefs and practices;
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-23 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
• a location where Native American religious practitioners have historically gone, and are
known or thought to go today, to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with
traditional cultural rules of practice; and
• a location where a community has traditionally carried out economic, artistic, or other
cultural practices important in maintaining its historical identity.”
In addition, traditional cultural landscapes may be considered a TCP and may be eligible for
listing in the National Register based on their traditional cultural significance (ACHP, 2009).
Traditional cultural landscapes may comprise districts, buildings, structures, sites, and objects, or
a combination of these property types.
Bulletin 38 provides guidance for evaluating TCPs as eligible for listing in the National Register.
To be eligible, a TCP must meet the definitions of a tangible property; must demonstrate
“integrity of relationship” between the property and the beliefs or practices that may give it
significance; and must possess “integrity of condition” such that the relevant relationships
between the property and the beliefs or practices that give it significance survive. Only after
ensuring that an entity is a property and demonstrating that it retains integrity, is it necessary to
evaluate it against the four National Register Criteria for eligibility.
California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by State and local
agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the State
and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from
substantial adverse change” (PRC Section 5024.1[a]). The criteria for eligibility for the California
Register are based upon National Register criteria (PRC Section 5024.1[b]). Certain resources are
determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, including
California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register.
To be eligible for the California Register, a prehistoric or historic-period property must be
significant at the local, state, and/or federal level under one or more of the following four criteria:
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of California’s history and cultural heritage.
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high
artistic values.
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
A resource eligible for the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance
described above, and retain enough of its historic character or appearance (integrity) to be
recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reason for its significance. It is possible
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-24 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
that a historic resource may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the
National Register, but it may still be eligible for listing in the California Register.
Additionally, the California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those
that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California
Register automatically includes the following:
• California properties listed on the National Register and those formally determined
eligible for the National Register.
• California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward.
• Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the OHP and
have been recommended to the State Historical Commission for inclusion on the
California Register.
Other resources that may be nominated to the California Register include:
• Historical resources with a significance rating of Category 3 through 5 (those properties
identified as eligible for listing in the National Register, the California Register, and/or a
local jurisdiction register).
• Individual historical resources.
• Historical resources contributing to historic districts.
• Historical resources designated or listed as local landmarks, or designated under any local
ordinance, such as a historic preservation overlay zone.
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is the principal statute governing environmental review of projects occurring in the state
and is codified at PRC Section 21000 et seq. CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a
proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment, including significant effects
on historical or unique archaeological resources.
Under CEQA (Section 21084.1), a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment. An archaeological resource may qualify as an “historical resource” under CEQA.
The CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15064.5)
recognize that an historical resource includes: (1) a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible
by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register; (2) a
resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k)
or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC
Section 5024.1(g); and (3) any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript
which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural,
engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural
annals of California by the lead agency, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by
substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The fact that a resource does not meet the three
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-25 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
criteria outlined above does not preclude the lead agency from determining that the resource may
be a historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
If a lead agency determines that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of
Section 21084.1 of CEQA and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines apply. If a project may
cause a substantial adverse change (defined as physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or
alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical
resource would be materially impaired) in the significance of an historical resource, the lead
agency must identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate these effects (CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15064.5(b)(1), 15064.5(b)(4)).
If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria for a historical resource contained in the CEQA
Guidelines, then the site may be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083,
which is a unique archaeological resource. As defined in Section 21083.2 of CEQA a “unique”
archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site, about which it can be clearly
demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high
probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
• Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there
is a demonstrable public interest in that information;
• Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best
available example of its type; or,
• Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic
event or person.
If an archaeological site meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in
Section 21083.2, then the site is to be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section
21083.2, which state that if the lead agency determines that a project would have a significant
effect on unique archaeological resources, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be
made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place (Section 21083.1(a)). If
preservation in place is not feasible, mitigation measures shall be required.
The CEQA Guidelines note that if an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological
nor a historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a
significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)).
Senate Bill 18
SB 18 (Statutes of 2004, Chapter 905), which went into effect January 1, 2005, requires local
governments (city and county) to consult with Native American tribes before making certain
planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process.
The intent is to “provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local
land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts
to, cultural places” (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2005). The City of Temecula
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-26 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
sent consultation letters to the tribes on March 11, 2015 in fulfillment of SB 18 requirements
(Appendix L of this Draft EIR).
The purpose of involving tribes at these early planning stages is to allow consideration of cultural
places in the context of broad local land use policy, before individual site-specific, project-level,
land use designations are made by a local government. The consultation requirements of SB 18
apply to general plan or specific plan processes proposed on or after March 1, 2005.
According to the Tribal Consultation Guidelines: Supplement to General Plan Guidelines
(Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2005), the following are the contact and
notification responsibilities of local governments:
• Prior to the adoption or any amendment of a general plan or specific plan, a local
government must notify the appropriate tribes (on the contact list maintained by the
NAHC) of the opportunity to conduct consultations for the purpose of preserving, or
mitigating impacts to, cultural places located on land within the local government’s
jurisdiction that is affected by the proposed plan adoption or amendment. Tribes have 90
days from the date on which they receive notification to request consultation, unless a
shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe (Government Code §65352.3).
• Prior to the adoption or substantial amendment of a general plan or specific plan, a local
government must refer the proposed action to those tribes that are on the NAHC contact
list and have traditional lands located within the city or county’s jurisdiction. The referral
must allow a 45-day comment period (Government Code §65352). Notice must be sent
regardless of whether prior consultation has taken place. Such notice does not initiate a
new consultation process.
• Local government must send a notice of a public hearing, at least 10 days prior to the
hearing, to tribes who have filed a written request for such notice (Government Code
§65092).
Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) requires lead agencies to consider the
effects of projects on tribal cultural resources and to conduct consultation with federally and non-
federally recognized Native American Tribes early in the environmental planning process. AB 52
applies specifically to projects for which a Notice of Preparation (NOP) or a notice of Negative
Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) will be filed on or after July 1, 2015.
The goal of AB 52 is to include California Tribes in determining whether a project may result in a
significant impact to tribal cultural resources that may be undocumented or known only to the
Tribe and its members. This bill specifies that a project that may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource (sites, features, places, cultural landscapes,
sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe) is a project
that may have a significant effect on the environment. AB 52 defines tribal cultural resources as
“sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a
California Native American Tribe” that are either included or determined to be eligible for
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-27 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
inclusion in the California Register or included in a local register of historical resources (PRC §
21074 (a)(1)).
AB 52 requires that prior to determining whether a Negative Declaration, MND, or
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared for a project, the lead agency must consult with
California Native American Tribes, defined as those identified on the contact list maintained by
the NAHC, who are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the
proposed project, and who have requested such consultation in writing. The following is what the
scope of consultation may include according to PRC §21080.3.2(a):
• The type of environmental review necessary
• The significance of tribal cultural resources
• The significance of the project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources
• Project alternatives or the appropriate measures for preservation
• Recommended mitigation measures
• AB 52 outlines the required procedures concerning consultation
AB 52 outlines the required procedures concerning consultation (PRC §21080.3.1(d) and (e))
including the initiation and conclusion of consultation. Consultation should be initiated by a lead
agency within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or that a
decision by a public agency to undertake a project. The lead agency shall provide formal
notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally
affiliated California Native American Tribes that have requested notice. At the very least the
notice should consist of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the
proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the
California Native American Tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.
The lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a California
Native American Tribe’s request for consultation. According to PRC §21080.3.2(b), consultation
is considered concluded when either the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a
significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource, or a party, acting in
good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.
City of Temecula General Plan
The City of Temecula’s General Plan, Open Space/Conservation Element (2005), contains the
following cultural resources goals, policies, and implementation programs relevant to this project:
Goal 6: Preservation of significant historical and cultural resources.
Policy 6.1: Maintain an inventory of areas with archaeological/paleontological sensitivity, and
historic sites in the Planning Area.
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-28 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
Policy 6.2: Work to preserve or salvage potential archeological and paleontological resources on
sites proposed for future development through the development review and mitigation monitoring
processes.
Policy 6.4: Assist property owners in seeking State and/or federal registration and appropriate
zoning for historic sites and assets.
Policy 6.8: Support an integrated approach to historic preservation in coordination with other
affected jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations for areas within the Planning Area and
surrounding region that seeks to establish linkages between historic sites or buildings with other
historic features such as roads, trails, ridges, and seasonal waterways.
Policy 6.9: Encourage the preservation and re-use of historic structures, landscape features, roads,
landmark trees, and trails.
Policy 6.10: Work with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians to identify and appropriately
address cultural resources and tribal sacred sites through the development review process.
Policy 6.11: Encourage voluntary landowner efforts to protect cultural resource and tribal sacred
sites consistent with State requirements.
Implementation Program OS-26: Development Review Process. Use the development and
environmental review process to:
• Ensure that appropriate archaeological and paleontological surveying and documentation
of findings is provided prior to project approval.
• Require effective mitigation where development may affect archaeological or
paleontological resources.
• Require that an archaeologist or paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in
areas where the probable presence of archaeological or paleontological resources is
identified.
• Enforce CEQA provisions regarding preservation or salvage of significant archaeological
and paleontological sites discovered during construction activities.
• Require monitoring of new development and reporting to the City on completion of
mitigation and resource protection measures.
Implementation Program OS-27: Historic Preservation Program. Continue to implement a
historic preservation ordinance in the Old Town area to protect historically significant buildings,
sites, road/trails, and other landscape elements, and to encourage their reuse, where appropriate.
Consider adopting an ordinance to address preservation of other historic resources. Encourage
owners of local sites to apply for recognition in the State Historic Resources Inventory, as
Riverside County Landmarks, as State Point of Historic Interest, as State Landmarks, and as sites
on the National Register of Historic Places, as deemed necessary.
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-29 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
Implementation Program OS-39: Tribal Cultural Resources. Development projects proposed
on previously undeveloped property which involve earth-disturbing activities or which are
located in areas with previously identified cultural resources need to comply with the following
requirements to appropriately address tribal cultural resources:
• All projects shall be evaluated by a qualified archeologist by conducting a site records
search, and if feasible, a Phase I walkover survey, and if necessary, a Phase II survey
prior to project approval to identify the potential for the presence of significant cultural
resources.
• If significant resources are located on the project site, or a high probability for cultural
resources exists, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians shall be consulted in the
identification of mitigation measures to address impacts consistent with State
requirements, including provisions to address inadvertent discoveries.
• During onsite grading activities in areas with cultural resources, or with a high potential
for cultural resources, a qualified archeologist and tribal monitors shall be onsite to
monitor grading operations.
• In the event of the discovery of a burial site, human bone or suspected human bone,
grading in the immediate area shall be immediately halted, the site protected, and the
County Coroner and representatives from Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians notified.
Paleontological Resources
Federal
A variety of federal statutes specifically address paleontological resources. They are generally
applicable to a project if that project includes federally owned or federally managed lands or
involves a federal agency license, permit, approval, or funding. Federal legislative protection for
paleontological resources stems from the Antiquities Act of 1906 (PL 59-209; 16 United States
Code 431 et. seq.; 34 Stat. 225), which calls for protection of historic landmarks, historic and
prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest on federal lands. The most
recent federal legislation protecting paleontological resources is the Paleontological Resources
Preservation Act (Title VI, Subtitle D of the Omnibus Land Management Act of 2009), which
furthers the protection of paleontological resources on federal lands by criminalizing the
unauthorized removal of fossils.
State
Paleontological resources are also afforded protection by CEQA. Appendix G (Part V) of the
CEQA Guidelines provides guidance relative to significant impacts on paleontological resources,
stating that a project will normally result in a significant impact on the environment if it will
“…disrupt or adversely affect a paleontologic resource or site or unique geologic feature, except
as part of a scientific study.” PRC Section 5097.5 specifies that any unauthorized removal of
paleontological remains is a misdemeanor. Further, the California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets
the penalties for the damage or removal of paleontological resources.
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-30 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
City of Temecula General Plan
The City of Temecula’s General Plan, Open Space/Conservation Element (2005), addresses the
following paleontological resources goals, policies, and implementation programs relevant to this
project (see Goal 6, Policy 6.1 and 6.2 and Implementation Program OS-26 above).
Professional Standards
The Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) has established standard guidelines for acceptable
professional practices in the conduct of paleontological resource assessments and surveys,
monitoring and mitigation, data and fossil recovery, sampling procedures, and specimen
preparation, identification, analysis, and curation (SVP, 2010). Most practicing professional
paleontologists in the nation adhere closely to the SVP’s assessment, mitigation, and monitoring
requirements as specifically provided in its standard guidelines. Most California State regulatory
agencies accept the SVP standard guidelines as a measure of professional practice.
3.4.3 Impact Assessment
Thresholds of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, cultural resources impacts would be considered
significant if the project would:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined
in Section 15064.5;
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5;
• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature; or
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Cumulative impacts from the proposed project are detailed in Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts.
CEQA provides that a project may cause a significant environmental effect where the project
could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource (Public
Resources Code, Section 21084.1). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines a “substantial
adverse change” in the significance of a historical resource to mean physical demolition,
destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the
significance of a historical resource would be “materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5[b][1]).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2), defines “materially impaired” for purposes of the
definition of “substantial adverse change” as follows:
The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-31 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
• Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an
historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in,
or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register; or
• Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that
account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to
Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical
resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources
Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a
preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
• Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a
historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for
inclusion in the California Register as determined by a lead agency for purposes of
CEQA.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3), a project that follows the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings is considered to have
mitigated impacts to historic resources to a less-than-significant level.
In addition, AB 52 requires that a project’s impact to tribal cultural resources be assessed.
However, since the NOP for the proposed project was issued prior to July 1, 2015, this project is
not subject to the provisions of AB 52.
Impacts
Historical and Archaeological Resources
Seven cultural resources (Origin Landscape TCP; P-33-11443 and -13712; CA-RIV-270 and -
2134; and Altair-Iso-001 and -002) have been identified in the project area.
Origin Landscape TCP
The National-Register-listed Origin Landscape TCP encompasses a portion of the project area
and is considered a historical resource under CEQA. Impacts to those physical characteristics
(contributing elements) that convey the TCP’s historical significance could result in a significant
impact to the historical resource identified as the Origin Landscape TCP. Of the 28 contributing
elements, only one, ‘Éxva Teméku, encompasses a portion of the project area. One contributing
element of ‘Éxva Teméku is within this area (CA-RIV-270 – part of the MCAA). As discussed
above, testing determined that site CA-RIV-270 (contributing element of ‘Éxva Teméku) is
outside the ADI and will not be disturbed. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial
adverse change (i.e. demolish or materially alter in a manner those physical characteristics of a
historical resource that convey its historical significance) to any of the contributing elements of
the TCP, and the project would not result in a significant impact to the historical resource
identified as the Origin Landscape TCP. Should resources associated with the Origin Landscape
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-32 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
TCP be discovered during project implementation, impacts to these resources could result in a
significant impact under CEQA.
CA-RIV-270
Resource P-33-11443 (MCAA) is listed in the National Register and site CA-RIV-270
(prehistoric habitation site) is a contributor to the MCAA, therefore both P-33-11443 and CA-
RIV-270 are considered historical resources under CEQA. As described above, site CA-RIV-270
is outside the ADI and will not be disturbed. As such, the project would not impact resources CA-
RIV-270 and P-33-11443 (MCAA). Should resources associated with P-33-11443 or CA-RIV -
270 be discovered during project implementation, impacts to these resources could result in a
significant impact under CEQA.
CA-RIV-2134 and P-33-13712
Resource CA-RIV-2134 has not been formally evaluated for listing in the National Register or
California Register. The area where ground disturbance is proposed for site CA-RIV-2134 has
been previously graded up to 10 feet in depth and original ground surface is no longer extant. The
remainder of the site appears to have been subject to some amount of previous ground
disturbance as well, though exact depths are unknown. Regardless, this area would not be subject
to future ground disturbance and would instead be covered by 15 feet of fill. Therefore, no
impacts to site CA-RIV -2134 are anticipated as a result of the project. Resource P-33-13712
could not be relocated during the 2013 survey, nonetheless, as an isolate it would not be
considered eligible for listing in the California Register, or otherwise meet CEQA’s definitions
for historical resources or unique archaeological resources.
Altair-Iso-001 and Altair-Iso-002
Resources Altair-Iso-001 (flake) and Altair-Iso-002 (unifacial mano) were documented and
collected as part of the archaeological investigation and will be returned to the Pechanga for
permanent curation. While the Pechanga maintain that single artifacts are associated with larger
village sites and reflect habitation of the region, by definition, isolates are not eligible for listing
in the California Register, and do not otherwise meet CEQA’s definitions for historical resources
or unique archaeological resources.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Impact CUL-1: The project area is considered moderately to highly sensitive for cultural
resources. In addition, a portion of the project area is within the Origin Landscape TCP, one of
the most sacred areas for the Pechanga Tribe. The lack of identified intact subsurface
archaeological materials reduces the likelihood of encountering buried archaeological resources
during project implementation, but does not preclude the possibility that archaeological resources
may be present in areas not subject to archaeological investigation. In the event that
archaeological resources are inadvertently encountered during project implementation,
disturbances to such resources could result in a substantial adverse change to historical resources
as defined by CEQA. Disturbances to archaeological resources would require consideration of
impacts to any archaeological resources individually and as contributors to the larger National
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-33 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
Register-listed archaeological district (P-33-11443 – MCAA), as well as consideration as
contributors to the National Register-listed Origin Landscape TCP.
The following mitigation measures shall be implemented. The project applicant shall be
responsible for the implementation of the measures and the City shall ensure applicant
compliance with the measures.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1a – Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist: Prior to issuance
of a grading permit and prior to the start of any ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall
retain a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (Department of the Interior, 2012), to carry
out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1b – Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training: The qualified
archeologist, or an archaeologist working under the direction of the qualified archaeologist, shall
conduct preconstruction cultural resources sensitivity training to inform construction personnel of
the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be
enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains.
The applicant shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the
training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1c – Archaeological and Native American Monitoring and
Resurvey of the South Parcel: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any
vegetation removal or ground disturbing activity, a qualified archaeological monitor and Native
American monitor shall be retained by the applicant to monitor ground disturbing activities
including, but not limited to, brush clearance and grubbing, grading, trenching, excavation, and
the construction of fencing and access roads. The archaeological and Native American monitors
shall re-survey the South Parcel involving ground disturbance, after vegetation removal and
grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. This will ensure that previously
undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified and appropriate treatment
measures for the resources can be developed. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an
archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be
encountered within the project, and under direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. If
ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more than 500
feet apart, additional archaeological and Native American monitors may be required.
The archaeological and Native American monitors shall keep daily logs. After monitoring has
been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the
results of monitoring, which shall be submitted to the City, Pechanga, and to the Eastern
Information Center at the University of California, Riverside.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1d – Unanticipated Discovery: If cultural resources are
encountered during the course of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall cease any
ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified
archaeologist, who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery. The qualified
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-34 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
archaeologist, the archaeological monitor, and/or Native American monitor shall be empowered
to halt or redirect ground disturbing activities away from the vicinity of the find until it has been
assessed for significance. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the
Pechanga Tribe, shall assess the significance of discovered resources. If it is determined that the
discovery constitutes a significant resource (i.e., a historical resource or unique archaeological
resource pursuant to CEQA or historic property pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA),
preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation. Preservation in place may be
accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space,
capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that
preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is
determined to be the only feasible mitigation option, a treatment plan shall be prepared and
implemented by the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga
Tribe. The treatment plan shall provide for the adequate recovery of the scientifically
consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The Pechanga Tribe shall be
consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is
scientifically important, are considered. The treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis,
reporting, and curation/disposition of resources. If the applicant, qualified archaeologist, and
Pechanga Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for resources, these issues shall
be presented to the City Community Development Director for decision. The City Community
Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of CEQA with
respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and
practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the
decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning
Commission and/or City Council. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall also be notified within
24 hours of the discovery and afforded the opportunity to determine whether the discovery
requires addressing under Section 106 Post-Review Discoveries provisions provided in 36 CFR
800.13, and invited to participate in the discussion of significance, mitigation, and/or treatment of
resources.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Paleontological Resources
The project area is underlain by Jurassic to Cretaceous metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks,
Cretaceous granodiorites, and the Pauba Formation (both the fanglomerate and sandstone facies).
Although the Jurassic to Cretaceous metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, Cretaceous
granodiorite of Rainbow, and Pauba Formation fanglomerate have a low sensitivity for
paleontological resources, the Pauba Formation sandstone facies is considered to have high
sensitivity and the Pauba Formation fanglomerate is considered to have undetermined sensitivity
per the SVP guidelines. The paleontological records search (see Kennedy and Wirths, 2013) and
the research conducted for this analysis indicate that fossil localities have been documented in the
vicinity of the project area. Temecula’s General Plan (Implementation Program OS-26) requires
that a paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in areas where the probable
presence of unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features is identified.
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-35 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-2: The potential exists for unique paleontological resources to be located beneath
the ground surface in the project area, specifically within the sandstone facies of the Pauba
Formation (Qp), which has high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Construction activities
could result in the inadvertent discovery and damage of these paleontological resources, which
would be a significant impact.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2a – Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program
(PRIMP): The applicant shall implement the paleontological mitigation program outlined in the
PRIMP (Kennedy and Wirths, 2013) during project implementation. The PRIMP requires
paleontological monitoring of mapped exposures of the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation
(Qp) as shown on Attachment 3a of the PRIMP. In addition, because the fanglomerate facies of
the Pauba Formation is considered to have undetermined potential to yield significant
paleontological resources, initial excavations into the unit shall be spot-checked by a qualified
paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology
Standards, 2010) to determine if the lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the
preservation of unique paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist shall also
contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training, either in person or
via a module provided to the qualified archaeologist.
Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist, or a monitor working under the
direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist. Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily
halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. The
qualified paleontologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors,
may reduce or discontinue monitoring, as warranted, if the qualified paleontologist determines
that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. Monitors shall prepare daily logs
detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. Any fossils recovered
shall be prepared to the point of identification and curated at an accredited facility. The qualified
paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to be submitted to the City
and filed with the local repository.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2b – Unanticipated Paleontological Resources Discoveries: If
construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction,
regardless of the depth of work, work at the discovery location shall cease until the qualified
paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate
treatment.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Human Remains
While no formal cemeteries or the presence of human remains have been documented within the
project area, human remains have been recovered from other sites in the vicinity of the project.
Since the nature of the proposed project would involve ground-disturbing activities, it is possible
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-36 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.4 Cultural Resources
that such actions could unearth, expose, or disturb previously unknown human remains interred
outside of a formal cemetery.
Impact CUL-3: Because the proposed project would involve ground-disturbing activities, it is
possible that such actions could unearth, expose, or disturb previously unknown human remains
interred outside of a formal cemetery.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3 – Human Remains: If human remains are uncovered during
project construction, the applicant shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and
protocols set forth in Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, which require compliance with
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (as amended
by AB 2641). The applicant shall immediately contact the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate
the remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the County
Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours to
relinquish jurisdiction. The NAHC shall designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the
remains, who shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site to provide
recommendations to the landowner for the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate
dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. Until the landowner has discussed
and conferred with the MLD, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the
discovery occurred is not subject to further disturbances, is adequately protected according to
generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into
account the possibility of multiple burials. In the event that no MLD is identified, or if the MLD
fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the recommendation
of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner,
the landowner may reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the
property in a location not subject to further disturbance.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.4-37 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
This section identifies geologic, soil, and seismic features within the project site and vicinity, and
provides an evaluation of the potential for the project to result in geology, soils, and seismic
impacts. Much of the following information is based on the geotechnical investigation prepared
by LGC Geo-Environmental, Inc. (LGC) for the project site (LGC, 2014). The investigation
report is included in Appendix D of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
3.5.1 Environmental Setting
Regional Geology
The project area is located just east of the Santa Ana Mountains in the geologic province known
as the Peninsular Ranges province. The Peninsular Ranges province encompasses an area that
extends approximately 900 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin south to
the southern tip of Baja California. The province varies in width from approximately 30 to
100 miles. In general, the province consists of rugged mountains underlain by volcanic and
sedimentary rocks, and igneous rocks of the Southern California Batholith (granitic rocks that
constitute the core of many mountain ranges in western North America and underlie large
portions of southern California). The Santa Ana Mountains consist primarily of these granitic or
crystalline rocks that are overlain by younger sedimentary rocks. The Peninsular Ranges province
is traversed by a group of subparallel faults and fault zones trending roughly northwest. Several
of these faults are considered active faults. The Elsinore, San Jacinto, Whittier and San Andreas
faults are active fault systems located in the region of the project.1
Site Geology and Soils
The project is located within what is referred to as the Elsinore Trough, which is a sedimentary
basin located between the active Wildomar fault and the older Willard fault, which are branches
of the Elsinore fault zone. The movement along these two faults has caused the area between to
drop lower, which over time has filled with a thick sequence of alluvial continental sediments.
The project area is characterized by a series of east-west trending natural slopes, low rolling hills,
and associated canyons and drainages that range in elevation from 1,016 to 1,468 feet above
mean sea level.
According to data compiled in the geotechnical investigation prepared for the project, the site is
primarily underlain by recent alluvium, bedrock associated with the Pauba Formation, the
Bedford Canyon formation, and granodiorite (an igneous rock) at depth (LGC, 2014).
Undocumented artificial fills were observed in localized areas throughout the site as well as some
compacted fills associated with previous developments.
1 An “active” fault is defined by the State of California as a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene
time (approximately the last 11,000 years). A “potentially active” fault is defined as a fault that has shown
evidence of surface displacement during the Quaternary (last 1.6 million years), unless direct geologic evidence
demonstrates inactivity for all of the Holocene or longer. This definition does not, of course, mean that faults
lacking evidence of surface displacement are necessarily inactive. “Sufficiently active” is also used to describe a
fault if there is some evidence that Holocene displacement occurred on one or more of its segments or branches
(Hart, 2007).
Altair Specific Plan 3.5-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
The alluvial materials consisted primarily of silty sands, sandy silts and occasional layers of
clayey to gravelly sand (LGC, 2014). Colluvium, loose unconsolidated materials that have
usually been deposited through gravitational forces at the base of slopes, and topsoil are found
throughout the site and consist of silty sand with abundant gravel and cobbles. Clayey to silty
sandstones from the Pauba Formation are found along the western flanks of the foothills. The
Bedford Formation underlies the Pauba Formation and consists of light to dark gray highly
weathered siltstones. Granodiorite deposits are found at depth and exposed at the surface within
the southern portions of the project site and in the bottoms of some canyons.
Seismicity
Surface Fault Rupture
Seismically induced ground rupture is defined as the physical displacement of surface deposits in
response to an earthquake’s seismic waves. The magnitude, sense, and nature of fault rupture can
vary for different faults or even along different strands of the same fault. Ground rupture is
considered more likely along active faults such as the Wildomar and Willard fault segments, but
does not necessarily occur with every seismic event. Neither of these fault segments intersect the
project area and the and the nearest active fault, the Temecula-Elsinore Fault system, is located
approximately 0.5 miles from the site (LGC, 2014) (See Figure 3.5-1). No Alquist-Priolo Fault
Rupture Hazard Zone, as designated through the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is
known to intersect the project area.
Groundshaking
Richter magnitude (M) is a measure of the size of an earthquake as recorded by a seismograph,
a standard instrument that records groundshaking at the location of the instrument. The reported
Richter magnitude for an earthquake represents the highest amplitude measured by the seismograph
at a distance of 100 kilometers from the epicenter. Richter magnitudes vary logarithmically with
each whole number step representing a tenfold increase in the amplitude of the recorded seismic
waves. Earthquake magnitudes are also measured by their Moment Magnitude, which is related to
the physical characteristics of a fault including the rigidity of the rock, the size of fault rupture, and
movement or displacement across a fault (CGS, 2002).
Ground movement during an earthquake can vary depending on the overall magnitude, distance
to the fault, focus of earthquake energy, and type of geologic material. The composition of
underlying soils, even those relatively distant from faults, can intensify groundshaking. For this
reason, earthquake intensities are also measured in terms of their observed effects at a given
locality. The intensities of an earthquake will vary over the region of a fault and generally
decrease with distance from the epicenter of the earthquake.
Altair Specific Plan 3.5-2 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Altair Specific Plan Project . 140106Figure 3.5-1Alquist Priolo Zones
SOURCE: ESRI; CGS
¨§¦15
¨§¦15¨§¦5
¨§¦21 5
Bonsall
Rainbow
Temecula
Murrieta
Wildomar
Fallbrook
Canyon Lake
Lake Elsinore
R I V E R S I D ERIVERSIDE
S A N D I E G OSAN D I E G O
O R A N G EORANGE
Project Location
Alquist Priolo Zones
Project Site
0 1,200
Feet
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
The Elsinore fault zone is composed of multiple fault segments and diverging fault traces or splays.
The Elsinore Trough is formed by the Wildomar and Willard fault segments of the Elsinore fault
zone which are located relatively near the project area. Other active faults in the region include the
Elsinore-Glen Ivy fault (5 miles north), and the San Jacinto fault (22 miles east).
The San Jacinto fault is thought to be the most active of the regional faults. The Newport-
Inglewood fault segment is located offshore approximately 30 miles southwest of the site. (The
largest fault in California, the San Andreas Fault, is located approximately 40 miles northeast of
the site and is capable of producing a magnitude 8.3 or larger earthquake. While the potential
damage from a magnitude 8.3 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault would likely produce the
greatest damage nearer to the epicenter, some effects could be experienced within the project
area.
Landslides and Slope Failure
Landslides, or slope failures, are dependent on various factors including the slope characteristics
and geology, as well as the amount of rainfall, manmade alterations through excavation, or
seismic activities. A slope failure is a mass of rock, soil, and debris displaced down slope by
sliding, flowing, or falling. Steep slopes and downslope creep of surface materials characterize
landslide-susceptible areas. Debris flows consist of a loose mass of rocks and other granular
material that, if present on a steep slope and saturated, can move down slope.
The rate of rock and soil movements can vary from a slow creep over many years to sudden mass
movements. Landslides occur throughout the state of California, but the density of incidents
increases in zones of active faulting. Seismic inducement can accelerate otherwise slower
processes, triggering landslides and slope failure over wide areas. With or without seismic
inducement, slope failure is most commonly found in slopes that exceed a 1.5:1
(horizontal:vertical) incline. The project area is characterized by relatively gentle slopes that are
roughly 5:1 but can get as steep as 1:1 along steep-sided natural drainages (LGC, 2014).
However, an approximately 60-foot high 2:1 cut slope with a mid-slope terrace drain is present
near the south end of the project area.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a transformation of soil from a solid to a liquefied state during which saturated
soil temporarily loses strength resulting from the buildup of excess pore water pressure,
especially during earthquake-induced cyclic loading. Soil susceptible to liquefaction includes
loose to medium dense sand and gravel, low-plasticity silt, and some low-plasticity clay deposits.
The loss of bearing pressure can occur beneath a structure when the underlying soil loses strength
and liquefies. When this occurs, the structure can settle, tip, or even become buoyant and “float”
upwards. Liquefaction and associated failures can damage foundations, roads, underground
cables and pipelines, and disrupt utility service.
In addition, liquefaction can occur in unconsolidated or artificial fill sediments that have not
received appropriate compaction. The depth to groundwater influences the potential for
liquefaction, in that sediments need to be saturated to have a potential for liquefaction. In general,
Altair Specific Plan 3.5-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
liquefaction can occur in loose saturated sediments that are within 50 feet of ground surface.
Geotechnical borings were drilled in the project area and extended up to 46.5 feet below ground
surface; and groundwater was not encountered (LGC, 2014). The findings of the geotechnical
investigations determined that based on observations from borings completed onsite the potential
for liquefaction to occur within the project area was considered unlikely (LGC, 2014).
Settlement and Subsidence/Unstable Soils
Settlement can occur from immediate settlement, consolidation, shrinkage of expansive soil, and
liquefaction. Immediate settlement occurs when a load from a structure or placement of new fill
material is applied, causing distortion in the underlying or unstable materials. This settlement
occurs quickly and is typically complete after placement of the final load. Soils tend to settle at
different rates and by varying amounts depending on the load weight or changes in properties
over an area, which is referred to as differential settlement.
Subsidence is a form of settlement that can be caused by natural (tectonic movement) or through
human extraction activities such as the removal of groundwater, oil, or gas. The City of Temecula
has experienced subsidence and resultant fissure cracking in the ground surface due to high rates
of groundwater extraction. Subsidence can also occur due to placement of new structures or
improvements on inadequately prepared surface soils.
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils possess a shrink-swell characteristic that can result in structural damage over a
long period of time.2 Expansive soils are largely comprised of silicate clays, which expand in
volume when water is absorbed and shrink when dried. Highly expansive soils can cause damage
to foundations and roads over time. The soil units identified within the project area were
generally found to have a low to very low potential for shrink-swell characteristics (LGC, 2014).
Soil Erosion
Erosion is the wearing away of soil and rock by processes such as mechanical or chemical
weathering, mass wasting, and the action of waves, wind and underground water. Excessive soil
erosion can eventually lead to damage of building foundations and roadways. In general, areas
that are most susceptible to erosion are those that would be exposed during the construction phase
when earthwork activities disturb soils and require stockpiling. Typically, the soil erosion
potential is reduced once the soil is graded and covered with concrete, structures, asphalt, or slope
protection, however changes in drainage patterns can also cause areas to be susceptible to the
effects of erosion.
2 “Shrink-swell” is the cyclical expansion and contraction that occurs in fine-grained clay sediments from wetting
and drying. Structures located on soils with this characteristic may be damaged over a long period of time, usually
as the result of inadequate foundation engineering.
Altair Specific Plan 3.5-5 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
3.5.2 Regulatory Framework
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (formerly the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone
Act) of 1972 (revised in 1994) is the State law that addresses hazards from earthquake fault
zones. The purpose of this law is to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture by regulating
development near active faults. As required by the Act, the State has delineated Earthquake Fault
Zones (formerly Special Studies Zones) along known active faults in California. No Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone crosses through the project area.
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) has been codified in the California Code of Regulations
(CCR) as Title 24, Part 2. Title 24 is administered by the California Building Standards
Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. Under state
law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable. The
purpose of the CBC is to establish minimum standards to safeguard the public health, safety, and
general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, and general stability by
regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy,
location, and maintenance of all building and structures within its jurisdiction. The 2013 CBC is
based on the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) published by the International Code
Conference. In addition, the CBC contains necessary California amendments, which are based on
reference standards obtained from various technical committees and organizations such as the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the American Institute of Steel Construction
(AISC), and the American Concrete Institute (ACI). ASCE Minimum Design Standards 7-05
provides requirements for general structural design and includes means for determining
earthquake loads as well as other loads (flood, snow, wind, etc.) for inclusion into building codes.
The provisions of the CBC apply to the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, and
demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such
buildings or structures throughout California.
The earthquake design requirements take into account the occupancy category of the structure,
site class, soil classifications, and various seismic coefficients which are used to determine a
Seismic Design Category (SDC) for a project as described in Chapter 16 of the CBC. The SDC is
a classification system that combines the occupancy categories with the level of expected ground
motions at the site and ranges from SDC A (very small seismic vulnerability) to SDC E (very
high seismic vulnerability and near a major fault). Design specifications are then determined
according to the SDC in accordance with Chapter 16 of the CBC. Chapter 16, Section 1613
provides earthquake loading specifications for every structure, and portion thereof, including
nonstructural components that are permanently attached to structures and their supports and
attachments, which shall be designed and constructed to resist the effects of earthquake motions
in accordance with ASCE 7-10. Chapter 18 also describes analysis of expansive soils (1803.5.3)
and the determination of the depth to groundwater table. For Seismic Design Categories D, E, and
Altair Specific Plan 3.5-6 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
F, Chapter 18 requires analysis of slope instability, liquefaction, and surface rupture attributable
to faulting or lateral spreading, plus an evaluation of lateral pressures on basement and retaining
walls, liquefaction and soil strength loss, and lateral movement or reduction in foundation soil-
bearing capacity. It also addresses mitigation measures to be considered in structural design,
which may include ground stabilization, selecting appropriate foundation type and depths,
selecting appropriate structural systems to accommodate anticipated displacements, or any
combination of these measures. The potential for liquefaction and soil strength loss must be
evaluated for site-specific peak ground acceleration magnitudes and source characteristics
consistent with the design earthquake ground motions.
CCR Title 24 also includes the California Residential Code and the California Green Building
Code, which have been adopted as separate documents (CCR Title 24, Part 2.5 and 11,
respectively). The California Residential Code includes structural design standards for residential
one- and two-family dwellings and covers all structural requirements for conventional
construction. This part incorporates by adoption the 2012 International Residential Code of the
International Code Council with necessary California amendments for seismic design. All other
structures including multi-family residential projects are found in the other parts of the CBC as
discussed above.
Local
Temecula General Plan
The following are policies from the Temecula General Plan Public Safety chapter that must be
met to attain project approval. The purpose of these policies is to ensure the health, safety, and
well-being of the citizens of Temecula.
Goal 1: Protection from natural hazards associated with geologic instability, seismic events, wild
land fires, flooding, and dam failures.
Policy 1.1: Identify and mitigate potential adverse impacts of ground surface rupture,
liquefaction, and landslides at the project level.
Policy 1.2: Apply and enforce seismic design standards and building construction codes for new
development.
Policy 1.4: Monitor the potential for seismic events and other geologic activity with the County
of Riverside and California Geologic Survey.
Policy 1.5: Establish development management techniques to lessen the potential for erosion and
landslides.
Implementation Program PS-2: To minimize damage from earthquakes and other geologic
activity, implement most recent and most stringent California and Uniform Building Code
seismic requirements for structural design for new development and reuse projects.
Altair Specific Plan 3.5-7 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Implementation Program PS-3: During review of development and reuse proposals, require
surveys of soil and geologic conditions by State licensed Engineering Geologists and Civil
Engineers where appropriate. Examples of when these surveys are required are:
• Prior to the development of any area with slopes more than 10 feet high at a gradient
equal to or steeper than 2:1;
• Projects located within a State-delineated Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction or
seismically induced landsliding, in accordance with the California Geological Survey; or,
• Projects located within an Earthquake Fault Zone or within 150 feet of an active or
potentially active fault.
If potential for fault displacement or liquefaction exists on the site, structures for human
occupancy may not be placed there unless the seismic hazard is mitigated to an acceptable level.
Implementation Program PS-16: Prepare, adopt, and implement a grading ordinance to ensure
that grading associated with new development projects is conducted in accordance with
appropriate geotechnical engineering standards.
3.5.3 Impact Assessment
Thresholds of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, geology,
soils, and seismicity impacts would be considered potentially significant if the proposed project
would:
• Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
– Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;
– Strong seismic ground shaking;
– Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or
– Landslides.
• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;
• Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property; or
• Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.
Altair Specific Plan 3.5-8 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Cumulative impacts from the proposed project are detailed in Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts.
Methodology
This following impact analysis focuses on potential impacts of the proposed project related to
soils, seismicity and other geologic hazards. The evaluation considered project plans, current
conditions at the project area, and applicable regulations and guidelines. Some of the above
criteria are not considered relevant to the project, based upon project plans and data research, and
therefore, they will not be evaluated further in this EIR. These issues include:
Fault Rupture
The project area is located outside of any Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Zone (AP Zone).
While fault rupture is not necessarily confined to the boundaries of the AP Zone, it is considered
to have a very low probability to occur outside of these areas that have been delineated by the
State Geologist in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Fault rupture
almost always follows along active faults because of the zone of weakness that has developed
from past displacements (CGS, 2015). Therefore, with the plan area located approximately 0.5
miles from the active fault trace and well outside of the Alquist-Priolo fault zone, there would be
no impact related to this issue and is not discussed further.
Inadequate Support for Septic Tanks
As proposed, development associated with the project would deliver wastewater to the Eastern
Municipal Water District (EMWD) wastewater treatment plant in Temecula and would not have
use for any septic tank or other alternative wastewater system. Therefore, this issue is not
applicable to the project and is not discussed further.
Impacts
Exposure to Earthquake Hazards
Groundshaking
The project site is located in a seismically active region with active fault segments of the Elsinore
fault zone located approximately 0.5 miles from the project boundary. In 2007, estimates by the
Working Group on Earthquake Probabilities indicated a 97 percent chance that a magnitude 6.7
or greater earthquake would occur in the southern California region over the following 30 years
(USGS, 2008). The Elsinore Fault Zone is one of the faults considered capable of producing
significant groundshaking. If not designed appropriately, a 6.7 or greater magnitude earthquake
on the Elsinore or one of the other regional active faults could produce significant groundshaking
within the project area causing damage to structures.
Earthquakes are unavoidable hazards, however, the resultant damage can be minimized through
appropriate seismic design and engineering. According to the preliminary geotechnical
investigation, despite the relatively close proximity to the active Temecula-Elsinor Fault Zone,
the project is feasible provided that geotechnical recommendations are incorporated into project
specifications (LGC, 2014). The recommendations include conventional shallow foundations
with specifications for allowable bearing pressures, footing size, fill type, compaction, and field
Altair Specific Plan 3.5-9 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
monitoring during earthwork activities. The City requires that all construction meet the latest
standards of the CBC for construction which considers proximity to potential seismic sources and
the maximum anticipated groundshaking possible as detailed within a final design level
geotechnical investigation report. The earthquake design requirements take into account the
occupancy category of the structure, site class, soil classifications, and various seismic
coefficients which are used to determine a Seismic Design Category (SDC) for a project as
described in Chapter 16 of the CBC. The SDC is a classification system that combines the
occupancy categories with the level of expected ground motions at the site and ranges from SDC
A (very small seismic vulnerability) to SDC E (very high seismic vulnerability and near a major
fault). Design specifications are then determined according to the SDC in accordance with
Chapter 16 of the CBC. Chapter 16, Section 1613 provides earthquake loading specifications for
every structure, and portion thereof, including nonstructural components that are permanently
attached to structures and their supports and attachments, which shall be designed and constructed
to resist the effects of earthquake motions in accordance with ASCE 7-10.
The proposed construction associated with the project would be in accordance with applicable
City ordinances and policies and consistent with the most recent version of the CBC, which
requires structural design that can accommodate ground accelerations expected from known
active faults. In addition, the design-level geotechnical investigations would be prepared by a
California registered Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Geologist and recommendations
would include final design parameters for any retaining walls, foundations, foundation slabs, and
surrounding related improvements (cut slopes, utilities, roadways, parking lots and sidewalks).
Compliance with these building safety design standards would reduce potential impacts
associated with groundshaking to less than significant levels. Therefore, with implementation of
the seismic design requirements into construction specification, the impacts associated with the
effects associated with groundshaking would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Liquefaction or Lateral Spreading
Liquefaction can result in loss of bearing pressure, lateral spreading, sand boils (liquefied soil
exiting at the ground surface), and earthquake-induced settlement causing substantial damage to
structures. According to the geotechnical investigation for the project site, there is a low
likelihood for liquefaction to occur (LGC, 2014). Regardless, all proposed development would be
required to adhere to current building code requirements which would include a design-level
geotechnical investigation that would further confirm whether potentially liquefiable soils are
present or not. Adherence to these requirements, which would include incorporation of industry
standard measures of minimizing the potential for liquefaction through foundation design,
treatment of site soils and/or replacement of liquefiable soils with engineered fills, would ensure
that seismically induced ground failure is a less than significant impact to proposed development.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.5-10 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Landslides
Landslides are dependent on the slope and geology of an area and can be triggered from seismic
activity as well as precipitation or manmade activities such as excavation. According to the
geotechnical investigation conducted for the project, there are no identified landslides within or
immediately adjacent to the project area (LGC, 2014). The proposed grading calls for a 100-foot
cut at an incline of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) which has been found to be stable in a slope stability
analysis. Regardless, all proposed development would be required to adhere to current building
code requirements which would include a design-level geotechnical investigation that would
further confirm that existing and cut slopes are stable in dynamic (earthquake) and static
conditions. Adherence to these requirements, which would include incorporation of industry
standard measures of minimizing the potential for landslides through grading, and drainage
requirements, would ensure that seismically induced landslides is a less than significant impact.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Soil Erosion
Construction activities associated with new development would involve earthwork activities,
including grading and stockpiling of soils. Disturbance of soils formerly protected with
vegetation or covered by asphalt or concrete can become exposed to winds and water flows that
result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. As detailed in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water
Quality, individual development projects occurring during project implementation would be
required to include construction best management practices (BMPs), as detailed in the Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as dictated by the General Construction Permit from
the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System program. Each individual development
project would be required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) as required by
the City. These SWPPPs, BMPs, and WQMPs are developed on a project-specific basis and the
specific criteria that would be contained within them would vary from one project to another.
However, at minimum, typical examples of construction BMPs could include installation of silt
fences, hay bales or application of soil stabilization measures on exposed areas that are designed
to minimize the potential for erosion to occur.
Although the SWPPP and WQMP are intended to primarily prevent sedimentation from entering
runoff from the site, they have proven effective in preventing soil erosion and loss of topsoil
occurring at a construction site. Thus, with adherence to the required BMPs, potential
construction-related erosion would be minimized. Following completion of construction
activities, disturbed areas would be either revegetated or covered by impervious surfaces such as
asphalt or buildings which limits the potential for erosion. Thus, operation of the project would
not result in significant soil erosion impacts. For further discussion of soil erosion and
sedimentation, see Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.5-11 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Site Soil Conditions
Settlement and Subsidence/Expansive Soils
Loose, uncompacted soils or soils susceptible to liquefaction, expansion, slope failure or collapse
can cause considerable damage in new development if not engineered appropriately. Expansive
soils increase in volume when their moisture content becomes elevated. Structures built on
expansive soils could experience foundation cracking as a result of the expanding and contracting
soils. A preliminary geotechnical investigation for the project site was conducted in order to
characterize the underlying materials and their geotechnical engineering characteristics. The
investigation included collection and analysis of both subsurface soils and bedrock. The findings
of the investigation determined that the site is primarily underlain by artificial fill, alluvium,
Pauba Formation bedrock, Bedford Canyon bedrock, and granodiorite (LGC, 2014). The artificial
fill included both compacted fills and undocumented fills. The undocumented fills were observed
to be up to 6 feet thick and unsuitable for support of additional fill, structures, walls, and other
improvements (LGC, 2014). However, the report recommended that these fill materials be
overexcavated and recompacted or replaced with engineered fill which is consistent with typical
geotechnical practices and in accordance with building code requirements. Specifically, the
recommendations include that prior to placement of fill, exposed bottom surfaces should be
scarified to a depth of six inches, moisture conditioned, and then compacted in place to a
minimum of 90 percent in accordance with American Standard of Testing and Materials Test
Method D1557. All of these recommendations would be done in accordance with Chapter 18
Section 1804 of the CBC which provides specifications for excavations, grading and fill
placement. In addition, Section 1806 of the CBC provides requirements for load bearing values of
soils.
The potential for lateral spreading and liquefaction is described earlier in this section.
The findings of the geotechnical investigation also made the following conclusions:
• Laboratory results of the soil and bedrock materials indicated a very low to low
expansion potential;
• The potential for corrosion was also determined to have a negligible potential;
• Some alluvial soils within canyons and drainages of the site were found to be unsuitable
for placement of new loadings; and
• Placement of new fills of up to 50 feet in thickness can be suitable for development
provided they are compacted to 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with
building code requirements.
As described earlier, development under the proposed project would be required to adhere to City
building code requirements, which include the preparation of a design-level geotechnical
investigation by a state licensed geotechnical engineer. The required geotechnical report for any
new development or redevelopment would determine the susceptibility of the subject site to
settlement and prescribe appropriate engineering techniques for reducing its effects based on site
specific data of subsurface soils. The preliminary geotechnical report prepared for the project
Altair Specific Plan 3.5-12 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
provides a basis of conditions that are expected to occur but a final geotechnical report with
specific design criteria cannot be completed until site specific plans have been developed for
individual projects within the Plan area. At that time, a site specific geotechnical report would be
prepared which would determine appropriate foundation requirements, footing size, fill
placement, grading, and then any structural engineering specific to the proposed elements of the
structure such as occupancy, footprint, number of floors, utility requirements, and others. Prior to
approval of a building permit, the final design level geotechnical report with recommendations
for site preparation requirements, foundation specifications, and structural design would be
required to be in accordance with the City building code requirements.
Where settlement and/or differential settlement is predicted, site preparation measures—such as
use of engineered fill, surcharging, wick drains, deep foundations, structural slabs, hinged slabs,
flexible utility connections, and utility hangers—could be used. These measures would be
evaluated and the most effective, feasible, and economical measures recommended in a design
level geotechnical report and incorporated into site design in accordance with building code
requirements. Engineering recommendations included in the project engineering and design plans
would be reviewed and approved by the City.
Final geotechnical specifications would also include measures to prevent other geologic hazards
such as corrosivity from causing significant damage. Geotechnical recommendations include
preventing corrosive soils from coming in contact with vulnerable materials. Generally, industry
standard practices minimize corrosivity through both the type of materials used for underground
improvements and selective use of the engineering characteristics of backfill materials.
The site-specific analysis of site foundation soils guides the recommended building foundation
design, such that these hazards are minimized and reduced to levels that can be accommodated by
the final design. Therefore, implementation of standard geotechnical engineering practices, which
includes a geotechnical investigation containing recommendations that are specific to the project
design, and adherence to City building code requirements would result in less than significant
impacts from unstable soils and other adverse soil properties.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.5-13 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
This section provides an overview of the existing climate change conditions at the project site and
surrounding region, a summary of applicable greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations, and analyses of
potential GHG emission impacts from implementation of the project. Mitigation measures are
recommended, as necessary, to reduce significant impacts.
3.6.1 Environmental Setting
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called GHGs. The major concern with GHGs is that
increases in their concentrations are causing global climate change. Global climate change is a
change in the average weather on Earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms,
precipitation, and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the rate of global climate
change and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, most in the scientific
community agree that there is a direct link between increased emissions of GHGs and long term
global temperature increases.
The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Because different
GHGs have different warming potential and CO2 is the most common reference gas for climate
change, GHG emissions are often quantified and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e). For
example, SF6 is a GHG commonly used in the utility industry as an insulating gas in circuit
breakers and other electronic equipment. SF6, while comprising a small fraction of the total
GHGs emitted annually world-wide, is a much more potent GHG with 22,800 times the global
warming potential as CO2. Therefore, an emission of one metric ton (MT) of SF6 could be
reported as an emission of 22,800 MT of CO2e. Large emission sources are reported in million
metric tons (MMT) of CO2e.1
Some of the potential effects in California of global warming may include loss in snow pack, sea
level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more forest fires, and more
drought years (CARB, 2009a). Globally, climate change has the potential to impact numerous
environmental resources through potential, though uncertain, impacts related to future air
temperatures and precipitation patterns. The projected effects of global warming on weather and
climate are likely to vary regionally, but are expected to include the following direct effects
(IPCC, 2001):
• Higher maximum temperatures and more hot days over nearly all land areas;
• Higher minimum temperatures, fewer cold days and frost days over nearly all land areas;
• Reduced diurnal temperature range over most land areas;
• Increase of heat index over land areas; and
• More intense precipitation events.
1 A metric ton is 1,000 kilograms; it is equal to approximately 1.1 U.S. tons and approximately 2,204.6 pounds.
Altair Specific Plan 3.6-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Also, there are many secondary effects that are projected to result from global warming, including
global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat
and biodiversity. While the possible outcomes and the feedback mechanisms involved are not
fully understood and much research remains to be done, the potential for substantial
environmental, social, and economic consequences over the long term may be great.
California produced 459 gross MMTCO2e in 2012. Combustion of fossil fuel in the transportation
sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 2012, accounting for 36
percent of total GHG emissions in the state. This sector was followed by the electric power sector
(including both in-state and out-of-state sources) (21 percent) and the industrial sector (19
percent) (CARB, 2014a).
3.6.2 Regulatory Framework
USEPA
The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) does not specifically regulate GHG emissions; however, the
U.S. Supreme Court has determined that GHGs are pollutants that can be regulated under the
federal CAA. There are currently no federal regulations that set ambient air quality standards for
GHGs.
Executive Order S-3-05
In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor
Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which set forth a series of target dates by
which statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
Assembly Bill 32 – California Global Warming Solutions Act
California Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires CARB to
establish a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020 based on 1990 emission levels. AB 32 required
CARB to adopt and enforce programs and regulations that identify and require selected sectors or
categories of emitters of GHGs to report and verify their statewide GHG emissions. In December
2007 CARB adopted 427 MT CO2e as the statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to the
statewide levels for 1990. This is approximately 28 percent below forecasted 2020 “business-as-
usual” (BAU) emissions of 596 MMT of CO2e, and about 10 percent below average annual GHG
emissions during the period of 2002 through 2004 (CARB, 2009b).
CARB published the Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration in September 2007 (CARB,
2007). CARB adopted nine Early Action Measures for implementation, including Ship
Electrification at Ports, Reduction of High Global-Warming-Potential Gases in Consumer
Products, Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (Aerodynamic Efficiency),
Reduction of Perfluorocarbons from Semiconductor Manufacturing, Improved Landfill Gas
Altair Specific Plan 3.6-2 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Capture, Reduction of Hydrofluorocarbon-134a from Do-It -Yourself Motor Vehicle Servicing,
Sulfur Hexafluoride Reductions from the Non-Electric Sector, a Tire Inflation Program, and a
Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
As of January 1, 2012, the GHG emissions limits and reduction measures adopted in 2011 by
CARB became enforceable. In designing emission reduction measures, CARB must aim to
minimize costs, maximize benefits, improve and modernize California’s energy infrastructure,
maintain electric system reliability, maximize additional environmental and economic co-benefits
for California, and complement the state’s efforts to improve air quality.
Climate Change Scoping Plan
In December 2008, CARB approved the AB 32 Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) outlining the state’s
strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit (CARB, 2009b). This Scoping Plan, developed
by CARB in coordination with the Climate Action Team (CAT), proposes a comprehensive set of
actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California, improve the environment,
reduce dependence on oil, diversify California’s energy sources, save energy, create new jobs,
and enhance public health.
As required by AB 32, the Scoping Plan must be updated at least every five years to evaluate the
mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on track to meet the targets set out in the
legislation. In October 2013, a draft update to the initial Scoping Plan was developed by CARB in
collaboration with the California Climate Action Team (CCAT). The draft update builds upon the
initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and expanded measures, and identifies opportunities to
leverage existing and new funds to drive GHG emission reductions through strategic planning
and targeted program investments. The draft update to the initial Scoping Plan was presented to
CARB’s Board for discussion at its February 20, 2014 meeting. Subsequently, the first update to
the AB 32 Scoping Plan was approved on May 22, 2014 by CARB (CARB, 2014b).
As part of the proposed update to the Scoping Plan, the emissions reductions required to meet the
2020 statewide GHG emissions limit were further adjusted. The primary reason for adjusting the
2020 statewide emissions limit was based on the fact that the original Scoping Plan relied on the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 1996 Second Assessment Report (SAR) to
assign the global warming potentials (GWPs) of GHGs. Recently, in accordance the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), international climate agencies
have agreed to begin using the scientifically updated GWP values in the IPCC’s Fourth
Assessment Report (AR4) that was released in 2007. Because CARB has begun to transition to
the use of the AR4 100-year GWPs in its climate change programs, CARB recalculated the
Scoping Plan’s 1990 GHG emissions level with the AR4 GWPs. As the recalculation resulted in
431 MMTCO2e, the 2020 GHG emissions limit established in response to AB 32 is now slightly
higher than the 427 MMTCO2e in the initial Scoping Plan. Considering that the proposed update
also adjusted the 2020 BAU forecast of GHG emissions to 509 MMTCO2e, a 15 percent
reduction below the estimated BAU levels was determined to be necessary to return to 1990
levels by 2020 (CARB, 2014b).
Altair Specific Plan 3.6-3 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Executive Order S-1-07
Executive Order S-1-07, which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2007, proclaims that
the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in California. It establishes a goal
to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in California by at least 10 percent by
2020. As a result of this order, CARB approved a proposed regulation to implement the low
carbon fuel standard (LCFS) on April 23, 2009, which will reduce GHG emissions from the
transportation sector in California by about 16 MMT in 2020. The LCFS is designed to reduce
California’s dependence on petroleum, create a lasting market for clean transportation
technology, and stimulate the production and use of alternative, low-carbon fuels in California.
The LCFS is designed to provide a durable framework that uses market mechanisms to spur the
steady introduction of lower carbon fuels. The framework establishes performance standards that
fuel producers and importers must meet each year beginning in 2011.
Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill (SB) 375, which establishes mechanisms for the development of regional targets for
reducing passenger vehicle GHG emissions, was adopted by the state on September 30, 2008.On
September 23, 2010, CARB adopted the vehicular GHG emissions reduction targets that had been
developed in consultation with the metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs); the targets
require a 7 to 8 percent reduction by 2020 and between 13 to 16 percent reduction by 2035 for
each MPO. SB 375 recognizes the importance of achieving significant GHG reductions by
working with cities and counties to change land use patterns and improve transportation
alternatives. Through the SB 375 process, MPOs, such as the Southern California Council of
Governments (SCAG) will work with local jurisdictions in the development of sustainable
communities strategies (SCS) designed to integrate development patterns and the transportation
network in a way that reduces GHG emissions while meeting housing needs and other regional
planning objectives. SCAG’s reduction target for per capita vehicular emissions is 8 percent by
2020 and 13 percent by 2035 (CARB, 2010). The MPOs will prepare their first SCS according to
their respective regional transportation plan (RTP) update schedule with the SCAG RTP/SCS
adopted on April 4, 2012.
Senate Bill 87
SB 97, enacted in August 2007, required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop
guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions, or the effects related to releases of GHG
emissions. On April 13, 2009, the OPR submitted proposed amendments to the Natural Resources
Agency in accordance with SB 97 regarding analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. As
directed by SB 97, the Natural Resources Agency adopted Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines
for GHG emissions on December 30, 2009. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative
Law approved the Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the
California Code of Regulations. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.
California Green Building Standard Code
In January 2010, the State of California adopted the 2010 California Green Building Standards
Code (CALGreen), which became effective in January 2011. Building off of the initial 2008
Altair Specific Plan 3.6-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
California Green Building Code, the 2010 CALGreen Code represents a more stringent building
code that requires, at a minimum, that new buildings and renovations in California meet certain
sustainability and ecological standards. The 2010 CALGreen Code has mandatory Green
Building provisions for all new residential buildings that are three stories or fewer (including
hotels and motels) and all new non-residential buildings of any size that are not additions to
existing buildings.
In early 2013 the California Building Standards Commission adopted the 2013 California
Building Standards Code that also included the latest 2013 CALGreen Code, which became
effective on January 1, 2014. The mandatory provisions of the code are anticipated to reduce 3
MMT of GHG emissions by 2020, reduce water use by 20 percent or more, and divert 50 percent
of construction waste from landfills. The 2013 California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6), which is
also part of the CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part 11, Chapter 5.2), became effective on July 1,
2014.
SCAQMD
In December 2008, SCAQMD adopted a 10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial facilities, but only
with respect to projects where SCAQMD is the lead agency. SCAQMD has not adopted a
threshold for residential or commercial projects at the time of this writing.
In 2009, SCQAQMD and its GHG CEQA Significance Stakeholder Working Group (SCAQMD,
2009) considered a proposal that included a 25,000 MTCO2e maximum emission limit that
derives from its use by the CARB as the quantitative reporting threshold for GHG emissions from
industrial sources under the state’s Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Regulation (GHG
MRR). 25,000 MTCO2e is also identified by the California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association (CAPCOA) as a potential threshold to be used for consideration of GHG impacts
from land use development in its resource document CEQA and Climate Change (CAPCOA,
2008).
The SCAQMD Stakeholder Working Group also proposed two efficiency thresholds. The first
was a value of 4.8 MTCO2e per year per service population2 for project-level analysis. The
second was a value of 6.6 MTCO2e per year per service population for plan-level projects
(SCAQMD, 2009), a threshold that was originally developed by the San Francisco Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) but subsequently identified as applicable to General or
Regional Plans and not to Specific Plans (BAAQMD, 2011).
For project-level analysis, the Stakeholder Working Group developed two other bright-line
thresholds to apply in different situations. The first of these bright-line thresholds is a 10,000
MTCO2e per year, which is to apply to industrial stationary sources only. This threshold was
subsequently formally adopted by SCAQMD in its role as lead agency in addressing CEQA
compliance with its discretionary permit actions over stationary sources. The Stakeholder
Working Group also considered a bright-line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2 for assessing potential
impacts from new residential and commercial projects. None of these thresholds has been
formally adopted or recommended by SCAQMD.
2 Service population is the total number of residents and employees within a project area.
Altair Specific Plan 3.6-5 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
County of Riverside Climate Action Plan
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted the County’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) on
December 8, 2015. The CAP was developed to be consistent with and complementary to: the
GHG emissions reduction efforts being conducted by the State of California through the Global
Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), federal government through the actions of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and the global community through the Kyoto Protocol. The CAP
creates a GHG emissions baseline from which to benchmark GHG reductions, provides a guide to
development, enhancement, and implementation of actions that reduce GHG emissions, and is
part of the planning process for future development projects. The CAP includes a 3,000 MTCO2
bright line threshold for evaluating projects. The 3,000 MT CO2e per year value is used in
defining small projects that, when combined with the modest efficiency measures identified in the
CAP are considered less than significant and do not need to use the Screening Tables or
alternative GHG mitigation.
The CAP contains two types of GHG inventories, one covering Riverside County government
emissions and the other community-wide emissions within the unincorporated areas of the
County. The government operations inventory includes sources and quantities of GHG emissions
from government owned or rented buildings, facilities, vehicles, and equipment. The community-
wide emissions inventory identifies and categorizes the major sources and quantities of GHG
emissions produced by residents, businesses, and municipal operations in the unincorporated
areas of Riverside County using the best available data. The purpose of the inventories is to create
a clear picture of how the unincorporated communities within Riverside County and the
government operations uses fossil fuels and other forms of energy, and to pinpoint the activities
and sectors contributing the most GHGs.
Because the CAP only considers community-wide emissions within unincorporated County lands
it does not represent an appropriate planning document for projects within the City of Temecula,
and its policies and analysis are not applicable to the proposed project; but does serve as an
example of how a local jurisdiction is addressing compliance with State policies and regulations
regarding GHG emissions.
Western Riverside Council of Governments Subregional Climate Action Plan
The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) collaborated among its twelve cities,
including Temecula, to develop a Subregional CAP, which sets forth a subregional emissions
reduction target, emissions reduction measures, and action steps to assist each community to
demonstrate consistency with California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill
[AB] 32). WRCOG’s CAP was adopted in June 2014. Each participating jurisdiction is
responsible for its own stand-alone CEQA documentation and local adoption as well as for
determining and employing an appropriate CEQA compliance mechanism. The City of Temecula
has not yet adopted specific local actions.
The Subregional CAP indicates that the 2010 GHG emission baseline for Temecula is
approximately 700,000 MT of CO2e or about 4.9 MT per service population. Of these emissions,
about 57 percent is from transportation sources, 21 percent from residential energy demand, about
Altair Specific Plan 3.6-6 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
21 percent is from commercial/industrial energy demand, and about 1 percent from solid waste
generation. Wastewater contributions are negligible. The Subregional CAP establishes emission
targets for compliance with the goals of AB32 as to the subregion, but does not establish targets
for individual cities within the WRCOG.
WRCOG’s Subregional emissions reduction targets are 15% below 2010 levels by 2020, and 49%
below 2010 levels by 2035. Based on forecasted emissions levels, a 15 percent reduction from
2010 levels equates to a GHG emissions reduction of nearly 2,330,647 metric tons below
business-as-usual (BAU) conditions by 2020. The CAP identifies objectives and actions in four
categories to set the subregion on a path to meet the 2020 GHG emission target. Energy measures
will increase community-wide building and equipment efficiency and renewable energy use, and
promote energy efficiency and renewable energy generation throughout the communities.
Transportation and land use measures are identified to reduce single-occupancy vehicle travel,
increase non-motorized travel, improve public transit access, increase motor vehicle efficiency,
and promote sustainable growth patterns. Solid waste measures are identified to reduce
community and municipal solid waste sent to landfills. Water measures are identified to increase
community water conservation and reduce water consumed to support municipal operations in
our communities.
City of Temecula
General Plan
The Air Quality Element “establishes policy foundation to implement local air quality
improvement measures and provides a framework for coordination of air quality planning efforts
with surrounding jurisdictions” (City of Temecula, 2005). The goals and policies relevant to the
GHG analysis include:
Goal 1 Continue coordination of air quality improvement efforts in the Western Riverside area.
Policy 1.1 Coordinate planning efforts with other local, regional and State
agencies, including the County of Riverside, Western Riverside
Council of Governments (WRCOG), SCAQMD and SCAG.
Goal 2 Improve air quality through effective land use planning in Temecula.
Policy 2.1 Encourage new development that provides employment opportunities
for Temecula residents to improve the balance of jobs relative to
housing.
Policy 2.2 Encourage infill development near activity centers, within Mixed Use
Overlay Areas, and along transportation corridors.
Goal 3 Enhance mobility to minimize air pollutant emissions.
Policy 3.1 Use transportation demand reduction techniques to reduce motor
vehicle trips.
Policy 3.2 Use transportation systems management techniques to maintain an
orderly flow of traffic and improve mobility.
Altair Specific Plan 3.6-7 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Policy 3.3 Pursue development of a public transit system consisting of local
shuttle and bus routes, as well as bicycle and pedestrian trails that are
linked to the regional transit network.
Policy 3.4 Establish a convenient and efficient system of bicycle routes and
pedestrian walkways.
Policy 3.5 Promote the use of alternative clean-fueled vehicles, new
transportation technologies, and combustion engine alternatives for
personal and business use.
Policy 3.6 Develop and implement programs that reduce local traffic congestion
at peak hours and during special events.
Goal 4 Adopt effective energy conservation and recycling practices to reduce emissions.
Policy 4.1 Encourage community-wide reductions in energy consumption through
conservation.
Policy 4.2 Promote local recycling of wastes and the use of recycled materials.
Policy 4.3 Encourage energy-efficient design in new development projects.
The following 15 implementation programs have also been introduced in the Temecula General
Plan to reduce GHG emissions.
AQ-1: Multi-jurisdictional coordination: Support regional transit initiatives and promote
development of high-speed rail service connecting Temecula to San Diego and Los
Angeles. Actively participate in efforts to protect and improve air quality in the region.
AQ-2: Public Participation: Continue to involve the general public, environmental
groups, the business community, and special interest groups in the formulation and
implementation of air quality programs. Conduct periodic public outreach efforts, and
continue to promote public education as a method of employer compliance with the Trip
Reduction Ordinance.
AQ-3: Land Use Compatibility Adhere to the policies and programs of the Land Use
Element, including development of mixed-use projects where designated and feasible, to
ensure that future land use patterns and traffic increases are accompanied by measures to
improve air quality
AQ-4: Job housing Balance: Improve the jobs/housing balance in Temecula by
encouraging development and expansion of businesses, while also promoting
development of housing affordable to all segments of the community near job
opportunity sites, and within Mixed Use Overlay Areas.
AQ-5: Mitigation Measures: Assess the potential air quality impacts of individual
development projects by requiring preparation of air quality analysis for individual
projects. The City shall require individual development projects to comply with measures
as stated in the General Plan to minimize short-term, construction-related PM10 and NOx
emissions, and to minimize offsite impacts.
Altair Specific Plan 3.6-8 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
AQ-6: Sensitive Receptors: Locate new sensitive receptors away from major air pollution
sources. Require buffering of sensitive receptors from air pollution sources through the
use of landscaping, open space and other separation techniques.
AQ-7: Design Guidelines: Incorporate strategies into City-wide design guidelines and
development standards that promote a pedestrian-scale environment, encourage use of
mass transit, and reduce dependence on the automobile.
AQ-8: Alternative Work Schedules: Promote the use of alternative work weeks, flextime,
telecommuting, and work-at-home programs among employers in Temecula and continue
to enforce provisions of the City’s Trip Reduction Ordinance, including requirements for
preparation of Trip Reduction Plans (TRPs) for qualifying development projects and
employers.
AQ-9: Rideshare and Transit Incentives: Require employee rideshare and transit
incentives for large employers, consistent with the requirements of the City’s Trip
Reduction Ordinance.
AQ-10: Special Events: Require operators of large scale outdoor events to submit a Trip
Reduction Plan (TRP) that shall apply to both patrons and employees during the course of
the event.
AQ-11: Transportation Alternatives: Work to achieve local performance goals for vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) reduction, consistent with SCAG’s Growth Management Plan
recommended standards for the Western Riverside County subregion.
AQ-12: Alternative Fueled Vehicles: Promote and encourage the use of alternative fuel
vehicles. Consider adoption of an ordinance requiring provision of alternative fueling
stations at or near major employment locations, shopping centers, public facilities, and
mixed-use developments.
AQ-13: Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan: Encourage pedestrian and bicycle
trips as an option to single occupancy vehicle trips by constructing and maintaining trails
and bikeways specified in the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan.
AQ-14: Park and Ride Facilities: Work with Caltrans and RTA to identify potential sites
for Park and Ride facilities adjacent to key commuting routes within the City.
AQ-15: Energy Efficient Design: Incorporate energy efficient design elements in
residential, commercial and light industrial and mixed-use development projects.
Sustainability Plan
The City of Temecula committed to becoming a sustainable community in July of 2008.
Subsequently, the City of Temecula’s Sustainability Plan was developed and adopted on June 22,
2010. The Sustainability Plan is designed as a blueprint by which the City can address
sustainability and climate change by setting goals to reduce GHG emissions, solid waste, energy
and water use, and championing sustainable growth and emerging technologies.
The Sustainability Plan provides recommendations on performance in energy, green buildings,
water resources, air resources, waste management, transportation, open space, and community
Altair Specific Plan 3.6-9 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
outreach. Goals, success indicators, and implementation measures have been developed for each
category as a way to monitor the Plan’s success. The following goals are outlined by the
Sustainability Plan.
Energy Goals:
1. Reduce energy consumption throughout the community through use of the latest
technology, practices, and programs to support this goal.
2. Support the use of clean energy throughout the community through the use of the latest
technology practices and programs.
3. Reduce fossil fuel use in vehicles.
Green Building Goals:
1. Improve the quality of buildings throughout the city by increasing the number of green
building measures used during construction.
2. Improve the knowledge of green building principles and practices for City staff and
builders in the Temecula area.
Water Resources Goals:
1. Reduce potable water use.
2. Increase reclaimed water use at municipal facilities.
3. Reduce amount of urban runoff, where conditions do not allow infiltration.
4. Improve surface water quality through filtration and focused education efforts.
5. Protect natural groundwater recharge areas.
6. Capture and use stormwater runoff for irrigation purposes at City-owned and -maintained
landscaped areas.
Air Resources Goals:
1. Reduce GHGs from City Operations.
2. Establish baseline air quality data for the Temecula Community.
Waste Management Goals:
1. Reduce total waste generated and reduce the use and release of household hazardous
waste.
2. Increase green purchasing.
Transportation Goals:
1. Disperse activity notes throughout the City.
2. Create a flexible network of alternative modes of transportation.
3. Distribute trip types among all modes of transportation (vehicle, transit, pedestrian,
bicycle, etc.).
Altair Specific Plan 3.6-10 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
4. Maintain physical roadway conditions along transit corridors.
5. Improve the transportation system to better connect jobs, housing, schools, shopping, and
recreational uses.
Open Space Goals:
1. Increase the amount of open space within city boundaries.
2. Improve accessibility to open space areas.
3. Protect the city’s natural assets.
4. Create or enhance public space/plazas within nonresidential zoning districts.
Community Outreach Goals:
1. Share information and educate the community.
3.6.3 Impact Assessment
Thresholds of Significance
The GHG significance thresholds that are used in this report are based on Appendix G of the
CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the project would result in a significant GHG-related
impact if it would:
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment; or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Cumulative impacts from the proposed project are detailed in Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts.
The increased concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere has been linked to global warming,
which can lead to climate change. Construction and operation of the project would incrementally
contribute to GHG emissions along with past, present, and future activities, and the CEQA
Guidelines acknowledge this as a cumulative impact. As such, impacts of GHG emissions are
analyzed here on a cumulative basis.
Currently, there is no adopted state or local standard for determining the significance of the
project’s GHG emissions. A recent California Supreme Court decision, Center for Biological
Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (November 30, 2015, Cal. Sup. Ct. Case
No. S217763), addressed the appropriate methodology for analyzing GHG impacts, and
specifically addressed the use of the “BAU approach”, which entails comparing a project’s
emissions to the theoretical emissions that would occur if the project did not implement GHG
reduction measures. In its decision, the Court found that a BAU analysis could be an adequate
method of assessing GHG impacts but that such an analysis must not be based strictly on
statewide reduction goals cited in AB32. Rather, the Court stated that any BAU analysis must
take into account the location, sector, and specific characteristics of the project, including local
Altair Specific Plan 3.6-11 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
growth and transportation patterns. At present such a quantitative percent reduction goal has not
been developed specific to SCAQMD or the City of Temecula.
Alternatively, the Court acknowledged that a lead agency may rely on existing numerical
thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, provided that those numerical thresholds meet
certain criteria. While the SCAQMD and its Stakeholder Working Group developed a variety of
options for evaluating GHG impacts, there is some level of uncertainty with regard to which is
the most appropriate to apply to development of a Specific Plan.
In light of the Court’s decision and the availability of the three potentially applicable bright-line
and service population thresholds considered by the SCAQMD, the analysis of potential GHG
impacts compares the emissions from the proposed Specific Plan to all three of these thresholds
and applies the most conservative of them (3,000 MTCO2e per year) as the basis for determining
significance as to whether the proposed Specific Plan would generate GHG emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Methodology
At the time of writing of this report, SCAQMD has not formally adopted a uniform methodology
for analyzing impacts related to GHG emissions or global climate change. Similarly, the City also
has not adopted any guidelines for GHG analysis under CEQA. Pursuant to full disclosure and
according to the CEQA Guidelines that state, “A lead agency should make a good-faith effort,
based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the
amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project,” the construction and operational emissions
associated with the project have been quantified using methods described below.
Construction-related GHG emissions were estimated using a similar methodology to that
described above for criteria air pollutants. SCAQMD recommends the use of California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) for estimating construction and operational emissions
associated with land use projects. CalEEMod estimates the emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O as
well as the resulting total CO2e emissions associated with construction-related GHG sources such
as off-road construction equipment, material delivery trucks, soil haul trucks, and construction
worker vehicles. As CalEEMod currently uses IPCC’s 1996 SAR to assign the GWPs for CH4
and N2O, the emissions for these two GHGs were taken from the CalEEMod outputs and
converted to CO2e emissions outside of CalEEMod using the updated GWPs from IPCC’s AR4.
The GHG analysis incorporates similar assumptions as the air quality analysis for consistency.
Based on SCAQMD’s 2008 Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Significance Threshold document, SCAQMD recommends that for construction GHG emissions
the total emissions for a project be amortized over a 30-year period and added to its operational
emission estimates (SCAQMD, 2008).
It should be noted that the construction schedule for the project could potentially change to more
than three phases to better accommodate development. However, this change in phasing would
only involve sub-dividing the areas of development in a different manner than originally planned
and would not alter the proposed duration of development (10 years), intensity of construction
activities, or the overall amount of development in the project area. Thus, should the project
Altair Specific Plan 3.6-12 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
eventually be developed in more than three phases, the construction-related emissions analyzed in
this section would not change.
Operational emissions of GHGs, including GHGs generated by direct and indirect sources, are
estimated according to the recommended methodologies from SCAQMD. Direct sources include
emissions such as vehicle trips, natural gas consumption, and landscape maintenance. Indirect
sources include offsite emissions occurring as a result of the project’s operations such as
electricity and water consumption and solid waste disposal. The direct and indirect emissions
generated during the project’s operations were estimated using CalEEMod. Similar to the
calculation of the project’s construction-related GHG emissions, the operational emissions of CH4
and N2O were extracted from the CalEEMod output file and converted to CO2e emissions using
the GWPs from IPCC’s AR4. Modeling was based on project-specific data (e.g., size and type of
proposed use) and vehicle trip information from the project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (Fehr
& Peers, 2015).
All GHG emission estimate assumptions and calculations are provided in Appendix B of this
Draft EIR.
Impacts
Project-Generated GHG Emissions
The project would generate GHG emissions from a variety of sources. First, GHG emissions
would be generated during construction of the project. Once fully operational, the project’s
operations would generate GHG emissions from both area sources and mobile sources. Indirect
source emissions generated by the project include electrical consumption, water and wastewater
usage (transportation), and solid waste disposal. Mobile (direct) sources of air pollutants
associated with the project would consist of motor vehicles trips generated by residents and
patrons of the retail, community center, and school uses. The GHG emissions estimates take into
account the quantifiable Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1a through MM-AQ-1e and MM-AQ-2
during construction and operation as identified in Section 3.2, Air Quality.
Construction Emissions
Construction-related GHG emissions for the project were estimated using the same assumptions
as the air quality analysis. Total estimated construction-related GHG emissions for the project are
shown in Table 3.6-1.
Total construction emissions would result in annual construction emissions of 309.55 MT CO2e
per year after amortization over 30 years per SCAQMD methodology.
Altair Specific Plan 3.6-13 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
TABLE 3.6-1
ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS
Construction Year Estimated CO2e Emissions
2016 1,009.36 (MT)
2017 859.80 (MT)
2018 539.40 (MT)
2019 967.22 (MT)
2020 1,037.20 (MT)
2021 1,024.77 (MT)
2022 120.09 (MT)
2022 420.06 (MT)
2023 1,255.68 (MT)
2024 1,230.19 (MT)
2025 822.73 (MT)
Total 9,286.50 (MT)
Annual Construction (Amortized over 30 years) 309.55 (MT/Yr)
NOTES: CO2e= carbon dioxide equivalent; MT =metric tons; MT/yr = metric tons per year.
Source: ESA, 2015
Operational Emissions
Area and indirect sources associated with the proposed project would primarily result from
electricity and natural gas consumption, water transport (the energy used to pump water to and
from the project site), and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from electricity consumed on
the project site would be generated offsite by fuel combustion at the electricity provider. GHG
emissions from water transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy required to
transport water from its source. In addition, the new residential and non-residential uses at the
project site would also generate mobile source emissions from motor vehicle trips generated by
residents and patrons.
The Specific Plan includes many elements that would serve to promote alternatives to vehicle use
or otherwise reduce operational GHG emissions. These elements include:
• The use of clustered development to preserve and enhance important environmental
resources and open space, consistent with the City’s sustainability principles.
• The pedestrian and cycling network is interwoven through all of the villages and active
open spaces at Altair and connects to adjacent communities. Village nodes are within a 5-
minute walk of the next village and the majority of the developed area can be traversed
north to south in about 30 minutes.
• A trail system is provided in the Altair Plan to provide a non-motorized circulation
network, separate from the vehicular system, linking villages with each other and with
parks and community amenities. This will serve predominantly pedestrians and bicyclists
at slow speeds. The trail system will also link to Old Town Temecula and will be
accessible by non-residents.
Altair Specific Plan 3.6-14 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
• Nonresidential land uses such as parks, civic and school facilities are fully integrated with
the residential land uses.
• Old Town Temecula is served internally by the Old Town Trolley Program. The current
loop runs from 2nd to 6th Streets along Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street. An
extension of this route is proposed to link Altair with Old Town Temecula and the
Riverside Transit Agency bus system. The Altair development will offer to fund
extension of this free trolley service for a period of six months to determine ridership
demand.
• The project provides mobility options for those who cannot drive.
• The project will contain design elements to calm traffic such as narrow lanes,
roundabouts, special pavement in key areas, and raised pedestrian street crossings.
• The school, parks and other destinations will have adequate and secure bicycle parking.
• The existing Eastern Municipal Water District reclaimed water line in Pujol Street
adjacent to the easterly project boundary will be used for onsite landscape irrigation.
The estimated operational GHG emissions resulting from project implementation are shown in
Table 3.6-2. Additionally, in accordance with SCAQMD’s recommendation, the project’s
amortized construction-related GHG emissions from Table 3.6-1 are added to the operational
emissions estimate in order to determine the project’s total annual GHG emissions. Operational
GHG emissions, as shown in Table 3.6-2, incorporate Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1a through
MM-AQ-1e.
As shown in Table 3.6-2, the project’s total net annual GHG emissions after the incorporation of
MM-AQ-1a through MM-AQ-1e would be approximately 24,953 MTCO2e per year which would
exceed the SCAQMD considered bright-line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year maximum
project emissions. This would result in a significant impact.
Altair Specific Plan 3.6-15 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
TABLE 3.6-2
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS
Emission Source Estimated Emissions CO2e (MT/yr)
Construction
Annual Construction (Amortized over 30 years) 309.55
Phase 1
Area Sources 8.37
Energy Consumptiona 773.74
Mobile Sourcesb 3,588.90
Solid Waste 28.92
Water Consumptionc 195.15
Total Phase 1 Emissions 4,595.08
Phase 2
Area Sources 11.14
Energy Consumptiona 1,319.60
Mobile Sourcesb 5,617.74
Solid Waste 76.92
Water Consumptionc 294.17
Total Phase 2 Emissions 7,319.57
Phase 3
Area Sources 9.91
Energy Consumptiona 2,646.34
Mobile Sourcesb 9,590.42
Solid Waste 150.54
Water Consumptionc 330.96
Total Phase 3Emissions 12,728.17
Total Project Emissions 24,952.37
Exceed 25,000 MT CO2e/Year No
Exceed 10,000 MT CO2e/Year Yes
Exceed 3,000 MT CO2e/Year Yes
Service Population (SP)d 5,080
Emissions per SP 4.91
Significant? Yes
CO2e= carbon dioxide equivalent; MT/yr = metric tons per year; %=percent.
a The energy-related GHG emissions, as estimated by CalEEMod, use 2008 Title 24 energy usage rates. However,
according to the CEC, buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency
Standards would be 15 percent more energy efficient than the 2008 Standards. As such, this additional reduction in
energy consumption was accounted for in the project’s estimated GHG emissions associated with energy
consumption. b GHG emissions reductions associated with mobile sources reflect elements of the project including the proposed
density of development (> 10 dwelling units per acre), the diversity of development, and the proximity to transit,
consistent with Measures LUT-1, LUT-3 and LUT-5 of the document Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Measures published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. The implementation of additional
measures will provide further GHG reductions and benefit the project more than is quantified above. c GHG emissions reductions associated with water use resulting from compliance with CALGreen requirements, which
requires a minimum 20 percent reduction in indoor water use and the provision of irrigation controllers for outdoor
water use, were accounted for in CalEEMod model run. d Service population is the total number of residents and employees within a project area.
SOURCE: ESA, 2015
Altair Specific Plan 3.6-16 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Project GHG Reduction Measures
The proposed project incorporates many elements that would serve to promote alternatives to
vehicle use or otherwise reduce operational GHG emissions and these elements are consistent
with standards identified in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for
Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND). LEED-ND takes the green certification concept
beyond individual buildings and applies it to the neighborhood context. In particular, LEED-ND
contains a set of measurable standards that collectively identify whether a development or
proposed development of two buildings or more can be deemed environmentally superior,
considering the development’s location and access, its internal pattern and design, and its use of
green technology and building techniques.
These standards include prerequisites and credits. For example, under the topic of Smart Location
and Linkages, a development is required to avoid impacts to imperiled species, wetlands and
agricultural lands and to avoid floodplains. Additional credits are awarded for access to transit,
housing-jobs proximity and provision of bicycle facilities, to name a few. Other topics with
requirements and credits include Neighborhood Pattern and Design, and Green Infrastructure and
Buildings. Credits received for these measures would reduce GHG emissions in a number of
ways including reduction of vehicle trip generation, increased energy efficiency, and increased
water efficiency (energy is used to transport and treat water and wastewater).
Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1 requires the project sponsor to strive to achieve LEED-ND
certification for the Altair Specific Plan. Certification requires a total of 40 out of a total of 110
total possible points. (http://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-v4-neighborhood-development-
checklist).
This project is transit-oriented and incorporates a lengthy list of “smart growth” principles, all of
which aim reduce vehicle miles travelled and the accompanying GHG emissions. The project
incorporates a mixture of land uses, including homes, retail, and recreational opportunities,
increasing walkability and reducing the need for transit in single-occupancy vehicles. The project
design incorporates infrastructure for alternative transportation, including complete streets that
equally accommodate pedestrians, bicycles, public transit, and vehicles.
Despite the fact that the project incorporates all of the design elements described above, project-
level emissions would still likely exceed the 3,000 MTECO2e per year threshold even with
LEED-ND certification. Therefore, the net increase in GHG emissions resulting from project
implementation is considered to be significant and unavoidable.
Impact GHG-1: The project could generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure: Implement MM-AQ-1a through MM-AQ-1e.
Altair Specific Plan 3.6-17 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1: Upon full entitlement of the project and prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy for the project, the project sponsor shall submit an application for a
Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan through the U.S. Green Building Council. If the application meets
the LEED-ND prerequisites, the project sponsor shall continue with the certification, and the
project shall receive a minimum base -level LEED-ND certification within two years of project
build-out. If Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan approval is denied, the project sponsor will be
deemed to have exercised best efforts to achieve full certification and no further action is
required.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable
Consistency with GHG Emissions Reduction Plans or Policies
Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan
Out of the Recommended Actions contained in CARB’s Scoping Plan, the actions that are most
applicable to the project would be Actions E-1 (increased Utility Energy efficiency programs
including more stringent building and appliance standards), GB-1 (Green building), and W-1
(Increased water use efficiency). CARB Scoping Plan Action E-1, together with Action GB-1
(Green Building), aims to reduce electricity demand by increased efficiency of Utility Energy
Programs and adoption of more stringent building and appliance standards, while Action W-1
aims to promote water use efficiency. The project would be designed to comply with the
CALGreen Code to ensure that the new residential and non-residential uses would use resources
(energy, water, etc.) efficiently and significantly reduce pollution and waste. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1d would further require that buildings implement energy
efficiency standards that exceed the 2013 Title 24 standards by 15 percent or include onsite
renewable energy, such as the incorporation of solar panels into project development, such that 9
percent of the onsite energy consumption is offset, both of which are reflected in the emission
inventory for the project presented in Table 3.6-2. Therefore, the project would be consistent
with the Scoping Plan measures through incorporation of stricter building and appliance
standards.
Consistency with Temecula Sustainability Plan
The Sustainability Plan is designed as a blueprint by which the City can address sustainability and
climate change by setting targets for GHG reductions, energy and water use, growth planning,
reducing waste and championing emerging technologies. The initiatives contained in the
Sustainability Plan include a variety of goals aimed at reducing GHG emissions city-wide and
advancing development that enhances the pedestrian and transit environment. The project, which
would be subject to the building requirements of the CALGreen Code, would support the City’s
effort of reducing GHG emissions related to energy demand. Also, as discussed above, the
Specific Plan includes many elements that would serve to promote alternatives to vehicle use or
otherwise reduce operational GHG emissions consistent with the Sustainability Plan.
Additionally, eliminating hearths will also reduce GHG emissions. Increasing energy efficiency
over Title 24 or incorporating renewable energy sources onsite, as identified in Mitigation
Measure MM-AQ-1d, will also provide a reduction in GHG emissions.
Altair Specific Plan 3.6-18 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1a through MM-AQ-1e and MM-GHG-1
the project would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG
emissions.
Impact GHG-2: The project could potentially conflict with the goals of the City of Temecula’s
Sustainability Plan to reduce GHG emissions.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure: Implement MM-AQ-1a through MM-AQ-1e, and MM-GHG-1
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.6-19 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section provides an evaluation of the potential for the project to result in hazards and
hazardous materials impacts. Much of the following information is based on the environmental
site assessments prepared by LGC Geo-Environmental, Inc. (LGC, 2014) and Phase One, Inc.
(Phase One, 2012). The assessments are included in Appendix F of this Draft EIR.
3.7.1 Environmental Setting
Definitions
Materials and waste are generally considered hazardous if they are poisonous (toxicity), can be
ignited by open flame (ignitability), corrode other materials (corrosivity), or react violently, or
explode or generate vapors when mixed with water (reactivity). The term “hazardous material” is
defined in the State Health and Safety Code (Chapter 6.95, Section 25501[o]) as any material
that, because of quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a
significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment.
A hazardous waste, for the purpose of this EIR, is any hazardous material that is abandoned,
discarded, or recycled, as defined in the State Health and Safety Code (Chapter 6.95,
Section 25125). The transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as the
potential releases of hazardous materials to the environment, are closely regulated through many
state and federal laws.
Potential Receptors/Exposure
The sensitivity of potential receptors in the areas of known or potential hazardous materials
contamination is dependent on several factors, the primary factor being the potential pathway for
human exposure. Exposure pathways include external exposure, inhalation, and ingestion of
contaminated soil, air, water, or food. The magnitude, frequency, and duration of human exposure
can cause a variety of health effects, from short-term acute symptoms to long-term chronic
effects. Potential health effects from exposure can be evaluated in a health risk assessment. The
principle elements of exposure assessments typically include:
• Evaluation of the fate and transport processes for hazardous materials at a given site
• Identification of potential exposure pathways
• Identification of potential exposure scenarios
• Calculation of representative chemical concentrations
• Estimation of potential chemical uptake
Hazardous Building Materials
Development and redevelopment projects often involve the need to demolish existing older
structures. Many older buildings contain building materials that consist of hazardous materials,
which can be hazardous to people and the environment once disturbed. These materials include
lead-based paint, asbestos-containing materials (ACM), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Altair Specific Plan 3.7-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Prior to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) ban in 1978, lead-based paint was
commonly used on interior and exterior surfaces of buildings. Through such disturbances as
sanding and scraping activities, or renovation work, or gradual wear and tear, old peeling paint, or
paint dust particulates have been found to contaminate surface soils or cause lead dust to migrate
and affect indoor air quality. Exposure to residual lead can cause severe adverse health effects
especially in children.
Asbestos is a naturally-occurring fibrous material that was extensively used as a fireproofing and
insulating agent in building construction materials before such uses were banned by the USEPA
in the 1970s. ACM were commonly used for insulation of heating ducts as well as ceiling and
floor tiles to name a few typical types of materials. Similar to lead-based paint, ACM contained
within the building materials present no significant health risk because there is no exposure
pathway. However, once these tiny fibers are disturbed, they can become airborne and become a
respiratory hazard. The fibers are very small and cannot be seen with the naked eye. Once they
are inhaled, they can become lodged into the lung potentially causing lung disease or other
pulmonary complications.
PCBs are organic oils that were formerly used primarily as insulators in many types of electrical
equipment including transformers and capacitors. After PCBs were determined to be a carcinogen
in the mid to late1970s, the USEPA banned PCB use in most new equipment and began a
program to phase out certain existing PCB-containing equipment. Fluorescent lighting ballasts
manufactured after January 1, 1978, do not contain PCBs and are required to have a label clearly
stating that PCBs are not present in the unit.
Local Setting
Land use within the project area and surrounding area consists primarily of vacant land and
residential land uses. According to two different Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, there
were no significant sources of potential contamination identified within the project area or
immediate vicinity (Phase One, 2012 and LGC, 2013).1 The 2012 Phase I report noted the
presence of some debris on the eastern side of their study area which could contain hazardous
building materials (Phase One, 2012). However, the eastern side is likely outside of the project
area and the more recent Phase I report concluded that there were no materials onsite that had a
likelihood for containing hazardous building materials and did not recommend any further testing
(LGC, 2013).
A regulatory database search of existing sites within and immediately adjacent to the project area
was conducted for the purpose of this analysis (Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC],
2015). A limited buffer was chosen based on professional judgment considering the general use
of hazardous materials in the project site and surroundings. The database search involved a search
of the DTSC (EnviroStor) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (GeoTracker)
environmental databases for sites with documented use, storage, or release of hazardous materials
or petroleum products. The databases identified no sites that have had reported releases of
1 Note that the 2012 Phase I report by Phase One was for a different project but covered an area that overlaps with
the project area’s northern portion.
Altair Specific Plan 3.7-2 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
hazardous materials or waste within or relatively close to the project area (DTSC, 2015 and
SWRCB, 2015). In addition, both Phase I reports prepared for the project area found no evidence
of sites that could have contributed to a migration of contaminants toward the project area (Phase
One, 2012 and LGC, 2013).
Fire Hazards
According to the City of Temecula General Plan and GIS Map Data, a portion of the project area
is near a High Fire Hazard Area (Riverside County, 2015). The High Fire Hazard Area is located
approximately a quarter of a mile southwest of the project area. Classification of a zone as
moderate, high, or very high fire hazard is based on a combination of how a fire will behave and
the probability of flames and embers threatening buildings. Each area of the map gets a score for
flame length, embers, and the likelihood of the area burning. Scores are then averaged over the
zone areas. Final zone class (moderate, high and very high) is based on the average scores for the
zone.
3.7.2 Regulatory Framework
The Plan is subject to government health and safety regulations applicable to the transportation,
use, and disposal of hazardous materials. This section provides an overview of the regulatory
setting that is applicable to the health and safety within the project area.
Federal
The primary federal agencies with responsibility for hazardous materials management include the
USEPA, United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(Fed/OSHA), and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Federal laws, regulations,
and responsible agencies are summarized in Table 3.7-1.
State
California Environmental Protection Agency
In January 1996, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) adopted regulations
implementing a Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory
Program (Unified Program). The program has six elements: hazardous waste generators and
hazardous waste onsite treatment; underground storage tanks; aboveground storage tanks;
hazardous materials release response plans and inventories; risk management and prevention
programs; and Unified Fire Code hazardous materials management plans and inventories. The
plan is implemented at the local level. The Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) is the
local agency that is responsible for the implementation of the Unified Program. In Riverside
County, the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health is the designated CUPA for
all businesses.
Altair Specific Plan 3.7-3 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
TABLE 3.7-1
FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
Classification
Law or Responsible
Federal Agency Description
Hazardous Materials
Management
Community Right-to-Know Act of
1986 (also known as Title III of
the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA)
Imposes requirements to ensure that hazardous materials
are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of and to
prevent or mitigate injury to human health or the environment
in the event that such materials are accidentally released.
Hazardous Waste
Handling
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)
Hazardous and Solid Waste Act
Under RCRA, the EPA regulates the generation,
transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous
waste from “cradle to grave.”
Amended RCRA in 1984, affirming and extending the “cradle
to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes. The
amendments specifically prohibit the use of certain
techniques for the disposal of some hazardous wastes.
Hazardous Materials
Transportation
U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT)
U.S. Postal Service (USPS)
Has the regulatory responsibility for the safe transportation of
hazardous materials. The DOT regulations govern all means
of transportation except packages shipped by mail (49 CRF).
USPS regulations govern the transportation of hazardous
materials shipped by mail.
Occupational Safety Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970
Fed/OSHA sets standards for safe workplaces and work
practices, including the reporting of accidents and
occupational injuries (29 CFR).
SOURCE: ESA, 2015.
Hazardous Materials Management
The California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law of 1985
(Business Plan Act) requires that any business that handles hazardous materials prepare a
business plan, which must include the following:
• Details, including floor plans, of the facility and business conducted at the site;
• An inventory of hazardous materials that are handled or stored on site;
• An emergency response plan; and
• A safety and emergency response training program for new employees.
Hazardous Waste Handling
The Cal EPA DTSC regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous waste. State and federal laws require detailed planning to ensure that hazardous
materials are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of, and, in the event that such materials
are accidentally released, to prevent or to mitigate injury to health or the environment. Laws and
regulations require hazardous materials users to store these materials appropriately and to train
employees to manage them safely.
Under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), whose
responsibilities are described in Table 3.7-1, above, individual states may implement their own
hazardous waste programs in lieu of RCRA, as long as the state program is at least as stringent as
federal RCRA requirements. In California, the DTSC regulates the generation, transportation,
Altair Specific Plan 3.7-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. The hazardous waste regulations establish
criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribe management of
hazardous waste; establish permit requirements for hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal,
and transportation; and identify hazardous wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills.
Hazardous Materials Transportation
The State of California has adopted USDOT regulations for the intrastate movement of hazardous
materials. State regulations are contained in Title 26 of the California Code of Regulations
(CCR). In addition, the State of California regulates the transportation of hazardous waste
originating in the State and passing through the State (26 CCR). Both regulatory programs apply
in California. The two State agencies that have primary responsibility for enforcing federal and
State regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies are the
California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
Occupational Safety
The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) assumes primary
responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations in California. Because
California has a federally approved OSHA program, it is required to adopt regulations that are at
least as stringent as those found in Title 29 of the CFR. Cal/OSHA standards are generally more
stringent than federal regulations.
Cal/OSHA regulations (8 CCR) concerning the use of hazardous materials in the workplace
require employee safety training, safety equipment, accident and illness prevention programs,
hazardous substance exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan
preparation. Cal/OSHA enforces hazard communication program regulations, which contain
training and information requirements, including procedures for identifying and labeling
hazardous substances, and communicating hazard information relating to hazardous substances
and their handling. The hazard communication program also requires that Materials Safety Data
Sheets (MSDSs) be available to employees, and that employee information and training programs
be documented. These regulations also require preparation of emergency action plans (escape and
evacuation procedures, rescue and medical duties, alarm systems, and training in emergency
evacuation).
State laws, like federal laws, include special provisions for hazard communication to employees
in research laboratories, including training in chemical work practices. Specific, more detailed
training and monitoring is required for the use of carcinogens, ethylene oxide, lead, asbestos, and
certain other chemicals listed in 29 CFR. Emergency equipment and supplies, such as fire
extinguishers, safety showers, and eye washes, must also be provided and maintained in
accessible places.
Cal/OSHA (8 CCR), like Fed/OSHA (29 CFR) includes extensive, detailed requirements for
worker protection applicable to any activity that could disturb asbestos-containing materials,
including maintenance, renovation, and demolition. These regulations are also designed to ensure
that persons working near the maintenance, renovation, or demolition activity are not exposed to
asbestos.
Altair Specific Plan 3.7-5 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Emergency Response
California has developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided
by federal, state, and local government and private agencies. Responding to hazardous materials
incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is administered by the State Office of Emergency
Services (OES), which coordinates the responses of other agencies, including Cal EPA, CHP,
CDFW, the RWQCB, and the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD). The RCFD provides
first response capabilities, if needed, for hazardous materials emergencies within the project area.
See Section 3.12, Public Services, for more information.
Local
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health
The Environmental Protection and Oversight Division (EPO) is one of the two divisions of the
Department of Environmental Health (DEH). The EPO Division has regulatory control over a
number of hazardous materials, land use and water system based programs. One of these
programs previously included household hazardous waste, but as of 2006, that was transferred to
the Riverside County Waste Management Department.
Riverside County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
Developed pursuant to the Tanner Act (AB 2948), the Riverside County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan (HWMP) identifies current and projected future hazardous waste generation
and management needs throughout the County. The HWMP provides a framework for the
development of facilities to manage hazardous wastes, i.e., facility siting criteria. The HWMP
also includes a Households Hazardous Waste Element that is designed to divert household
hazardous wastes from the County’s landfills.
The County HWMP addresses only those hazardous waste issues with which local governments
have responsibilities, namely land use decisions. The County and cities are required to implement
facility siting policies and criteria within local planning and permitting processes. The City is
required to take one of three actions:
• Adopt a City hazardous waste management plan;
• Incorporate by reference all applicable portions of the County Plan into its General Plan;
and
• Enact an ordinance requiring all applicable land use permitting and decisions to be
consistent with the siting criteria set forth in the County HWMP.
The City has adopted by reference the applicable portions of the County HWMP.
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) is located near the southern boundary of
Orange County, approximately 25 miles west of Temecula. SONGS is a jointly owned enterprise
among Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric, and the cities of Riverside and
Anaheim. For hazard mitigation purposes, the federal and state governments have created three
levels of emergency zones surrounding nuclear facilities:
Altair Specific Plan 3.7-6 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ): The federal government requires that communities
within approximately 10 miles of a nuclear power plant be included in an EPZ. Within
this zone, specific emergency protective plans have been developed.
• Public Education Zone (PEZ): The State of California has defined a broader area between
10 to 20 miles from a plant as a PEZ. Within this zone, the public is informed on
preparedness plans. The distance of the project site from the plant, however, would make
evacuation highly unlikely.
• Ingestion Pathway Zone (IPZ): The City of Temecula is located within this zone which
covers the areas within 50 miles of SONGS. The purpose of this zone is to prevent the
accidental ingestion of deposited radioactive materials by humans and livestock.
Southern California Edison, who operates SONGS, will provide notification to all
affected jurisdictions within 15 minutes of declaration of any emergency.
On June 7, 2013, Southern California Edison announced that they will be retiring and
decommissioning Units 2 and 3 of the nuclear plant and SONGS will be decommissioned by
2015 (Southern California Edison, 2013). They have yet to announce how this will affect these
emergency zones.
City of Temecula General Plan Public Safety Element
The following goals and policies from the City of Temecula General Plan Public Safety Element
would apply to the project:
Goal 2: Protection of the public and environmental resources from hazards related to
hazardous materials and waste, and nuclear power production.
Policy 2.1: Minimize the risks associated with hazardous materials through careful
land use planning and coordination with responsible federal, State, and
County agencies.
Policy 2.2: Participate in local and regional programs that facilitate the proper
disposal of household hazardous waste.
Policy 2.3: The policies and programs of the current Riverside County Hazardous
Waste Management Plan (HWMP) are hereby adopted by reference.
Policy 2.4: Coordinate with local, State and federal agencies to reduce the risks
related to nuclear power production.
3.7.3 Impact Assessment
Thresholds of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, hazards and hazardous materials impacts would
be considered significant if the project would:
Altair Specific Plan 3.7-7 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment;
• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;
• Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment;
• For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area;
• For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area;
• Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan; or
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands.
Cumulative impacts from the proposed project are detailed in Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts.
The following section identifies specific impacts pertaining to hazards or hazardous materials and
assesses the change from the existing conditions. Impacts in the following issue areas were found
to not be significant in the Initial Study prepared for the project (see Appendix A), and will not be
discussed further in this Draft EIR:
Airport or Airstrip
There are no airports or airstrips located within two miles of the plan area. The closest airport to
the plan area is the Billy Joe Airport located approximately 5 miles east.
Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan
The project could result in an increased resident, employee and visitor population in the area.
However, the project would not alter the existing street network, and it would comply with all
emergency vehicle access requirements as a condition of construction. Overall, the project would
not impede an established emergency access route or interfere with emergency response
requirements and would not result in permanent road closures. Therefore, the project would have
no impacts to emergency response or evacuation plans.
Altair Specific Plan 3.7-8 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Methodology
The following analysis considers potential impacts associated with full buildout of the project
without necessarily considering the phased development that would occur. In this way, potential
impacts would be analyzed for what would be the worst case scenario in terms of impacts
associated with hazards and hazardous materials.
Impacts
Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials
Construction
Construction activities would require the use of certain hazardous materials such as fuels, oils,
solvents, and glues. Inadvertent release of large quantities of these materials into the environment
could adversely impact soil, surface waters, or groundwater quality. However, the onsite storage
and/or use of large quantities of materials capable of impacting soil and groundwater are not
typically required for the anticipated individual projects that would occur under the proposed
plan. In addition, for any sites that would disturb more than one acre, a National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for General Construction would be required
which include measures that cover the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during
construction. With adherence to these existing regulations, the potential impact associated with
routine transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
In addition, adherence to existing regulations would reduce the potential for hazardous building
materials to impact the environment or the public. Therefore, as already required by applicable
regulations and laws, proposed redevelopment of older existing facilities would be required to
adhere to appropriate identification and abatement procedures by certified contractors who
employ practices that limit the exposure of hazardous building materials, where present.
Therefore, this would be a less than significant impact.
Operation
Proposed development facilitated under the project would be expected to increase residential and
accessory commercial land uses that could involve a range of increased chemical products that
are considered hazardous materials or hazardous waste. Exposure to hazardous chemicals through
improper handling or through accidental upset conditions could cause acute or chronic health
effects to the public and environment.
Handling and use of these hazardous materials and the disposal of the resulting hazardous wastes
would be required to follow the applicable laws and regulations, as described in Regulatory
Setting above. The net result of compliance would be the reduction of risks and hazards to
workers, the public, and the environment to levels that would be considered acceptable.
Hazardous materials would typically be stored in their original containers prior to use. As
required, the hazardous materials would be stored in compatible locations in each building, and in
storage enclosures (i.e., flammable material storage cabinets and biological safety cabinets), or in
areas or rooms specially designed, protected, and contained for such storage, in accordance with
applicable regulations. Hazardous materials would be handled and used in accordance with
Altair Specific Plan 3.7-9 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
applicable regulations by personnel that have been trained in the handling and use of the material
and that have received proper hazard-communication training. Hazardous materials reporting
(i.e., California Hazardous Materials Business Planning, California Proposition 65 notification,
and Emergency Planning and Community-Right-to-Know Act reporting) would be completed as
required.
Existing regulatory requirements, such as RCRA “cradle to grave” requirements for hazardous
materials and the County’s Hazardous Materials Management Plan, establish minimum standards
for businesses handling hazardous materials. This regulatory framework requires that hazardous
materials are stored, handled, and disposed of according to the Hazardous Materials and Waste
Management Plan of Riverside County and also contains restrictions pertaining to facilities
handling large quantities of hazardous materials; however it is important to note that the project
does not include industrial or manufacturing uses that would qualify as large quantities.
Transportation routes for hazardous materials would be identified and regulated by Caltrans to
minimize the potential adverse effects from accidental upset conditions. Therefore, operational
impacts would be a less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions
Construction
Temporary construction activities associated with development under the proposed project may
involve the use of limited quantities of gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, and
paints for the construction of individual villages within the project area. These materials would be
transported along the roadways and temporarily stored onsite. Containment and spill cleanup is
encompassed in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) discussed in Section 3.8,
Hydrology and Water Quality, to prevent hazardous materials from spreading off the property.
Hazardous materials generated during construction would be disposed of as described in the
required SWPPP. Therefore, as a condition of construction, compliance with existing regulations
(NPDES) would address potential upsets and accidents limiting the potential impacts during
construction to less than significant.
Operation
As noted above, proposed land uses include primarily residential and some limited accessory
commercial that would likely include the use of hazardous materials and waste common to
mixed-use developments. These chemicals could include common materials such as toners,
paints, lubricants, and kitchen and restroom cleaners, as well as relatively small quantities of
fuels, oils, and other petroleum-based products. Industrial uses could include storage, transport,
handling, and disposal of larger quantities of hazardous materials. If not handled appropriately,
upset and accident conditions could result in releases of hazardous materials or wastes that result
in adverse effects to residents, workers, the public or the environment.
As described above, any businesses that would store hazardous materials and/or waste at its
business site would be required to submit a Hazardous Materials Management Plan in accordance
with the County HWMP. Both the federal and State governments require all businesses that
Altair Specific Plan 3.7-10 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
handle more than a specified amount of hazardous materials to submit an annual business plan to
the local CUPA. The CUPA responsible for the City of Temecula is the Riverside County
Environmental Health Department (RCDEH). The RCDEH requires all new commercial and
other users to follow applicable regulations and guidelines regarding storage and handling of
hazardous waste so that accidental spills or releases are minimized and spill response supplies are
readily available. In accordance with the Uniform Fire Code (UFC), the City of Temecula Fire
Department conducts site inspections to ensure hazardous materials are stored and handled
properly and safety supplies are readily accessible. Industrial uses with relatively larger quantities
of hazardous materials use, storage, and disposal of wastes have more stringent inspection and
safety requirements that would similarly minimize any accidental releases. With adherence to
these existing regulatory requirements, the potential to adversely affect workers, residents,
visitors, or the environment would be reduced to less than significant levels.
The project area is located more than 25 miles from the SONGS, but within what is known as the
Ingestion Pathway Zone (IPZ), which covers all areas within 50 miles of the facility. The purpose
of the IPZ is to identify potential areas where accidental ingestion of deposited radioactive
materials could occur in the unlikely event of an accidental release. A radioactive release has the
potential to contaminate food and/or liquid produced or collected from the area. Therefore, this
IPZ is designed to protect consumers from the ingestion of contaminated crops. Southern
California Edison is responsible for the operation of SONGS, and as part of their safety
requirements, they have detailed emergency response plans that will provide notification to all
affected jurisdictions within 15 minutes of declaration of any emergency. Releases of
radioactivity from nuclear power plants is relatively rare and with implementation of the
emergency response plans including the notifications that would occur within the IPZ potential
impacts would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Hazardous Emissions Near Schools
The proposed project includes the option of constructing an elementary school site just beyond
one-quarter mile of International Rectifier Corporation and other businesses located just east of
Rancho California Road, which may have the potential for hazardous emissions or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste that could cause an impact to sensitive receptor sites
such as the proposed school. In addition to mandatory adherence to City and County
requirements, compliance with the requirements of CCR Title 5, Section 14010, Standards for
School Site Construction, and the California Department of Education School Facilities Planning
Division (as overseen by DTSC) further ensures that hazardous materials impacts on the proposed
school would be less than significant. Prior to issuance of a building permit, in accordance with
California Education Code Sections 17210 through 17224 and related statutory provisions, the
school district would be required to prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and/or a
Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) to identify potential contamination and evaluate
whether it presents a risk to human health or the environment at proposed school properties, as
overseen by DTSC.
Altair Specific Plan 3.7-11 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Further, all new development under the proposed project would be required to follow applicable
regulations and guidelines regarding storage and handling of hazardous waste. All hazardous
materials would be required to be stored and handled according to manufacturer’s directions and
local, state, and federal regulations. These requirements would include posting of signs,
notification of the local fire department, filing of the Hazardous Materials Business Plan, and use
of specialized containment facilities. However, proposed development under the project is
primarily residential which typically handles relatively small quantities of hazardous materials
with insubstantial emissions. As a result, the potential impact of emissions on schools would be
less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Located on a Hazardous Materials Sites List
As noted in the Section 3.7.1, according to the two different Phase I reports completed for the
project area and vicinity, there are no reported incidents of releases of hazardous materials. In
addition, review of available databases from the DTSC and SWRCB revealed no sites within the
project area or immediate vicinity that would likely indicate the presence of contamination on the
site or in subsurface materials. As result, the potential impact is considered less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Wildfire
According to the City of Temecula General Plan and GIS Map Data, a portion of the project is
near a High Fire Hazard Area. The Western Bypass will serve as a fire break between wildland
areas and proposed development. In addition, a Fuel Modification Plan will be prepared as part of
the project and incorporated into the Altair Specific Plan to identify appropriate structure setbacks
and landscape requirements for the interior of the project to address this hazard. Also, the project
would be required to adhere to all fire suppression requirements in accordance with the most
recent Uniform Fire Code, which provides minimum fire safety measures that would be
incorporated into all building designs.
Fire protection services are provided to the City of Temecula through a contract with the
Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) under a cooperative agreement with CAL FIRE. The
project area is located in the Temecula Division of the RCFD and is served primarily by stations
that are a part of Battalion 15 (Temecula). The closest fire station in Battalion 15 that provides
fire protection and paramedic services to the project area is Fire Station No. 12, located at 28330
Mercedes Street, approximately 0.34 miles northeast of the project area. The equipment used by
the RCFD has the versatility to respond to both urban and wildland emergency conditions. See
Section 3.12, Public Services, for more information.
Therefore, with adherence to existing Fire Code regulatory requirements for new construction,
implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1, and the capabilities of existing fire
protection services, the potential impact from wildfires would be less than significant.
Altair Specific Plan 3.7-12 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: The project site is near a high fire hazard area which could increase the threat of
wildfire on human populations and property.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the
applicant shall prepare and submit a Fire Modification Plan (FMP) for the project to the City
Community Development and Fire Departments for review and approval. The FMP shall address
areas within the project boundary that are adjacent to a proposed Western Riverside County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation Area. The FMP shall
include, without limitation, the following information and standards:
• Environmental setting that describes the topography and geology, climate, flammable
vegetation in and around the project site, water supply for fire protection, fire access
roads, and fire protection systems and equipment
• General description of fire behavior in the project area based on such factors as
predominant fuel types, topography and climate
• The establishment of a 100-foot wide fuel modification area located within the project
boundary for land adjacent to a proposed MSHCP Conservation Area
• A fuel modification area shall have two distinct fuel modification zones: Zone 1 and
Zone 2
• A site plan identifying the location of the fuel modification area and zones
• Zone 1 shall extend 30 feet from any habitable structure; Zone 2 shall extend 70 feet
beyond Zone 1
• Zone 1 shall include the following minimum standards:
o No habitable structures
o New construction (i.e. fences, walls, gazebos) must be non-combustible and/or
have a minimum 1-hour fire rating
o Plants should be primarily low growing (less than 4 feet in height), low-fuel, and
fire resistant
o Regular Maintenance to include thinning and pruning of trees and plants
• Zone 2 shall include the following minimum standards:
o Regular maintenance to include selective thinning and pruning of native and non-
native plants to reduce fuel load
• A list of plants not recommended to be used within the fuel modification zones
• Identification of entity responsible for regular maintenance
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.7-13 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section provides an analysis of the Project’s potential impacts associated with hydrology and
water quality. Major references used to prepare this section include the Water Quality
Management Plan prepared for the project (Appendix G), the Water Supply Assessment prepared
for the project (Appendix J), the Preliminary Drainage Study prepared for the project (Appendix
K), and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan (SDRWQCB, 2011)
and Regional MS4 Permit (NPDES Order No. R9-2013-0001).
3.8.1 Environmental Setting
Regional Setting
The City of Temecula (City) has a generally mild coastal climate, with an average annual
temperature of 65 degrees Fahrenheit and average annual rainfall of 10 to 13 inches. Proceeding
inland, temperature and rainfall intensity variations increase. Surface and ground waters within
the region generally flow east to west toward the Pacific Ocean (San Diego County, 2005).
The project area is located within the Santa Margarita River Watershed (SMRW) under the
jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB). The SMRW
consists of approximately 750 square miles within San Diego County and southwestern Riverside
County, and is drained primarily by the Santa Margarita River. The main tributaries of this
southwesterly flowing river are Temecula and Murrieta Creeks. The creeks drain the inland
portion of the Santa Margarita River Basin and join with the Santa Margarita River at Temecula
Canyon (Temecula, 2004). The Santa Margarita River flows southwest into the Temecula Gorge,
crosses the San Diego County line just north of the City of Fallbrook, flows through the coastal
plain encompassing parts of Camp Pendleton, and then discharges into the Pacific Ocean through
the Santa Margarita Estuary. The Temecula Gorge and the Santa Ana Mountains serve as a
natural barrier between the upper and lower portions of the SMRW. The SMRW contains nine
hydrologic basins delineated by the SDRWQCB and is primarily based on surface drainage
boundaries (San Diego County, 2005).
Local Setting
The Project area is located in the Murrieta Hydrologic Area. The Project site is situated at the
base of the Santa Rosa foothills on the westerly side of the Temecula Valley. Storm water runoff
from these foothills flows easterly across the project site and directly or indirectly into Murrieta
Creek. Storm runoff is conveyed over the natural ground surface as sheet flow or in ravines
towards the east (Chang Consultants, 2015). The runoff is collected by a series of existing storm
drain facilities near the easterly property line (Chang Consultants, 2015). The facilities convey
the site runoff easterly into the nearby Murrieta Creek (Chang Consultants, 2015).
The SDRWQCB lists water quality objectives for inland surface waters that must be protected
against degradation. Table 3.8-1 shows the water quality objectives for the Murrieta Hydrologic
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Area. Table 3.8-2 shows the beneficial uses associated with Murrieta Creek, as designated by the
SDRWCB Basin Plan.
TABLE 3.8-1
WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES1 FOR INLAND SURFACE WATERS WITHIN THE
MURRIETA HYDROLOGIC AREA
Constituent Murrieta Hydrologic Area2
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 750
Chloride (Cl) 300
Sulfate (SO4) 300
Percent sodium (%Na) 60
Nitrogen and Phosphorous (N&P) a3
Iron (Fe) 0.3
Manganese (Mn) 0.05
Methylene Blue-Activated Substances (MBAS) 0.5
Boron (B) 0.75
Tastes and Odors (ODOR) None
Turbidity (Turb NTU) 20
Color Units 20
Fluoride (F) 1.0
1. Concentrations not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period.
2. mg/L or as noted
3. Concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus, by themselves or in combination with other nutrients, shall be maintained at levels below
those which stimulate algae and emergent plant growth. Threshold total Phosphorus (P) concentrations shall not exceed 0.05 mg/l in
any stream at the point where it enters any standing body of water, nor 0.025 mg/l in any standing body of water. A desired goal in
order to prevent plant nuisances in streams and other flowing waters appears to be 0.1 mg/l total P. These values are not to be
exceeded more than 10% of the time unless studies of the specific body in question clearly show that water quality objective changes
are permissible and changes are approved by the Regional Board. Analogous threshold values have not been set for nitrogen
compounds; however, natural ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus are to be determined by surveillance and monitoring and upheld. If
data are lacking, a ratio of N: P=10:1 shall be used.
SOURCE: SDRWQCB, 2011.
TABLE 3.8-2
BENEFICIAL USES OF SURFACE WATER BODIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
Beneficial Uses Murrieta Creek (2.31)
Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN) E
Agricultural Supply (AGR) E
Industrial Service Supply (IND) E
Industrial Process Supply (PROC) E
Contact Water Recreation (REC-1) P
Non-contact Water Recreation (REC-2) E
Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM) E
Wildlife Habitat (WILD) E
E: Existing beneficial use
P: Potential beneficial use (a use which once existed and could potentially exist again)
SOURCE: SDRWQCB, 2011.
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-2 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Water Quality
Murrieta Creek is listed as impaired on the State of California’s 2010 list of impaired water
bodies pursuant to provisions of Clean Water Act Section 303(d). Murrieta Creek is impaired by
metals/metalloids, nutrients, pesticides and toxicity. Table 3.8-3 shows the 303(d) impairments
and potential pollutant sources for Murrieta Creek.
TABLE 3.8-3
303(D) IMPAIRED WATERBODIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
Waterbody Pollutant Potential Source
Murrieta Creek Chlorpyrifos Natural Sources, Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers, Nonpoint Source
Copper Natural Sources, Urban Runoff, Nonpoint Source
Iron Natural Sources
Manganese Source Unknown
Nitrogen Urban Runoff, Point Source, Nonpoint Source
Phosphorous Urban Runoff, Point Source, Nonpoint Source
Toxicity Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers, Point Source, Nonpoint Source
SOURCE: SWRCB EPA Approved 303(d) List, 2010.
Flood Zone
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) identifies areas throughout the United
States that are at risk for flooding. Flood Zone A identifies areas subject to inundation by the one
percent-annual-chance (100-year) flood event. As identified in the City’s General Plan Flood
Hazards Map, the Project area is not within the 100-year flood zone of Murrieta Creek.
Groundwater Hydrology
The Project area overlies the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin, which has a surface area of
about 137 square miles. The basin is bounded by non-water-bearing crystalline rocks of the
Peninsular Ranges. Natural recharge of the basin’s water-bearing alluvium is from direct
precipitation and percolation in the Warm Springs, Tucalota, Santa Gertrudis, Murrieta, and
Pechanga Creeks, and the Temecula River. Groundwater flows to the southwestern part of the
basin. There are two aquifers within the Basin, the Pauba aquifer and the Temecula aquifer
(RCWD, 2015). The project area overlies the Pauba aquifer. The Pauba aquifer covers
approximately 18 square miles and the storage capacity of the Pauba aquifer has been estimated
at 200,000 AF (RCWD, 2015). The Pauba aquifer is underlain by the confined Temecula aquifer.
The Temecula aquifer extends over an area of approximately 100 square miles and is comprised
of consolidated sediments that underlie and extend beyond the boundaries of the Pauba aquifer
(RCWD, 2015). The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) estimates the storage capacity of
the Temecula aquifer at two million acre-feet (MAF), while DWR reports groundwater storage
within both the Pauba and Temecula aquifers at approximately 250,000 AF (RCWD, 2015). Total
natural safe yield of the Basin is estimated at 34,400 AFY (RCWD, 2015).
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-3 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
The project area is supplied water by RCWD; RCWD currently relies on groundwater from the
Murrieta-Temecula groundwater basin for a portion of its total water supply (approximately
26,500 AFY). RCWD also recharges the groundwater basin with imported untreated surface
water and recycled water. Table 3.8-4 shows the projected supplies and demand in the RCWD
service area.
TABLE 3.8-4
PROJECTED POTABLE WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND NORMAL WATER YEAR (AF)
Water Supply/Demands 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041
SUPPLIES
Treated 40,122 49,464 53,827 58,190 62,595 67,083
Untreated – groundwater
recharge/recovery 12,512 18,300 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000
Untreated – SMR discharges 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
Local Groundwater 26,500 24,120 24,120 24,120 24,120 24,120
Total Potable Supplies 89,415 103,152 107,598 111,919 116,408 120,897
Recycled (EMWD/RCWD)1 9,156 9,604 9,604 9,604 9,604 9,604
DEMAND
District2 70,299 74,334 78,569 82,684 86,959 91,324
Altair Specific Plan 224 713 621 526 473 452
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 0 244 608 1,151 1,479 1,616
Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan 0 636 720 720 720 720
Total Potable Demands 70,523 75,927 80,518 85,081 89,631 94,112
Recycled (District) 9,156 9,604 9,604 9,604 9,604 9,604
Recycled (Project) 0 99 99 99 99 99
Recycled Temecula Creek Inn
Specific Plan 0 <2> <2> <2> <2> <2>
SUPPLY/DEMAND DIFFERENCE 18,892 27,225 27,080 26,838 26,777 26,785
1 Recycled water supply includes SRWRF 2010 capacity of 3,160 AF, increased by 2880 AF in 2015 and another 560 AF in 2020; current
EMWD agreement for TVWRF water is for up to 5,000 AFY.
2 The rate of potable demand increase from 2018 to 2043 is projected to be consistent with the rate of service area population increase over the
same period. Potable demand includes water conveyed outside the RCWD service area, but does not include unaccounted-for water.
SOURCE: RCWD, 2015b.
As shown in the table above, the imported water utilized for groundwater recharge and recovery
would increase until 2023 and remain constant through 2043. Further, local groundwater pumping
by RCWD water supply is expected to decrease by 2,380 AF to 24,120 AFY in 2018 and to
remain at this level of pumping in the foreseeable future (RCWD, 2011). These projections
consider land use, water development programs and projects, and water conservation.
On April 1, 2015, the State issued Executive Order B-29-15 in response to severe drought
conditions, which imposes restrictions to achieve a statewide 25 percent reduction in potable
urban water usage through February 28, 2016. RCWD is expected to reduce its water use by 36
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
percent. On April 14, 2015, Metropolitan announced a 15 percent reduction in wholesale
deliveries to its 26 member public agencies, as part of the current Water Supply Allocation Plan.
Effective June 1, 2015, RCWD moved to Stage 4a, which is defined as an Extreme Water Supply
Warning, in accordance with its Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which states that residential
and landscape tier 2 water budgets must be reduced by 30 percent, agricultural and commercial
customers tier 1 budgets must be reduced by 10 percent, and all customers to reduce outdoor
water usage by 50 percent. However, water use reduction is expected to be achieved through a
variety of methods, including water conservation, public awareness and technology efficiency,
implemented by RCWD. Refer to Section 3.14, Utilities and Service Systems, for additional
discussion on water supplies and current restrictions due to drought conditions.
Groundwater Quality
Constituents of concern for the Temecula Basin are total dissolved solids (TDS), nitrate, volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), perchlorate, fluoride and manganese (MWD, 2007). Groundwater in
most of the Pauba aquifer and the Temecula aquifer is generally suitable for domestic and
irrigation uses (MWD, 2007). TDS concentrations in the lower, confined and semi-confined
Temecula aquifer tend to be lower than in the Pauba aquifer, though the percent sodium is higher
in the Temecula aquifer (MWD, 2007). Sampling at RCWD’s wells between 2002 and 2004 has
indicated that the primary maximum contaminant level (MCL) standard of 2 mg/L for fluoride
has been exceeded (MWD, 2007). However, well water is blended with other well water and
imported MWD water and the distribution system average level of fluoride was well below the
MCL (MWD, 2007). Well sampling has also indicated high levels for manganese, but blending
reduces the manganese concentration to the non-detect level (MWD, 2007).
Dams and Levees
There are three dams located within proximity of the project area. The project area is located
approximately eight miles southwest of Lake Skinner Dam, a 43,800-acre feet earthen dam.
Failure of Lake Skinner would result in flooding along Tucalota Creek and Benton Road. The
project area is also located 9.5 miles west of Vail Lake Dam, which contains a 51,000-acre foot
storage reservoir. Failure of this facility would cause flooding in the Pauba and Temecula
Valleys, along with I-15 and an adjacent three-mile area. Finally, the project area is 12.5 miles
southwest of Diamond Valley Lake, which is the largest reservoir in Southern California and is
impounded by two earthen dams. Failure of this facility would lead to flooding in the northern
parts of the Temecula Planning Area (which includes the City of Temecula and some surrounded
unincorporated communities) (City of Temecula, 1993). Both Lake Skinner and Vail Lake are
considered as having a high downstream hazard potential ranking, which applies to dams whose
failure or disoperation will probably cause loss of human life. A portion of the project area closest
to Murrieta Creek may be located in a dam inundation area (City of Temecula, 1993).
Mud and Debris Flows
Mud and debris flows originate in hillside areas characterized by deep topsoil and/or poor
drainage. The potential for mud and debris flows exists in the hilly southern and western portions
of Temecula (City of Temecula, 1993).
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-5 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
3.8.2 Regulatory Framework
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), formerly the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972, was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the U.S. The CWA required states to set
standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source
and certain non-point source discharges to surface water.
The CWA was enacted to prohibit the discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S. from any point
source, unless a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit authorizes the
discharge. Regulatory and permitting processes have been established to control the quality of
water runoff from urban development. The CWA was amended in 1987, requiring the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to create specific requirements for storm
water discharges. In response to the 1987 amendments to the CWA, the USEPA established
Phase I of the NPDES Stormwater Program, which required NPDES permits for: (1) municipal
separate storm sewer systems generally serving or located in incorporated cities with 100,000 or
more people (referred to as municipal permits); (2) 11 specific categories of industrial activity
(including landfills); and (3) construction activity that disturbs more than five acres of land. In
March 2003, Phase II of the NPDES Program extended the requirements for NPDES permits to
numerous small municipal separate storm sewer systems, construction sites of one to five acres,
and industrial facilities owned or operated by small municipal separate storm sewer systems, all
of which were previously exempted from permitting requirements. Section 402(p) of the CWA
mandates that these municipal storm water permits must: (1) effectively prohibit the discharge of
non-storm water to the system except under certain provisions, and (2) require controls to reduce
pollutants in discharges from the system to the maximum extent practicable, including Best
Management Practices (BMPs); control techniques; and system, design, and engineering
methods.
National Flood Insurance Program
FEMA is responsible for determining flood elevations and floodplain boundaries based on United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) studies. FEMA is also responsible for distributing the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps used in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These maps
identify the locations of special flood hazard areas, including the 100-year floodplain. FEMA
allows non-residential development in the floodplain; however, construction activities are
restricted within flood hazard areas, depending on the potential for flooding within each area.
Federal regulations governing development in a floodplain are set forth in Title 44, Part 60 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, enabling FEMA to require municipalities that participate in the
NFIP to adopt certain flood hazard reduction standards for construction and development in 100-
year floodplains. The City’s Flood Damage Prevention Regulations detail methods and provisions
for construction and development in 100-year floodplains.
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-6 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction General Permit
The California Construction Stormwater Permit (Construction General Permit, Order No. 2012-
006-DWQ, amends 2009-0009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ), adopted by the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), regulates construction activities that include clearing,
grading, and excavation resulting in soil disturbance of at least one acre of total land area. The
Construction General Permit authorizes the discharge of storm water to surface waters from
construction activities. It prohibits the discharge of materials other than storm water and
authorized non-storm water discharges and all discharges that contain a hazardous substance in
excess of reportable quantities established at 40 Code of Federal Regulations 117.3 or 40 Code of
Federal Regulations 302.4, unless a separate NPDES Permit has been issued to regulate those
discharges.
The Construction General Permit requires that all developers of land where construction activities
will occur over more than one acre do the following:
• Complete a Risk Assessment to determine pollution prevention requirements pursuant to
the Risk Levels established in the General Permit.
• Eliminate or reduce non-storm water discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters
of the nation.
• Develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which
specifies BMPs that will reduce pollution in storm water discharges to the Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable/Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
standards.
• Perform inspections and maintenance of all BMPs.
In order to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit, the Legally
Responsible Person must electronically file all Permit Registration Documents with the SWRCB
prior to the start of construction. Permit Registration Documents must include:
• Notice of Intent
• Risk Assessment
• Site Map
• SWPPP
• Annual Fee
• Signed Certification Statement
Typical BMPs contained in SWPPP are designed to minimize erosion during construction
(minimization of vegetation disturbance), stabilize construction areas (soil binders), control
sediment (fiber rolls and sand bags), control pollutants from construction materials (vehicle
fueling and maintenance only in designated areas), and address post construction runoff quantity
(volume) and quality (treatment) (final site stabilization including hydroseeding). The SWPPP
must also include a discussion of the program to inspect and maintain all BMPs.
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-7 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Permit
The project area is currently under the jurisdiction of the SDRWQCB 2010 Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit issued to the Riverside County Copermittees in the Santa
Margarita Region (Order No. R9-2010-0016) and which expires on November 10, 2015. The
MS4 Permit requires Copermittees to reduce the discharge of storm water pollutants to the
maximum extent practicable and ensure MS4 discharges do not cause or contribute to violations
of water quality standards. The MS4 Permit also requires implementation of various site design
best management practices (BMPs) and treatment control BMPs to reduce the possibility of
pollutants stored or produced onsite from entering surface water. The MS4 Permit also includes
Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs for Priority Development Projects. Under this MS4
Permit, Priority Development Projects do not include redevelopment projects.
The following are Priority Development Project Categories as defined by the Permit:
a) New development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces
(collectively over the entire project site) including commercial, industrial, residential,
mixed-use, and public projects. This category includes development projects on public or
private land which fall under the planning and building authority of the Copermittees.
b) Automotive repair shops. This category is defined as a facility that is categorized in any
one of the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: 5013, 5014, 5541,
7532-7534, or 7536-7539.
c) Restaurants. This category is defined as a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for
consumption, including stationary lunch counters and refreshment stands selling prepared
foods and drinks for immediate consumption (SIC code 5812), where the land area for
development is greater than 5,000 square feet. Restaurants where land development is
less than 5,000 square feet must meet all SSMP requirements except for structural
treatment BMP and numeric sizing criteria requirement F.1.d.(6) and hydromodification
requirement F.1.h.
d) All hillside development greater than 5,000 square feet. This category is defined as any
development which creates 5,000 square feet of impervious surface which is located in an
area with known erosive soil conditions, where the development will grade on any natural
slope that is twenty-five percent or greater.
e) Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). All development located within, or directly
adjacent to, or discharging directly to an ESA (where discharges from the development or
redevelopment will enter receiving waters within the ESA), which either creates 2,500
square feet of impervious surface on a proposed project site or increases the area of
imperviousness of a proposed project site to 10 percent or more of its naturally occurring
condition. “Directly adjacent” means situated within 200 feet of the ESA. “Discharging
directly to” means outflow from a drainage conveyance system that is composed entirely
of flows from the subject development or redevelopment site, and not commingled with
flows from adjacent lands.
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-8 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
f) Impervious parking lots 5,000 square feet or more and potentially exposed to runoff.
Parking lot is defined as a land area or facility for the temporary parking or storage of
motor vehicles used personally, for business, or for commerce.
g) Street, roads, highways, and freeways. This category includes any paved impervious
surface that is 5,000 square feet or greater used for the transportation of automobiles,
trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles. Where Copermittees develop revised standard
roadway design and post-construction BMP guidance that comply with the provisions of
Section F.1 of the Order, public works projects that implement the revised standard
roadway sections do not have to develop a project specific SSMP. The standard roadway
design and post-construction BMP guidance must be submitted with the Copermittee’s
updated SSMP.
h) Retail Gasoline Outlets (RGOs). This category includes RGOs that meet the following
criteria: (a) 5,000 square feet or more or (b) a projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of
100 or more vehicles per day.
In June of 2013, the SDRWQCB adopted Regional MS4 Permit, or Fifth Term Permit (Order No.
R9-2013-0001; NPDES No. CAS0109266). Riverside County Copermittees will become subject
to the new order following the expiration of the current MS4 Permit (Order No. R9-2010-0016)
on November 10, 2015. The Regional MS4 Permit focuses less on completing specific actions
and more on reaching goals and desired outcomes towards the improvement of water quality. The
Regional MS4 Permit requires a minimum set of BMPs for all development projects
(regardless of project type or size), during the planning process (i.e., prior to project approval
and issuance of local permits), including unpaved roads and flood management projects. The
Regional MS4 Permit also requires certain LID BMPs for all development projects, including
conservation of natural areas and minimization of soil compaction. In addition, the Regional
MS4 Permit includes additional specific requirements for Priority Development Projects. Priority
Development Projects include the following:
a) New development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces
b) Redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of
impervious surface on an existing site of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious
surfaces
c) New and redevelopment projects that create 5,000 square feet or more of impervious
surfaces and support one or more of the following uses:
i. Restaurants
ii. Hillside development projects
iii. Parking lots
iv. Streets, roads, highways
d) New or redevelopment projects that create or replace 2,500 square feet or more of
impervious surface and discharge directly into an environmentally sensitive area
e) New development projects that support either automotive repair shops or retail gasoline
outlets
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-9 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
f) New or redevelopment projects that result in the disturbance of one or more acres of land
and are expected to generate pollutants post construction
Additional requirements for priority projects include structural LID BMPs, (such as runoff
filtration, hydromodification management, infiltration and groundwater protection) and long-term
maintenance plans for these BMPs. All developers are required to submit a construction BMP
plan that details seasonally appropriate and effective BMPs for construction of a project site to
the City for approval. Examples of construction BMPs include good housekeeping, erosion
control, sediment control, and run-on and run-off control.
The Regional MS4 Permit lists the following BMP requirements that must be implemented
during the planning process (i.e., prior to project approval and issuance of local permits) for all
development projects (regardless of project type or size):
(1) General Requirements:
a) Onsite BMPs must be located so as to remove pollutants from runoff prior to its
discharge to any receiving waters, and as close to the source as possible.
b) Structural BMPs must not be constructed within waters of the U.S.
c) Onsite BMPs must be designed and implemented with measures to avoid the creation of
nuisance or pollution associated with vectors (e.g., mosquitos, rodents, or flies).
(2) Source Control BMP Requirements:
a) Prevention of illicit discharges into the MS4
b) Storm drain system stenciling or signage
c) Protect outdoor material storage areas from rainfall, run-on, runoff, and wind dispersal
d) Protect materials stored in outdoor work areas from rainfall, run-on, runoff, and wind
dispersal
e) Protect trash storage areas from rainfall, run-on, runoff, and wind dispersal
f) Any additional BMPs determined to be necessary by the Copermittee to minimize
pollutant generation at each project
(3) LID BMP Requirements:
a) Maintenance or restoration of natural storage reservoirs and drainage corridors (including
topographic depressions, areas of permeable soils, natural swales, and ephemeral and
intermittent streams)
b) Buffer zones for natural water bodies (where buffer zones are technically infeasible,
require project applicant to include other buffers such as trees, access restrictions, etc.)
c) Conservation of natural areas within the project footprint including existing trees, other
vegetation, and soils
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-10 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
d) Construction of streets, sidewalks, or parking lot aisles to the minimum widths necessary,
provided public safety is not compromised
e) Minimization of the impervious footprint of the project
f) Minimization of soil compaction to landscaped areas
g) Disconnection of impervious surfaces through distributed pervious areas
h) Landscaped or other pervious areas designed and constructed to effectively receive and
infiltrate, retain and/or treat runoff from impervious areas, prior to discharging to the
MS4
i) Small collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point
where storm water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of runoff and
pollutants to the MS4 and receiving waters
j) Use of permeable materials for projects with low traffic areas and appropriate soil
conditions
k) Landscaping with native or drought tolerant species
l) Harvesting and using precipitation
Furthermore, should the development be considered a priority project under Regional MS4
requirements, the applicant would be required to implement specific structural BMPs that
conform to performance requirements described below:
a) Each Priority Development Project must be required to implement LID BMPs that are
designed to retain (i.e., intercept, store, infiltrate, evaporate, and evapotranspire) onsite
the pollutants contained in the volume of storm water runoff produced from a 24-hour
85th percentile storm event (design capture volume).
b) Post-project runoff conditions (flow rates and durations) must not exceed pre-
development runoff conditions by more than 10 percent (for the range of flows that result
in increased potential for erosion, or degraded instream habitat downstream of Priority
Development Projects).
c) Each Priority Development Project must avoid critical sediment yield areas or implement
measures that allow critical coarse sediment to be discharged to receiving waters, such
that there is no net impact to the receiving water.
d) A Priority Development Project may be allowed to utilize alternative compliance in lieu
of complying with the performance requirements identified above. The Priority
Development Project must mitigate for the post-project runoff conditions not fully
managed onsite, if used.
New elements in the Regional MS4 Permit include stormwater and non-stormwater action level
compliance, development of a water quality improvement plan (WQIP) in each watershed
management area, use of water quality action levels to prioritize actions under the WQIP, more
specific monitoring and assessment programs, and updated jurisdictional runoff management
programs (based on WQIP strategies). The WQIP for the Santa Margarita River Watershed
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-11 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Management Area has yet to be developed; its deadline for completion is June 2015. Once
developed, the City of Temecula Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan (JRMP) for the Santa
Margarita Region will be updated, based on the WQIP principles. According to Regional MS4
Requirements, the WQIP will identify priority water bodies and water body improvement goals
and schedules, along with a monitoring and assessment program that assess the progress towards
achieving those goals.
The Regional MS4 Permit also requires the development and update of each Copermittee’s BMP
Design Manual, formerly known as the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP
currently in place for the project area is the Riverside County WQMP for Urban Runoff for the
Santa Ana River Region and Santa Margarita River Region. The WQMP acts as a master plan
that develops and enforces municipal storm sewer pollutant controls for discharges from areas of
new development and significant redevelopment. The WQMP must be updated concurrent with
the submittal of the WQIP as a BMP Design Manual. Until the development of the WQIP, the
current WQMP remains in effect.
Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff
The Riverside County WQMP for Urban Runoff for the Santa Ana River Region and Santa
Margarita River Region was published in 2006 to comply with WQMP requirements outlined in
the SDRWQCB 2004 MS4 Permit for the Santa Margarita Region (Order No. R9-2004-001,
NPDES No. CAS108766 or third term permit). The WQMP is intended to provide guidelines for
project-specific post-construction BMPs and for regional and sub-regional source control BMPs
and structural BMPs to address management of urban runoff quantity and quality to protect
receiving waters. The WQMP identifies the BMPs, including design criteria for treatment control
BMPs that may be applicable when considering any map or permit for which discretionary
approval is sought. Implementation of the WQMP occurs through the preparation of a project-
specific WQMP prepared by the project applicant. Projects requiring a project-specific WQMP
are defined as follows:
(1) Significant redevelopment (the addition or creation of 5,000 or more square feet of
impervious surface on an existing developed site)
(2) New development (residential development of 10 dwelling units or more, automotive
repair shops, restaurants, parking lots of 5,000 square feet or more)
The project-specific WQMP must include:
(1) A project description and site characterization
(2) Pollutants and hydrologic conditions of concern related to the project and project site
(3) Site design BMPs
(4) Source control BMPs
(5) Where applicable, project-specific treatment control BMPs or a regional watershed
approach
(6) An operation and maintenance requirements program, including responsible entities
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-12 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
(7) Proposed funding source for operations and maintenance of BMPs (if a public agency is
identified—a written agreement that states their acceptance of these responsibilities shall
be provided)
In the City of Temecula, the Department of Public Works is responsible for implementing
WQMP requirements. Should the development disturb one acre or more, the project-specific
WQMP would be incorporated by reference or attached to the SWPPP as the Post-Construction
Management Plan.
Per the recently adopted Regional MS4 Permit (Order No. R9-2013-0001), the WQMP will
eventually be updated and/or replaced by a WQIP. According to Regional MS4 Permit
provisions, a WQIP will be published by June 2015; this has yet to occur at the time of this
writing.
Riverside County Flood Control Design Handbook for Low Impact
Development Best Management Practices
The Riverside County Flood Control Water Conservation District Design Handbook for LID
BMPs supplements the WQMP by providing guidance for the planning, design and maintenance
of LID BMPs, which may be used to mitigate the water quality impacts of developments within
Riverside County. The handbook highlights BMPs that are integrated into site design and
passively remove pollutants from runoff through natural processes such as infiltration,
biofiltration, and evapotranspiration; it also highlights BMPs that require little maintenance. The
handbook contains detailed information and designs for seven LID BMPs that are designed to
encourage replication of the site's natural hydrologic processes. The maximum tributary drainage
area, siting considerations, design procedures, and maintenance requirements are detailed for each
BMP.
City of Temecula Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program for the
Santa Margarita Region
In 2012, the City of Temecula released its Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan for the Santa
Margarita Region (JRMP), which describes the City of Temecula’s specific runoff management
programs and activities to comply with Order No. R9-2010-0016, issued to the Riverside County
Copermittees in the Santa Margarita Region by the SDRWQCB on November 10, 2010 (2010
SMR MS4 Permit). This JRMP is the principal document that comprehensively translates the
2010 SMR MS4 Permit requirements into actions within the City of Temecula. The JRMP lists
minimum BMPs specific to construction activities (e.g., soil stabilization) and City (e.g., litter
management), commercial (e.g., trash receptacle maintenance) and residential operations (e.g.,
automobile parking). For each BMP category, enhanced BMPs must also be implemented if the
development is discharging to the hydrologic area of a 303(d) impaired waterbody where the City
of Temecula has determined that the site/source generates pollutants for which the water body
segment is impaired.
The JRMP is the City of Temecula’s map for compliance with the 2010 MS4 Permit and
associated WQMP. Per Regional MS4 Permit (Order No. R9-2013-0001) requirements, this
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-13 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
JRMP will need to be updated according to WQIP policies. The WQIP is set to be published June
2015.
City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance
The City of Temecula adopted the Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge
Control Ordinance (TMC Title 8.28) with the purpose and intent of protecting the water quality of
City watercourses, water bodies, groundwater and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and
consistent with the federal CWA, in order to ensure the future health, safety and general welfare
of the citizens of the City by:
• Regulating non-stormwater urban runoff to the storm drain system
• Reducing pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable
• Establish requirements for development projects for permanent water quality control
measures
• Establish requirements to reduce pollutant discharges from construction sites
• Establish requirements to reduce pollutants in runoff from existing development
• Prohibiting illicit connections and illegal discharges to the storm drain system
New development and modifications to existing development are required to be designed to
control pollutants in stormwater and urban runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water
quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the receiving waters. The City
Engineer approves the BMPs that would be implemented to prevent deterioration and approves
the manner of implementation. The ordinance requires a WQMP for all new development projects
that meet the specified categories listed in the City of Temecula MS4 permit and modifications to
existing development projects as defined in the MS4 permit.
City of Temecula Flood Damage Prevention Regulations
This ordinance applies to all areas of special flood hazards, areas of flood-related erosion hazards
and areas of mudslide (i.e., mudflow) hazards under the jurisdiction of the City (Ord. 91-12).
“Special flood hazard area (SFHA)” means an area having special flood or flood-related erosion
hazards and shown on a Federal Insurance Rate Map as zone A, AO, A1—A30, AE, A99 or AH.
The project site is not located within the flood zone of Murrieta Creek; however, it is located
within a potential mud and debris flow area and therefore would be subject to the City’s
Municipal Code Chapter 15.12, Flood Damage Prevention Regulations.
City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.12 is intended to promote the public health, safety and general
welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by
provisions designed:
• To protect human life and health
• To minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood-control projects
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-14 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
• To minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally
undertaken at the expense of the general public
• To minimize prolonged business interruptions
• To minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains,
electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges located in areas of special flood
hazard
• To help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of
areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future flood blight areas
• To insure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood
hazard
• To insure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility
for their actions. (Ord. 91-12 § 1.3)
In order to accomplish its purposes, the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.12 includes methods
and provisions for:
• Restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, safety and property due to
water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood
heights or velocities
• Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be
protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction
• Controlling the alteration of natural flood-plains, stream, channels and natural protective
barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters
• Controlling fill, grading, dredging and other development which may increase flood
damage
• Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert
flood waters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas (Ord. 91-12 § 1.4)
City of Temecula General Plan
The following goals and policies from the City of Temecula General Plan would apply to the
project:
Open Space/Conservation Element
Goal 2 Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water
resources.
Policy 2.1 Coordinate with the Riverside County Flood Control District to design
flood control improvements that preserve, to the maximum extent
feasible, important natural features and resources of the local creeks and
riparian forest of the Santa Margarita River.
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-15 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Policy 2.2 Identify and protect groundwater resources from depletion and sources of
pollution in cooperation with the Rancho California Water District and
the San Diego Water Quality Control Board.
Policy 2.3 Conserve potable water by requiring water conservation techniques in all
new development.
Policy 2.4 Use reclaimed water for the irrigation of parks, golf courses, public
landscaped areas and other feasible applications as service becomes
available from Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal
Water District.
Policy 2.5 Require the use of soil management techniques to reduce erosion,
eliminate offsite sedimentation, and prevent other soil-related problems
that may adversely affect waterways in the community.
Policy 2.6 Regulate and manage lands adjacent to or affecting watercourses as
stipulated by the Regional Water Resources Control Board.
Policy 2.7 Ensure that approved projects have filed a Notice of Intent and
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with the Federal
Clean Water Act, prior to issuance of grading permits.
Policy 2.8 Ensure adequate inspection and enforcement of the requirements of
general construction permits, particularly related to erosion control
during grading and construction.
Policy 2.9 Participate in regional planning for the Santa Margarita River Watershed
in conjunction with federal, State, regional and local agencies, and
nonprofit organizations.
Policy 2.10 Participate in water resource management planning to facilitate the long-
term availability of water resources for western Riverside County.
Policy 2.11 Participate in outreach educational programs to educate the public about
water conservation methods, new technologies and drought resistant
landscapes.
Policy 2.12 Work with appropriate agencies to encourage ground water recharge
facilities along flood control channels and creeks.
Public Safety Element
Goal 1 Protection from natural hazards associated with geologic instability, seismic events,
wild land fires, flooding, and dam failures.
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-16 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Policy 1.6 Provide and maintain adequate flood control facilities and limit
development within the 100-year floodplain and potential dam
inundation areas.
Policy 1.7 Prohibit development of any kind within the floodway portion of the
100-year floodplain.
Growth Management and Public Facilities Element
Goal 7 An effective, safe and environmentally compatible flood control system.
Policy 7.1 Work with the Riverside County Flood Control District and other
agencies involved with Murrieta Creek flood control improvements to
implement a solution that maximizes retention of natural resources and
provision of recreation opportunities along the Creek.
Policy 7.3 Wherever possible, give priority to flood control methods that maintain
natural areas, maximize the beneficial uses of water through natural
systems, and provide additional trail opportunities.
3.8.3 Impact Assessment
Thresholds of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to hydrology and water quality
would be considered significant if the project would:
• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
• Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or offsite
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite
• Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff
• Otherwise substantially degrade water quality
• Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-17 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
• Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam
• Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
Cumulative impacts from the proposed project are detailed in Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts.
Methodology
This following impact analysis focuses on potential impacts of the proposed project related to
hydrology and water quality. The evaluation considered project plans and reports, current
conditions at the project area, and applicable regulations and guidelines.
The project’s potential to impact hydrology and water quality was evaluated in the Initial Study
(Appendix A). The Initial Study determined that the project would have no impact related to
exposure to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The project would not expose people to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by a seiche or tsunami because the project area
is not located immediately near a coast or large body of water. The project area is located over 20
miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is a large enough distance to avoid tsunami impacts and has
no body of water in close proximity to the project site. The portion of the project area that would
be subject to mudflow is identified in the Specific Plan to remain as open space. As a result, the
proposed development areas (villages) would be protected by the open space areas in the event of
a mudflow. In addition, the project would be subject to the City’s Flood Damage Protection
Ordinance which includes measures to protect against potential mudslides. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of the project. Therefore, the impact threshold related to inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow was not studied further.
Impacts – Hydrology
Stormwater Runoff and Drainage System Capacity
Construction
Construction of the project would require activities such as site clearing, grading and excavation,
site contouring, installation of improvements and structural development, and site clean-up,
which could temporarily alter the ground surface and drainage patterns. If drainage is not
properly controlled and contained during construction activities, the adjacent drainage system
capacity could be overloaded, resulting in corresponding flooding. Runoff generated on and off
the site during construction would have the potential to exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The
proposed drainage pattern would generally be the same during project construction when
compared with the pre-project condition. As a result, runoff conditions would not substantially
change during construction activities. Construction BMPs would be in place during storm events
as required by the Construction General Permit, which would reduce the potential for stormwater
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-18 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
to come into contact with pollutants and integrate it into surface water, to the maximum extent
practicable. BMPs have proven effective at substantially reducing or eliminating runoff during
construction. As a result, construction activities would not result in runoff that would exceed the
capacity of the adjacent existing drainage system capacity or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff. Impacts to existing stormwater drainage facilities during construction
would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Operation
The project proposes an onsite storm drainage system to collect and transfer storm flows through
the site as required by the City of Temecula. This system would include isolated storm drain
facilities to convey offsite and open space runoff that is not required to be treated for water
quality purposes onsite. This dual system would minimize the potential comingling of runoff
from the developed and non-developed areas of the project. This secondary system would collect
and carry storm flows from the natural open spaces west of the proposed Western Bypass,
through the project site, and directly into Murrieta Creek. The other storm drain system would
collect and treat surface runoff from the proposed development, before exiting the site. The onsite
drainage system would be designed and sized to convey a 100-year storm event. Flows from the
open space would be collected in ten inlet structures. The onsite catch basins and piping system
would collect flows from the developed portion of the project site and treat these flows in a series
of basins, swales and bioretention trenches. There are seven main outlets for the onsite network of
storm drains: Village A is tributary to the existing 60-inch storm drain in Ridge Park Drive,
Village B drains directly into the existing concrete lined channel adjacent to the easterly project
boundary, and the majority of Village C is tributary to the existing inlet and 48-inch pipe aligned
within Sixth Street. The remaining portion of Village C is tributary to the existing concrete
channels adjacent to the easterly project boundary and the existing 42-inch storm drain in First
Street. Village D and E areas are tributary to the existing concrete channels adjacent to the
easterly project boundary and the existing 48-inch storm drain. Village F would drain to the
proposed concrete channels of Tract Map 36568, as approved by the City of Temecula. Village G
and the South Parcel would both convey storm flows directly into Murrieta Creek.
The presence of new development within the project area and changes in the extent of permeable
or impermeable surfaces would alter the direction and volume of overland flows during both wet
and dry periods.
A preliminary drainage study has already been prepared for the site to determine the peak post-
developed onsite 100-year flow rates for the site. Preliminary hydrologic analyses have been
performed for Altair. The analyses determined since the majority of the project discharges
directly into Murrieta Creek, detention should not be required. However, existing condition
analyses have not been performed. As part of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, a final drainage study
would be prepared by an engineer that will identify existing conditions and will verify the
capacity of the existing receiving drainage facilities. If the receiving facilities are determined to
under capacity, then detention would be considered. Further, overland flows and drainage at each
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-19 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
development would be assessed and drainage facilities designed such that development project
within the project site would be required to implement LID BMPs that are designed to retain (i.e.,
intercept, store, infiltrate, evaporate, and evapotranspire) onsite the pollutants contained in the
volume of storm water runoff produced from a 24-hour, 85th percentile storm event (design
capture volume); and post-project runoff conditions (flow rates and durations) would not exceed
pre-development runoff conditions by more than 10 percent. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure MM-HYD-1 and adherence to the requirements found in the MS4 permit would ensure
no substantial increases in stormwater runoff would occur and that the existing capacity of storm
water drainage systems would not be exceeded. Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact HYD-1: Future development occurring under the proposed Specific Plan could result in
impacts to hydrology.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage study
shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial
grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County, and engineering standards. The
final study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 100-year storm event) from
the development of this site and upstream of the site, and shall identify all existing or proposed
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate
outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property;
the final study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. If the
receiving facilities are determined to under capacity, then onsite detention would be considered.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Impacts – Water Quality
Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
Construction
Construction activities associated with new development would involve earthwork activities,
including grading and stockpiling of soils. Disturbance of soils formerly protected with
vegetation or covered by asphalt or concrete can become exposed to winds and water flows that
result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, 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 building materials and chemicals, such as concrete, 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.
The project would be developed in three phases over an approximate 10-year time frame, with the
phased construction of streets, utilities and other infrastructure, as needed, for each respective
phase. Construction of each phase is estimated to take approximately three years to complete.
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-20 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
According to Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-2, when the anticipated total construction
disturbance would be greater than one acre, the developer would be required to obtain coverage
under the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit. The Construction General Permit
requires the development to prepare and implement a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer
(QSD). The QSD prepared SWPPP would identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants
that may affect the quality of storm water discharges during construction and describe the
implementation and maintenance various BMPs to reduce or eliminate the potential for sediment
or pollutants to come into contact with stormwater runoff during construction.
BMPs include activities, maintenance procedures, and other management practices that reduce or
eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges. Erosion control is any source control practice that
protects the soil surface and prevents soil particles from being detached by rainfall, flowing
water, and wind. Sediment control is any practice that traps soil particles after they have been
detached and moved by rain, flowing water, and wind. Sediment control measures are passive
systems that rely on filtering or settling the particles out of the water or wind that is transporting
them. Sediment control BMPs are most effective when used in combination with erosion control
BMPs and is the most effective means to prevent sediment from leaving the project site and
potentially entering storm drains or receiving waters. Other types of BMPs include waste
management (properly disposing of all site waste) and good housekeeping (ensuring the site
remains tidy).
Developments disturbing less than one acre would not be required to comply with the
Construction General Permit, but would be required to submit a facility construction BMP plan
per SDWQCB MS4 Permit requirements at the time of construction. The construction BMP plan
would detail seasonally appropriate and effective BMPs for construction of individual projects
and would require approval from the City of Temecula.
The common types of construction BMPs that would likely be included in the project-specific
SWPPP include sediment, erosion, and waste management BMPs, as described further in
Table 3.8-5. Not all of these BMPs would be required, and in some instances may not applicable
to construction of the project. In addition, several of the BMPs listed below are of similar nature.
The best option for the project site conditions and construction methods would be specified in the
SWPPP. The QSD would ensure the SWPPP is designed such that the environment is protected to
the maximum extent practicable throughout the entirety of construction. In addition, the Qualified
SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) would ensure compliance with the SWPPP through regular
monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities, as required by the Construction
General Permit. The SWPPP would be amended and BMPs revised, as determined necessary
through field inspections, to protect against substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite.
With the application of the above referenced regulations, construction-related impacts to water
quality from the project would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-21 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
TABLE 3.8-5
POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION BMPS
BMP Description
Erosion Control
Scheduling Construction scheduling includes consideration of the amount and duration of soil that
could be exposed to erosion by wind, rainfall, runoff, and vehicle tracking and seek to
minimize disturbed soil area during the rainy season. A schedule should show the
sequencing of construction activities with the installation and maintenance of soil
stabilization and sediment control BMPs.
Preservation of Existing
Vegetation
Preserving existing vegetation to the maximum extent possible and for as long as possible
on a construction site reduces or eliminates erosion in those areas.
Hydraulic Mulch Hydraulic mulch consists of applying a mixture of shredded wood fiber or a hydraulic matrix
and a stabilizing emulsion or tackifier with hydroseeding equipment, which temporarily
protects exposed soil from erosion by raindrop impact or wind.
Hydroseed Hydroseeding typically consists of applying a mixture of wood fiber, seed, fertilizer, and
stabilizing emulsion with hydro-mulch equipment, which temporarily protects exposed soils
from erosion by water and wind.
Soil Binders Soil binders consist of applying and maintaining a soil stabilizer to exposed soil surfaces.
Soil binders are materials applied to the soil surface to temporarily prevent water-induced
erosion of exposed soils on construction sites. Soil binders also provide temporary dust,
wind, and soil stabilization (erosion control) benefits.
Straw Mulch Straw mulch consists of placing a uniform layer of straw and incorporating it into the soil
with a studded roller or anchoring it with a stabilizing emulsion.
Geotextiles and Mats Placement of geotextiles, mats, plastic covers, or erosion control blankets to stabilize
disturbed soil areas and protect soils from erosion by wind or water.
Wood Mulching Wood mulching consist of applying a mixture of shredded wood mulch, bark or compost.
Wood mulch is mostly applicable to landscape projects.
Earth Dike and
Drainage Swales
These are structures that intercept, divert, and convey surface run-off, generally sheet flow,
to prevent erosion.
Velocity Dissipation
Devices
These devices are placed at pipe outlets to prevent scour and reduce the velocity and/or
energy of storm water flows.
Non-Vegetated
Stabilization
Non-vegetative stabilization methods are used in areas prone to erosion and should be
used only where vegetative options are not feasible. Examples include: decomposed
granite; degradable mulches; rock slope protection, gravel mulch
Sediment Control
Silt Fence A silt fence is a temporary linear sediment barrier of permeable fabric designed to intercept
and slow the flow of sediment-laden sheet flow runoff. Silt fences allow sediment to settle
from runoff before water leaves the construction site.
Sediment Basin A sediment/desilting basin is a temporary basin formed by excavating and/or constructing
an embankment so that sediment-laden runoff is temporarily detained under quiescent
conditions, allowing sediment to settle out before the runoff is discharged.
Sediment Trap A sediment trap is a temporary containment area that allows sediment in collected storm
water to settle out during infiltration or before the runoff is discharged through a stabilized
spillway. Sediment traps are formed by excavating or constructing an earthen embankment
across a waterway or low drainage area.
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-22 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
TABLE 3.8-5
POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION BMPS
BMP Description
Sediment Control (cont.)
Fiber Rolls A fiber roll consists of wood excelsior, rice or wheat straw, or coconut fibers that is rolled or
bound into a tight tubular roll and placed on the toe and face of slopes to intercept runoff,
reduce its flow velocity, release the runoff as sheet flow and provide removal of sediment
from the runoff. Fiber rolls may also be used for inlet protection and as check dams under
certain situations.
Gravel Bag Berm A gravel bag berm consists of a single row of gravel bags that are installed end to end to
form a barrier across a slope to intercept runoff, reduce its flow velocity, release the runoff
as sheet flow and provide some sediment removal. Gravel bags can be used where flows
are moderately concentrated, such as ditches, swales, and storm drain inlets (see BMP
SC-10, Storm Drain Inlet Protection) to divert and/or detain flows.
Street Sweeping Street sweeping removes tracked sediment to prevent the sediment from entering a storm
drain or watercourse.
Sandbag Barrier A sandbag barrier is a temporary linear sediment barrier consisting of stacked sandbags,
designed to intercept and slow the flow of sediment-laden sheet flow runoff. Sandbag
barriers allow sediment to settle from runoff before water leaves the construction site.
Storm Drain Inlet
Protection
Devices used at storm drain inlets that are subject to runoff from construction activities to
detain and/or to filter sediment-laden runoff to allow sediment to settle and/or to filter
sediment prior to discharge into storm drainage systems or watercourses.
Stabilized Construction
Entrance/Exit
A stabilized construction access is a point of entrance/exit to a construction site that is
stabilized to reduce the tracking of mud and dirt onto public roads by construction vehicles.
Stabilized Construction
Roadway
A stabilized construction roadway is a temporary access road. It is designed for the control
of dust and erosion created by vehicular tracking.
Entrance Outlet Tire
Wash
A tire wash is an area located at stabilized construction access points to remove sediment
from tires and undercarriages, and to prevent sediment from being transported onto public
roadways.
Wind Erosion
Wind Erosion Control Wind erosion control consists of applying water and/or other dust palliatives as necessary
to prevent or alleviate erosion by the forces of wind. Covering of small stockpiles or areas
is an alternative to applying water or other dust palliatives.
Non-Stormwater Management Controls
Water Conservation Water conservation practices are activities that use water during the construction of a
project in a manner that avoids causing erosion and/or the transport of pollutants off site.
Paving and Grinding
Operation
Procedures and practices for paving, saw cutting, and grinding operations to minimize the
transport of pollutants to the storm drain system or receiving water body.
Illicit
Connection/Discharge
Procedures and practices designed for construction contractors to recognize illicit
connections or illegally dumped or discharged materials on a construction site and report
incidents.
Potable Water Irrigation
Discharge Detection
Potable Water/Irrigation management consists of practices and procedures to manage the
discharge of potential pollutants generated during discharges from irrigation water lines,
landscape irrigation, lawn or garden watering, planned and unplanned discharges from
potable water sources, water line flushing, and hydrant flushing.
Vehicle and Equipment
Cleaning
Vehicle and equipment cleaning procedures and practices are used to minimize or
eliminate the discharge of pollutants from vehicle and equipment cleaning operations to
storm drain system or to watercourses.
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-23 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
TABLE 3.8-5
POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION BMPS
BMP Description
Non-Stormwater Management Controls (cont.)
Vehicle and Equipment
Fueling
Vehicle and equipment fueling procedures and practices are designed to minimize or
eliminate the discharge of fuel spills and leaks into storm drain systems or to watercourses.
Vehicle and Equipment
Maintenance
Procedures and practices to minimize or eliminate the discharge of pollutants to the storm
drain systems or to watercourses from vehicle and equipment maintenance procedures.
Pile Driving Operations Driven piles are typically constructed of concrete, steel, or timber. Driven sheet piles are
used for shoring and cofferdam construction. Proper control and use of equipment,
materials, and waste products from pile driving operations will reduce the discharge of
potential pollutants to the storm drain system or watercourses.
Concrete Curing Concrete curing includes the use of both chemical and water methods. Proper procedures
minimize pollution of runoff during concrete curing.
Concrete Finishing Concrete finishing methods are used for paint removal, curing compound removal, and
final surface finish appearances. Methods include sand blasting, shot blasting, grinding, or
high pressure water blasting. Proper procedures minimize the impact that concrete
finishing methods may have on runoff.
Waste Management
Material Delivery and
Storage
Procedures and practices for the proper handling and storage of materials in a manner that
minimizes or eliminates the discharge of these materials to the storm drain system or to
watercourses.
Material Use These are procedures and practices for use of construction material in a manner that
minimizes or eliminates the discharge of these materials to the storm drain system or to
watercourses.
Stockpile Management Stockpile management procedures and practices are designed to reduce or eliminate air
and storm water pollution from stockpiles of soil, and paving materials such as Portland
cement concrete rubble, asphalt concrete rubble, aggregate base, aggregate subbase or
pre-mixed aggregate, asphalt binder, and pressure treated wood.
Spill Prevention and
Control
Procedures and practices are implemented to prevent and control spills in a manner that
minimizes or prevents the discharge of spilled material to the drainage system or
watercourses.
Solid Waste
Management
Solid waste management procedures and practices are designed to minimize or eliminate
the discharge of pollutants to the drainage system or to watercourses as a result of the
creation, stockpiling, or removal of construction site wastes.
Hazardous Waste
Management
Procedures and practices to minimize or eliminate the discharge of pollutants from
construction site hazardous waste to the storm drain systems or to watercourses.
Contaminated Soil
Management
Procedures and practices to minimize or eliminate the discharges of pollutants to the
drainage system or to watercourses from contaminated soil.
Concrete Waste
Management
Procedures and practices that are designed to minimize or eliminate the discharge of
concrete waste materials to the storm drain systems or watercourses.
Sanitary/Septic Waste
Management
Procedures and practices to minimize or eliminate the discharge of construction site
sanitary/septic waste materials to the storm drain system or to watercourses.
SOURCE: CASQA Construction BMP Handbook, August 2011; Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks, May 2003.
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-24 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-2: Construction of future development occurring under the proposed Specific Plan
could result in impacts to water quality.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-2: The developer shall obtain coverage under the statewide
NPDES Construction General Permit. When the anticipated total construction disturbance would
be greater than one acre, the Construction General Permit requires the preparation and
implementation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer, which would examine existing
site conditions, identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of
storm water discharges during construction and would describe the implementation and
maintenance of erosion control, sediment control, waste management, and good housekeeping
BMPs to reduce or eliminate the potential for sediment or other pollutants to mix with stormwater
runoff during construction.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Operation
The project would include a residential mixed-use development with supporting civic uses and
open space. Different housing types are proposed within seven different neighborhood villages.
The introduction of residential and commercial uses to an area previously containing open space
uses would introduce the potential for new pollutants to be generated in the area. This could
introduce the potential for pollutants associated with residential uses (e.g., various chemicals
from household cleaners, pathogens from pet wastes, nutrients from fertilizer, pesticides and
sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles) and commercial
uses (e.g. various chemicals from commercial cleaners, nutrients from fertilizer, pesticides and
sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles) to be generated
onsite. These pollutants could potentially discharge into surface waters either directly or during
storm water runoff events, resulting in degradation of surface water quality. The waterbody near
the project area (Murrieta Creek) is currently listed as impaired on the EPA’s 303(d) list by point,
nonpoint and urban runoff sources, including metals/metalloids, nutrients, pesticides and toxicity.
Operation of the Project could create new or exacerbate existing impairments within this
waterbodies, which would result in a significant impact related to water quality.
However, operation of future developments within the project site would be required to comply
with the development planning requirements of the SDRWQCB MS4 permit in effect at the time
of construction and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance. These include implementation
of non-structural, structural, and source control and treatment control BMPs during the planning
process prior to project approval for development projects.
A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared that identifies the
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water treatment facilities, source control, and site
design (Appendix G of this EIR). The Preliminary WQMP addresses the project-specific
constraints of the site and proposed treatment and filtration of storm water runoff. The runoff
from the proposed developed surfaces would be treated for water quality purposes. The proposed
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-25 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
treatment train would incorporate a variety of biofiltration and bioretention facilities along with
bioswales where feasible to reduce any potential water quality impacts on Murrieta Creek and the
Santa Margarita River Watershed.
In addition, it is anticipated that each future development’s drainage design would implement
BMPs such as routing impervious areas drainage to pervious areas (e.g., draining paved surface
areas to natural drainages, using natural drainage swales to convey runoff from impervious
surfaces, landscape areas between sidewalk and curb, where feasible). In addition, landscape
design using drought tolerant plants, integrated pest management and herbicide practices, and
effective irrigation minimizing overflow, are site design concepts that would be implemented to
reduce pollutant loading at the source. Also, walkways would be constructed of pervious
materials, where feasible. Structural BMPs identified in the Preliminary WQMP for
implementation on future developments include roof downspouts and filtration planter boxes; the
downspouts would collect rooftop drainage and discharge it into the planter boxes for treatment.
As stormwater passes down through the planting soil, pollutants would be filtered, absorbed, and
biodegraded by the soil and plants. Runoff from the proposed roadways would likely be collected
in catch basins that contain filters. The catch basin’s filter would be designed to capture sediment,
debris, trash, and oils/grease from low storm flows. Filtered runoff and overflow from the project
areas would drain via an underground stormwater pipe to the proposed storm drain system and
then into Murrieta Creek. As a result, runoff from the project area would be filtered prior to
discharge as part of project design and would not result in adverse water quality impacts.
The California Storm Water BMP Handbook—New Development and Redevelopment (2004) lists
various types of Site Design, Source Control and Treatment Control BMPs to be implemented by
new development and redevelopment projects. Typical Source Control BMPs that may be
applicable to development projects within the Specific Plan are provided in Table 3.8-6. BMPs
would be designed and implemented on a per site basis as needed. Table 3.8-7 shows typical
Treatment Control BMPs that may be applicable to the development projects depending on the
nature of the individual proposals.
Each future development proposal occurring under the proposed Specific Plan would be assessed
individually to ensure compliance with applicable NPDES requirements. Implementation of site-
specific source control and treatment control BMPs in accordance with the SDRWQCB MS4
permit in effect at the time of construction and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance, per
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-3, would remove potential pollutants from runoff and would not
contribute additional pollutant loads into receiving waters. The SDRWQCB MS4 permit and the
City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance require that each project-specific WQMP shall include a
drainage hydrologic/hydraulic analysis that details the site’s anticipated runoff calculations. With
implementation of these requirements, the individual development projects that would be
implemented by the proposed Specific Plan would not result in adverse impacts to water quality,
i.e., a violation of water quality standards or water quality objectives.
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-26 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
TABLE 3.8-6
TYPICAL SOURCE CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Identifier Name Project-Specific Application
SD-10 Site Design and
Landscape Planning
Landscape vegetation used would be drought-tolerant and will require
minimal irrigation and fertilizer application.
SD-11 Roof Runoff Controls The objective is to reduce the total volume and rate of runoff from
individual lots, and retain pollutants onsite that may be picked up from
roofing materials and atmospheric deposition. Roof runoff controls consist
of directing the roof runoff away from paved areas and mitigating flow to
the storm drain.
SD-12 Efficient Irrigation Irrigation systems will be fitted with soil moisture sensors or precipitation
detectors and designed to eliminate overspray onto impervious surfaces.
SD-13 Storm Drain System
Signs
Areas near drain inlets will be stenciled for public awareness to indicate
release to surface waters.
SD-21 Alternative Building
Materials
Roofing materials for the buildings would consist of built-up roofing or
metal sheet roofing with a durable painted surface that resists
degradation. This type of roofing material will typically not increase metals
in roof runoff, as would roofing materials constructed of galvanized metal
or copper.
SD-31 Maintenance Bays and
Docks
Loading docks would be designed to prevent run-on from outside the
loading dock area and will be covered to prevent rainfall influence.
SD-32 Trash Enclosures Trash and recycling materials would be stored to prevent runoff from
storage areas (e.g., construction of a roof and berm around trash
containers), and pick-up would be appropriately scheduled.
SD-33 Vehicle Washing Areas During construction, project plans should include appropriately designed
area(s) for washing-steam cleaning of vehicles and equipment.
Depending on the size and other parameters of the wastewater facility,
wash water may be conveyed to a sewer, an infiltration system, recycling
system or other alternative. Pretreatment may be required for conveyance
to a sanitary sewer.
SD-34 Outdoor Material Storage
Areas
During construction, the method of storing outdoor storage of materials
should be specified. Materials that could result in contaminated storm
water runoff should not be stored outdoors. If suspect materials are stored
outdoors, their removal and cleanup before storm events should be
specified.
SD-35 Outdoor Work Areas Design areas to contain pollutants and collect and convey runoff to
sanitary sewer system during construction activities.
SOURCE: CASQA, 2004.
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-27 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
TABLE 3.8-7
TYPICAL TREATMENT CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Identifier Name Project-Specific Application
TC-30 Vegetated Swales Vegetated swales are open, shallow channels with vegetation covering
the side slopes and bottom that collect and slowly convey runoff flow to
downstream discharge points. They are designed to treat runoff through
filtering by the vegetation in the channel, filtering through a subsoil
matrix, and/or infiltration into the underlying soils.
TC-31 Vegetated Buffer Strip Grassed buffer strips (vegetated filter strips, filter strips, and grassed
filters) are vegetated surfaces that are designed to treat sheet flow from
adjacent surfaces. Filter strips function by slowing runoff velocities and
allowing sediment and other pollutants to settle and by providing some
infiltration into underlying soils.
TC-32 Bioretention The bioretention BMP functions as a soil and plant-based filtration
device that removes pollutants through a variety of physical, biological,
and chemical treatment processes.
TC-40 Media Filter Storm water media filters are usually two-chambered including a
pretreatment settling basin and a filter bed filled with sand or other
absorptive filtering media.
TC-50 Water Quality Inlet Water quality inlets, also commonly called trapping catch basins, oil/grit
separators or oil/water separators, consist of one or more chambers
that promote sedimentation of coarse materials and separation of free
oil (as opposed to emulsified or dissolved oil) from storm water.
TC-60 Multiple Systems A multiple treatment system uses two or more BMPs in series.
MP-60 Drain Insert Drain inserts are manufactured filters or fabric placed in a drop inlet to
remove sediment and debris.
SOURCE: CASQA, 2004.
Impact HYD-3: Operation of future development occurring under the proposed Specific Plan
could result in impacts to water quality.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-3: 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.
Each project-specific WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to
the issuance of a building or grading permit.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-28 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Erosion and Siltation
Construction
Each phase of construction would involve site clearing, grading and excavation, site contouring,
installation of improvements and structural development, and site clean-up. A total of
approximately four million cubic yards of cut and fill would be required for the total project. This
cut/fill quantity would be balanced onsite; however, these activities could expose and loosen
sediment, which has the potential to mix with storm water runoff and result in erosion or siltation
offsite.
The NPDES Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a
SWPPP by a QSD. The QSD-prepared SWPPP would address site-specific conditions related to
construction; identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of
storm water discharges during construction; and describe the implementation and maintenance of
erosion control and sediment control BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment, pollutants adhering
to sediment, and other non-sediment pollutants in storm water, as well as non-storm water
discharges. The common types of construction BMPs that would likely be included in the project-
specific SWPPP include sediment, erosion, and waste management BMPs, as described in
Table 3.8-5. Not all of these BMPs would be required, and in some instances may not applicable
to construction of the project. The best option for the project site conditions and construction
methods would be specified in the SWPPP. The QSD would ensure the SWPPP is designed such
that the environment is protected to the maximum extent feasible throughout the entirety of
construction. In addition, the QSP would ensure compliance with the SWPPP through regular
monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. The SWPPP would be amended
and BMPs revised, as determined necessary through field inspections, to protect against
substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Operation
The project site does not currently include impermeable surfaces. After completion of project
construction, the project site would have over 50 percent impermeable surfaces. This increase in
the distribution of permeable and impermeable surfaces would alter the direction, volume, and
rate of surface water flows during both storm events and dry-weather surface runoff. The overall
impermeable surfaces could result in changes in overland flows and drainage volumes which
could result in substantial increases in stormwater runoff in certain areas, resulting in potential
downstream erosion and siltation impacts.
Runoff from the project site would be minimized by implementation of infiltration BMPs, such as
directing roof downspouts and other paved areas to drain to natural drainages, using natural
drainage swales to convey runoff from impervious surfaces, and landscape areas between
sidewalk and curb, where feasible. Bioretention basins are being proposed throughout the site to
treat runoff from the proposed impervious areas (streets and sidewalks) (Chang Consultants,
2015). Bioretention facilities are shallow, vegetated basins underlain by an engineered soil media.
Storm runoff from mass graded pads that would not enter a bioretention basin would be treated by
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-29 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
a desiltation basin on the pad. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial increases in
erosion, siltation on or offsite. Impacts would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Impacts – Water Supply
Groundwater Supplies
Construction
Water consumption during construction of each phase is estimated as follows: Phase 1 – 46
acre-feet, Phase 2 – 128 acre-feet, and Phase 3 – 161 acre-feet; for a total of 335 acre-feet.
Construction of each phase is estimated to take approximately three years to complete. In the
Water Supply Assessment (WSA) drafted for the project, various types of water use totals were
projected through the year 2041 for the RCWD, which would be the water supplier for the
project. Although some of the water used for construction would likely be supplied from local
groundwater supplies from the Murrieta-Temecula Groundwater Basin, the WSA concluded that
the RCWD would have sufficient water supplies to accommodate the project’s water use during
operation. Please see Section 3.14, Utilities and Service Systems, for a more detailed water
supply discussion. The use of water during operation, as detailed below, is higher than the total
required 335 acre-feet for construction. Overall, the use of water during construction activities
would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level, which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted. Impacts would be less than significant with regard to the use of water
during project construction activities on local groundwater recharge and supplies. See Section
3.14, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR for more details. Impacts would be less than
significant with regard to the impact of project construction on local groundwater recharge and
supplies.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Operation
The project is being clustered along the easterly portion of the site. The westerly (steeper hillside)
portion would remain as open space conservation areas. The existing drainage patterns would be
preserved in the open space conservation areas. As such, the natural infiltration capacity is
maintained in the open space conservation areas. Furthermore, the future development footprint
would include parks and landscaping that would provide infiltration. Therefore, operation of the
project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in impervious surfaces that would
interfere with existing groundwater recharge through pervious surfaces onsite.
The WSA projected water use totals for the RCWD, including the project. Operational water use
was accounted for in the various mixed-land use water use categories that were projected. As
previously mentioned, the project may utilize groundwater supplies that could be affected by the
drought and associated recent water use restrictions. However, the project would comply with all
applicable water use restrictions throughout its lifetime. The WSA concluded that the RCWD
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-30 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
would have sufficient water supplies to accommodate the water needs of the project and the
project would have a less than significant impact on water supplies. See Section 3.14, Utilities
and Service Systems, of this Draft EIR for more details on water supply. Therefore, the potential
impact on local groundwater recharge and supplies from operation of the proposed project would
be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Impacts – Flooding and Inundation
Flood Hazard
As identified in the City’s General Plan Flood Hazards Map, the project area is not within the
100-year flood zone of Murrieta Creek. No structural development would occur in the within the
100-year flood zone. Thus, the Project would not introduce housing or structures into a flood
zone area that could potentially impede or redirect flood flows. Nonetheless, specific building
standards, as described within the flood damage prevention and floodplain management
regulations of the City Development Code (Chapter 15.12 Floodplain Management) apply since
the project area is within the western portion of Temecula, which has the potential for mud and
debris flows. The City would review development plans for future projects to ensure compliance
with City and FEMA floodplain development requirements. Therefore, impacts related to
flooding and mudflows are expected to be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Dam or Levee Failure
Flooding from dam failure can result from both natural and human causes, including earthquakes,
erosion, improper siting and/or design, and rapidly rising floodwater during heavy storms. The
type of failure, ranging from instantaneous to gradual, is dependent on the building material of
the dam. Dam failure can potentially cause loss of life and property damage, displacement of
persons residing in the inundation path and damage to infrastructure.
A small portion of the project area closest to Murrieta Creek may be located in a dam inundation
area (City of Temecula, 1993) depending on location of proposed developments. All three dams
within the vicinity of the project area—Lake Skinner, Vail Lake, and Diamond Valley Lake—
could potentially cause flooding in the Project area should they fail. Furthermore, according to
their high hazard potential designation, the failure or disoperation of Lake Skinner and Vail Lake
dams could contribute to the loss of human life. The project would encourage a mixed density
urban development, increase employment opportunities in the area, and introduce residential uses
to the area. Therefore, the amount of people living and working in the area that is within the dam
inundation area would be higher than existing conditions, slightly increasing the number of
people exposed to the potential effects of dam or levy failure.
The project itself would not compromise the structures of the dams and thus does not contribute
to an increase in the risk of dam failure. The flood inundation area is a preexisting condition
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-31 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
within the project area, and the placement of the development in the inundation area would not
exacerbate this condition. Furthermore, to address flood hazards, City of Temecula has developed
a Dam Inundation Evacuation Plan which they update, as needed. This Plan would be put to use
in the event of dam failure to ensure the safety of the public. Additionally, the City coordinates
with the State Office of Emergency Services to ensure that dam safety plans reflect the level of
development within the community. The rare likelihood of such an event in combination with
applicable plan and program compliance would reduce any risks of death or loss involving
flooding as a result of dam failure to less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.8-32 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
This section identifies the existing and surrounding land uses, analyzes the compatibility of the
project with existing land uses, and evaluates the consistency of the project with relevant plans
and policies.
3.9.1 Environmental Setting
Regional
The project site is located in the Inland Empire. “Inland Empire” refers to the U.S. Census
Bureau’s federally defined Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario metropolitan area, which covers
more than 27,000 square miles. The project site is located within the City of Temecula, which is
within the County of Riverside, approximately 85 miles southeast of Los Angeles, 60 miles
northeast of San Diego, and 25 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean.
City of Temecula
The corporate limits of Temecula cover 30 square miles and include approximately 106,780
people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). Temecula’s corporate limits with its sphere of influence
encompass approximately 62 square miles and consist of areas contained within the City’s
corporate boundaries as well as portions of unincorporated Riverside County. Four generalized
land use types within the city are: residential, commercial and office, industrial, and
public/institutional and open space. The City does not have a traditional downtown around which
the land uses radiate, but rather clusters of commercial development along major arterial roads,
particularly in the western portion of the city (north of Rancho California Road and west of Sky
Canyon Drive), with residential uses also being clustered in the northern portion of the Temecula
(north of Nicholas road, and north of Saint Gertrudis Creek in the center of Temecula).
Project Site
The project site consists of two non-contiguous parcels located west of Pujol Street near Old
Town Temecula. City limits form the western boundary of the project site. The northern parcel,
which comprises the primary project area, is approximately 215 acres that roughly spans the area
between Ridge Park Drive on the north and Temecula Parkway on the south. The southern parcel
is approximately 55 acres and is located south of Temecula Parkway/Future Western Bypass.
Both parcels are currently undeveloped and have experienced minimal disturbance, with the
exception of the two graded pads at the north end of the site. The project area consists of a natural
bench at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains separated by natural ravines with sage scrub and
chaparral as the dominant vegetation communities. Non-native grassland occurs in the lower,
flatter areas of the site, primarily along the eastern boundary. A portion of Murrieta Creek is
adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project, and the site is located within the Murrieta Creek
and Santa Rosa Plateau subunits of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan’s (MSHCP)
Southwest Area Plan.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is largely surrounded by undeveloped, natural land, with undeveloped land
abutting the property to the south; undeveloped land and the foothills of Santa Rosa Mountains to
the west; and undeveloped land immediately adjacent to the north. Urban development, consisting
primarily of multi-family and single-family residential uses along Pujol Street, is located adjacent
to the project site to the east. Business parks exist to the northeast of the project site along Ridge
Park Drive. The Old Town commercial district is located approximately 0.25-mile east of the
project site, beyond the residential and office uses.
3.9.2 Regulatory Framework
Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the designated Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside,
Ventura, and Imperial. As the designated MPO for the region, SCAG is mandated by the federal
government to research and create plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste
management, and air quality. SCAG’s major responsibilities include (SCAG, 2015):
• Maintenance of a continuous, comprehensive, and coordinated planning process resulting
in a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and a Regional Transportation Improvement
Program (RTIP).
• Development of demographic projections plus the integrated land use, housing,
employment, transportation programs, measures, and strategic portions of the South
Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), as well as serving as co-lead agency for
air quality planning for the Central Coast and Southeast Desert air basin districts.
• Responsibility under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for determining whether projects,
plans, and programs conform to the CAA.
• To function as the authorized regional agency for intergovernmental review of programs
proposed for federal financial assistance and direct development activities.
• Review of environmental impact reports for projects having regional significance for
consistency with regional plans.
• To function as the authorized area-wide waste treatment management planning agency
pursuant to federal water pollution control statutes.
• Responsibility under state law for preparation of the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA).
Regional Transportation Plan 2012-2035/Sustainable Communities Strategy
In April 2012, SCAG adopted the 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (SCAG, 2012a). The RTP/SCS includes a strong commitment
to reduce emissions from transportation to comply with Senate Bill (SB) 375, improve public
health, and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards as set forth by the federal Clean Air
Act. The RTP/SCS links its goals of sustaining mobility with its goals for fostering economic
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-2 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
development; enhancing the environment; reducing energy consumption; promoting
transportation-friendly development patterns; and encouraging fair and equitable access to
residents affected by socio-economic, geographic and commercial limitations. In summary, the
2012-2035 RTP/SCS provides a blueprint for improving quality of life for residents by providing
more choices for where they will live, work, and play, and how they will move around.
Regional Comprehensive Plan
The 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) (SCAG, 2008) is an advisory plan that establishes
a strategy for defining and solving the region’s inter-related housing, traffic, water, air quality and
other regional challenges. The RCP ties together SCAG’s role in transportation, land use, and air
quality planning as well as recommending key roles and responsibilities for public and private
sector stakeholders and inviting them to help implement the policies of the RCP. The nine areas
covered in the RCP include land use and housing, open space and habitat, water, energy, air
quality, solid waste, transportation, security and emergency preparedness, and economy. Land use
and housing goals of the RCP include:
• Focusing growth in existing and emerging centers and along major transportation
corridors;
• Creating significant areas of mixed-use development and walkable, “people-scaled”
communities;
• Providing new housing opportunities, with building types and locations that respond to
the region’s changing demographics;
• Targeting growth in housing, employment and commercial development within walking
distance of existing and planned transit stations;
• Injecting new life into under-used areas by creating vibrant new business districts,
redeveloping old buildings and building new businesses and housing on vacant lots.
• Preserving existing, stable, single-family neighborhoods; and
• Protecting important open space, environmentally sensitive areas and agricultural lands
from development.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is a key tool for SCAG and its member
governments to plan for growth in the region. The 5th Cycle RHNA Final Allocation Plan, which
was adopted in August 2012, quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction between
2014 and 2021 (SCAG 2012b). Communities then plan, consider, and decide how they will
address this need through the process of completing the Housing Elements of their General Plans.
The RHNA does not necessarily encourage or promote growth, but it helps communities to
anticipate growth so that they can guide the growth in such a way as to enhance the quality of
life; improve access to jobs, transportation and housing; and not adversely impact the
environment. The RHNA consists of two measurements of housing need: (1) existing need and
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-3 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
(2) future need. The City of Temecula was assigned a RHNA of 1,493 homes for the 2014 to
2021 planning period.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan
The project site lies within the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The MSHCP involves the
assembly and management of a 500,000-acre Conservation Area for the conservation of natural
habitats and their constituent wildlife populations. The MSHCP was developed to serve as a HCP
pursuant to the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act and Section 10(a)(1)(B)
of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). It encompasses 1.26 million acres and includes
all unincorporated Riverside County land west of the crest of the San Jacinto Mountains to the
Orange County line as well as jurisdictional areas of the Cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Lake
Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Norco, Corona, Riverside, Moreno Valley, Banning, Beaumont,
Calimesa, Perris, Hemet, and San Jacinto. The overarching purpose of the plan is to balance
development and economic interests with species and lands conservation goals. The MSHCP
permits development of lands and take of species “in exchange for the assembly and management
of a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area (Riverside County, 2004).
The approval of the MSHCP and the Implementing Agreement (IA) by the USFWS and the
CDFW allows signatories of the IA to issue “take” authorizations for the 146 species covered by
the MSHCP (termed “covered species”), including state and federally listed species, as well as
other identified sensitive species. The “take” authorization includes impacts to the habitats of the
covered species. The MSHCP requires any new development to pay fees to support the financing
for the MSHCP. The fees are intended to meet mitigation requirements for CEQA, FESA and
California Endangered Species Act. The MSHCP is further broken down into core areas and
linkages, which are the focus of reserve and preservation actions.
City of Temecula General Plan
The City of Temecula General Plan was initially adopted in 1993, and updated in 2005. The
General Plan is considered a blueprint for development in the city, and provides long-term policy
guidance for the community’s physical, economic, social, and environmental changes.
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element establishes the City’s strategy for determining future location, type, and
intensity of new development and reuse projects, and the desired mix and relationship between
such projects. As a guide to future growth and development, the Land Use Element identifies the
general distribution, location, mix, and extent of desired land uses including residential,
commercial, industrial, public facilities, and open space uses.
There are five existing General Plan land use designations for the project site, including Industrial
Park (IP), combination Open Space (OS) and IP, Medium-Density Residential (M), High Density
Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR). Table 3.9-1 provides a brief description of these
land use designations. In addition, with the exception of the 55-acre southern parcel, the project
site is identified on Figure LU-4 in the General Plan as SP-8- Westside/Villages at Old Town.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
Table LU-4 in the General Plan identifies the objective of the project area, “to provide
complementary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the area; to increase the range
of housing opportunities west of I-15; and to encourage sensitive site and building design given
the topography of the area.”
TABLE 3.9-1
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA
Land Use Designation Permitted Use
Hillside Residential (HR) Very low density housing in areas best suited for hillside open space or with
severe development constraints. The allowable density for this land use is <
0.1 dwelling unit per acre.
Medium Density Residential (M) Attached and detached residential development. Includes single-family zero
lot line, patio homes, duplexes, townhouses, and multi-family garden
apartments. The allowable density for this designation is 7.0 to 12.9 dwelling
units per acre.
High Density Residential (H) Attached residential development, including multi-family or garden
apartments. The allowable density for this designation is 13.0 to 20.0 dwelling
units per acre.
Industrial Park (IP) The IP designation provides for well-designed business and employment
centers offering attractive and distinctive architectural design, innovative site
planning, and substantial landscaping and visual quality. Typical uses may
include professional offices, research and development, laboratories, light
manufacturing, storage, industrial supply, and wholesale businesses. The
allowable density for this designation is a FAR of 0.30 to 1.5.
Open Space (OS) The OS designation accommodates both public and private areas of
permanent open space for such uses as parks, golf courses, recreation
facilities, natural open spaces, recreation trails, greenbelts, lakes, utility
easements, active fault zones, and undevelopable portions floodplains along
waterways. Only accessory buildings or structures related to parks and
recreation facilities are intended within the OS designation. The allowable
density for this designation is a FAR of 0.01 to 0.10.
SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2005.
City of Temecula Zoning Code
The City of Temecula Zoning Code (Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code) serves as the primary
implementation tool of the Land Use Element of the General Plan and provides specific
development and land use standards for the City of Temecula. There are currently four zoning
districts within the project site, including Business Park (BP), combination Open Space (OS) and
BP, Westside Specific Plan (SP-8), and Hillside Residential (HR). Table 3.9-2, below, describes
each zoning district designation within the project site and the corresponding General Plan land
use designation.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-5 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-2
SUMMARY OF ZONING DISTRICTS AND CORRESPONDING LAND USE DESIGNATION
Zoning
District
Description General Plan Land Use
Designation
HR The hillside residential zoning district is intended to provide for the
development of very low density residential uses. These areas include
properties that have severe constraints for development, such as hillside
areas with slopes over twenty-five percent. The minimum lot size in the
HR district is ten net acres
Hillside Residential
SP-8 The intent of the specific plan zoning district is to provide for the creative
and effective planning and design of portions of the city which require a
more comprehensive and coordinated approach to planning than can be
achieved through the conventional application of zoning regulations. The
specific plan zoning district is intended to provide the flexibility in
planning and design to effectively implement the goals and policies of
the general plan.
N/A
BP Intended to develop well designed business and employment centers
that include attractive and distinctive architectural design, innovative site
planning, and substantial landscaping and visual quality. Typical uses
may include administrative offices, research and development
laboratories, custom-made product manufacturing, processing,
assembling, packaging, and fabrication of goods, such as jewelry,
furniture, art objects, clothing, onsite wholesale of goods produced, and
labor intensive manufacturing, assembly, and repair processes which do
not involve frequent truck traffic. Retail uses are not permitted in this
zoning district, except as supporting a principal business park use
(limited to 15% of the square footage of the development).
Industrial Park
OS The purpose of the open space zoning district is to provide for public
open space areas which are set aside for low intensity, passive
recreational purposes and related uses. The primary uses within the
open space zoning district are passive recreational activities, such as
trails, picnic areas, bicycle paths, and other non-intensive recreational
activities. Only facilities designed to complement the outdoor enjoyment
may be considered as an accessory use to the park. No profit-making
activities are intended for this zoning district on more than a temporary
basis.
Open Space
SOURCE: City of Temecula Municipal Code, Chapter 17.
3.9.3 Impact Assessment
Thresholds of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to land use and planning issues
may be considered significant if the proposed project would:
• Physically divide an established community;
• Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect; or
• Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan.
Cumulative impacts from the proposed project are detailed in Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-6 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
Impacts in the following issue area were found to not be significant in the Initial Study prepared
for the project (Appendix A), and will not be discussed further in this Draft EIR:
Physically divide an established community – The project site is currently undeveloped. The
proposed project is intended to facilitate the development of up to 1,750 residential units into a
cohesive community connected to Old Town. The proposed project would not involve the
construction of roadways or other major structures within an established community that would
result in division of the community.
Methodology
Evaluation of potential land use and planning effects was based on a review of planning
documents pertaining to the project site and vicinity, primarily the City of Temecula General Plan
and zoning code, the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and
applicable SCAG planning documents. The following analysis considers potential impacts
associated with full buildout of the project without necessarily considering that phased
development would occur, therefore, potential impacts are analyzed for what the worst case
scenario would be in regards to land use and planning.
Impacts
Consistency with Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation
Below is a discussion of the project’s consistency with applicable land use plans and policies.
Southern California Association of Governments
Table 3.9-3 lists the policies from SCAG’s 2012-2035 RTP/SCS that are relevant to the proposed
project, and provides a discussion of the project’s level of consistency with each policy. SCAG
policies focus largely on achieving job and housing balance within individual communities
throughout the region, encouraging development patterns and densities that reduce infrastructure
costs and reliance on the automobile, and promoting public transit use. SCAG also seeks to
minimize environmental impacts through the use of “green” building techniques and landscaping
practices, provide affordable housing, and minimize new development in open space areas with
limited emergency access. As demonstrated in Table 3.9-3, the proposed project would be
consistent with the goals of SCAG’s 2012-2035 RTP/SCS.
As described in Section 3.9.2, the land use and housing goals of SCAG’s RCP include goals for
future growth and sustainability. The project’s main objectives (listed in Chapter 2) would
support the land use and housing goals of the RCP such as creating significant areas of mixed-use
development and walkable, “people-scaled” communities; providing new housing opportunities,
with building types and locations that respond to the region’s changing demographics; and
through preservation of open space and environmentally sensitive species.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-7 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
RHNA
The RHNA begins as a state-wide projection of housing needs that is divided into regions. The
RHNA is based on forecasted household growth during the planning period, and the number of
additional housing units that would be needed to accommodate anticipated household growth at
all income levels. RNHA reflects a planning goal, and cities and counties are not required to build
or issue permits for the number of housing units allocated through the RHNA process. Rather,
cities and counties are required to demonstrate the availability of adequate sites with appropriate
zoning that could accommodate the amount of new housing needs identified in the RHNA, if
property owners and developers choose to pursue such development opportunities. The current
RHNA was prepared for a planning period from 2014–2021. The City of Temecula was assigned
a RHNA of 1,493 homes for the 2014 to 2021 planning period. The proposed project would
involve adoption of the Altair Specific Plan that would enable new residential development that
could accommodate new housing needs identified in the RHNA.
City of Temecula General Plan
The project site is identified in the General Plan as Specific Plan SP-8, Westside/Village at Old
Town, the intent of which is “to provide complementary land uses to Old Town that increase the
vitality of the area; to increase the range of housing opportunities west of I-15; and to encourage
sensitive site and building design given the topography of the area.” The proposed project would
involve the creation of a new specific plan that meets the objectives of providing a
complementary residential land use to the Old Town commercial district, and as such, would help
to increase the vitality of the area as well as provide diverse housing opportunities west of I-15. In
addition, the “village” concept proposed as part of the project would involve clustering land uses
in such a way as to respect the topography of the project area. Therefore, the proposed project
would be consistent with the objectives of the specific plan area identified in the General Plan.
As discussed under Section 3.9.1, above, the project site is surrounded by undeveloped land on
the north, south, and west, and on the east/northeast by a mix of multi-family and single-family
residential uses as well as industrial business park and commercial. Existing land use
designations include HR, H, M, OS, and IP. The proposed land uses, which would involve
primarily residential uses at varying densities, a small amount of commercial uses, and
civic/institutional uses; and would require a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element
for the realignment of the proposed Western Bypass. The proposed land use designations would
be compatible with existing uses in the area. Table 3.9-4 evaluates the project’s consistency with
relevant policies in the City of Temecula General Plan. As detailed in Table 3.9-4, the project
would be consistent with the General Plan goals and policies that pertain to the project.
Implementation of the project would require a General Plan Amendment, which would modify
the City’s existing General Plan Land Use Policy Map and sections in the Land Use and
Circulation Elements to accommodate the proposed residential villages, institutional/civic uses,
and the Western Bypass alignment. Upon adoption of the General Plan Amendment, the project
would be in conformance with the General Plan. From an environmental perspective, the project
does not conflict with the existing General Plan because the project is consistent with goals and
policies of the General Plan that aim to conserve natural resources and those that consider
development compatibility.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-8 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
City of Temecula Zoning Ordinance
The City’s Zoning Ordinance is one of the main tools used to implement the General Plan. Upon
approval of the project, the design standards and regulations outlined in the Altair Specific Plan
would replace the existing zoning on the project site, resulting in the project’s zoning being
consistent with the General Plan.
Significance Determination: No impact
Consistency with Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community
Conservation Plan
See Section 3.9, Biological Resources of this EIR for a detailed discussion on the project’s
consistency with the MSHCP.
Impact LU-1: The project could be inconsistent with the MSHCP goals and objectives governing
the assembly of conservation lands, wildlife linkages, and riparian/riverine resources.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-4a,
MM-BIO-4b, MM-BIO-6a, MM-BIO-6b, MM-BIO-7a, MM-BIO-7b, MM-BIO-7c, AES-1, NOI-
1a, NOI-1b, and NOI-3.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-9 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-3
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH SCAG POLICIES
Policy Number Policy Text Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
Regional Transportation Plan 2012-2035/Sustainable Communities Strategy
RTP/SCS G2 Maximize mobility and accessibility for all
people and goods in the region.
Consistent. The proposed project would involve construction of the Western
Bypass that would link Rancho California Road with Temecula Parkway,
which would allow through traffic to circumvent Old Town and is intended to
relieve traffic congestion along Old Town Front Street.
RTP/SCS G3 Ensure travel safety and reliability for all
people and goods in the region.
Consistent. As noted above, the project would involve construction of the
Western Bypass, which would relieve traffic congestion in Old Town and
would increase safety for other modes of transportation both within the
project site and in Old Town. Furthermore, the proposed project would
implement features of the Complete Streets program, which would enhance
mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles. In addition, the
project proposes to extend existing transit routes into the project area.
RTP/SCS G4 Preserve and ensure a sustainable
regional transportation system.
Consistent. With construction of the Western Bypass, the proposed project
would alleviate traffic congestion and associated air quality concerns and
would also introduce a Complete Streets concept to the project area,
providing multi-modal connections between the project site, Old Town, and
City Hall.
RTP/SCS G4 Maximize the productivity of our
transportation system.
Consistent. With construction of the Western Bypass and implementation of
bicycle and pedestrian routes, the proposed project would offer multi-modal
transportation options to the users of the project area as well as relieving
traffic congestion within the Old Town area of the city.
RTP/SCS G6 Protect the environment and health of our
residents by improving air quality and
encouraging active transportation.
Consistent. As noted above, the project would increase opportunities for
pedestrians and bicyclists and discourage dependence on motor vehicles.
RTP/SCS G7 Actively encourage and create incentives
for energy efficiency, where possible.
Consistent. In Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code, the City of Temecula has
adopted the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen
Code), which is intended to encourage sustainable building practices in
several areas, including energy efficiency. Development occurring under the
Specific Plan would be subject to the provisions of the CALGreen Code.
RTP/SCS G8 Encourage land use and growth patterns
that facilitate transit and non-motorized
transportation.
Consistent. The proposed project is intended to be the complementary
residential component to the Old Town commercial district. As noted above,
the proposed project would implement a comprehensive bicycle and
pedestrian circulation network that connects the project area with Old Town
and City Hall, allowing residents to walk or bike to these nearby amenities. In
addition, the project proposes to extend existing transit routes into the
project area.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-10 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-4
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES
General Plan Goals and Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
EIR Section 3.1, Aesthetics
Community Design Element
Goal 1 Enhancement of the City’s image related to its regional and natural setting and its tourist orientation.
Policy 1.3 Develop design standards to enhance the visual character of commercial
centers located adjacent to I-15.
Consistent. The project would establish design standards to enhance the visual
character of commercial centers adjacent to I-15, as applicable.
Policy 1.5L Maintain and incorporate natural amenities such as: rock outcroppings,
indigenous vegetation, streams and watercourses within proposed development
projects.
Consistent. The project has been designed to preserve natural features onsite. In
addition, Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-6b and MM-HYD-1 though MM-
HYD-3 would be implemented to further reduce impacts to natural features.
Goal 2 Design excellence in site planning, architecture, landscape architecture and signs.
Policy 2.5 Limit light and glare pollution through design standards for outdoor lighting,
the use of low intensity lights, and lighting that supports the continued use of the Mt.
Palomar Observatory.
Consistent. The project would incorporate design standards such as those identified in
Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 to minimize light and glare within the area. In addition,
the project will comply with the Palomar Observatory Light Pollution Ordinance
(Riverside County’s Light Pollution Ordinance No. 655).
Policy 2.6 Enhance the visual identity of commercial districts. Consistent. The project includes design guidelines and development standards to
encourage high-quality architectural and landscape design that would ensure a cohesive
visual identity through the specific plan area.
Goal 5: Protection of public views of significant natural features.
Policy 5.1 Work with the County of Riverside to protect surrounding hillside areas from
inappropriate grading and development that affects the visual backdrop of the valley.
Consistent. The project includes design guidelines and development standards to
encourage high-quality architectural and landscape design to minimize visual impacts on
the surrounding hillsides. The project would also retain approximately 85 acres of
natural open space along the western portion of the project site, which would provide a
buffer between the proposed project and the undeveloped hills to the west. In addition,
the project would obtain all necessary local permits and approvals for grading activities.
Policy 5.2 Retain critical escarpment and major hillside areas to preserve open space
areas on the west and south edges of the City.
Consistent .The proposed project has been designed to minimize visual impacts on the
surrounding hillsides and would be developed on a natural bench at the base of the
Santa Margarita Mountains, thus minimizing development on steep slopes. The project
would also retain approximately 85 acres of natural open space along the western
portion of the project site, which would provide a buffer between the proposed project
and the undeveloped hills to the west.
Policy 5.3 Establish a program to acquire, or permanently protect, critical hillside areas
from development.
Consistent. The proposed project has been designed to minimize visual impacts on the
surrounding hillsides and would be developed on a natural bench at the base of the
Santa Margarita Mountains, thus minimizing development on steep slopes.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-11 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-4
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES
General Plan Goals and Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
Land Use Element
Goal 6 A development pattern that preserves aesthetics and enhances the environmental resources of the Planning Area.
Policy 6.1 Preserve the natural aesthetics quality of hillsides and reduce hazards
associated with hillside development within the Planning Area.
Consistent. The proposed project has been designed to minimize visual impacts on the
surrounding hillsides and would be developed on a natural bench at the base of the
Santa Margarita Mountains, thus minimizing development on steep slopes.
Open Space/Conservation Element
Goal 5 Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features.
Policy 5.1 Conserve the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, the Santa
Margarita River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and other important landforms and
historic landscape features through the development review process.
Consistent .The proposed project has been designed around the sites natural features
and would be developed on a natural bench at the base of the Santa Margarita
Mountains, thus minimizing development on steep slopes. The project would also retain
approximately 85 acres of natural open space along the western portion of the project
site, which would provide a buffer between the proposed project and the undeveloped
hills to the west.
Policy 5.2 Retain critical escarpment and major hillside areas to preserve open space
areas on the west and south edges of the City.
Consistent .The proposed project has been designed around the sites natural features
and would be developed on a natural bench at the base of the Santa Margarita
Mountains, thus minimizing development on steep slopes. The project would also retain
approximately 85 acres of natural open space along the western portion of the project
site, which would provide a buffer between the proposed project and the undeveloped
hills to the west.
EIR Section 3.2, Air Quality
Air Quality Element
Goal 1 Continue coordination of air quality improvement efforts in the Western Riverside area.
Policy 1.1 Coordinate planning efforts with other local, regional and State agencies,
including the County of Riverside, Western Riverside Council of Governments
(WRCOG), SCAQMD and SCAG.
Not applicable
Policy 1.2 Encourage participation of local citizens, the business community and
interested groups and individuals in air quality planning and implementation efforts.
Not applicable
Policy 1.3 Promote programs that educate the public about regional air quality issues,
opportunities and solutions.
Not applicable
Goal 2 Improve air quality through effective land use planning in Temecula.
Policy 2.1 Encourage new development that provides employment opportunities for
Temecula residents to improve the balance of jobs relative to housing.
Consistent. The project would create job opportunities during construction and operation
that would help improve the balance of jobs relative to housing.
Policy 2.2 Encourage infill development near activity centers, within Mixed Use Overlay
Areas, and along transportation corridors.
Consistent. The proposed project would include a mixed-use specific plan within major
transportation corridors such as Temecula Parkway/Future Western Bypass and I-15.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-12 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-4
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES
General Plan Goals and Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
Policy 2.3 Minimize land use conflicts between emission sources and sensitive
receptors.
Consistent. Project related emissions have been analyzed in this EIR and the project
has been designed to reduce impacts to sensitive receptors. See Section 3.2, Air Quality
of this EIR for more information.
Policy 2.4 Mitigate air quality impacts associated with development projects to the
greatest extent feasible.
Consistent. Air quality impacts have been analyzed in this EIR and Mitigation Measures
MM--AQ-1a through MM-AQ-1e, and MM-AQ-2 would be implemented to reduce such
impacts to the greatest extent feasible. See Section 3.2, Air Quality, of this EIR for more
information.
Goal 3 Enhance mobility to minimize air pollutant emissions.
Policy 3.1 Use transportation demand reduction techniques to reduce motor vehicle
trips.
Consistent. The project would involve construction of the Western Bypass, which would
relieve traffic congestion in Old Town and would increase safety for other modes of
transportation both within the project site and in Old Town. Furthermore, the proposed
project would implement features of the Complete Streets program, which would
enhance mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles. In addition, the project
proposes to extend existing transit routes into the project area.
Policy 3.2 Use transportation systems management techniques to maintain an orderly
flow of traffic and improve mobility.
Consistent. As noted above, the project would involve construction of the Western
Bypass, which would relieve traffic congestion in Old Town and would increase safety
for other modes of transportation both within the project site and in Old Town.
Furthermore, the proposed project would implement features of the Complete Streets
program, which would enhance mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles.
In addition, the project proposes to extend existing transit routes into the project area.
Policy 3.3 Pursue development of a public transit system consisting of local shuttle and
bus routes, as well as bicycle and pedestrian trails that are linked to the regional transit
network.
Consistent. The proposed project would implement features of the Complete Streets
program, which would enhance mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles.
In addition, the project proposes to extend existing transit routes into the project area.
Policy 3.4 Establish a convenient and efficient system of bicycle routes and pedestrian
walkways.
Consistent. The proposed project would implement features of the Complete Streets
program, which would enhance mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles.
In addition, the project proposes to extend existing transit routes into the project area.
Policy 3.5 Promote the use of alternative clean-fueled vehicles, new transportation
technologies, and combustion engine alternatives for personal and business use.
Consistent. The project is designed to promote alternative modes of transportation in the
area to reduce the dependence on fuel based vehicles.
Policy 3.6 Develop and implement programs that reduce local traffic congestion at peak
hours and during special events.
Consistent. As noted above, the project would involve construction of the Western
Bypass, which would relieve traffic congestion in Old Town and would increase safety
for other modes of transportation both within the project site and in Old Town.
Furthermore, the proposed project would implement features of the Complete Streets
program, which would enhance mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles.
In addition, the project proposes to extend existing transit routes into the project area.
Goal 4 Adopt effective energy conservation and recycling practices to reduce emissions.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-13 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-4
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES
General Plan Goals and Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
Policy 4.1 Encourage community-wide reductions in energy consumption through
conservation.
Consistent. The project incorporates measures that promote energy conservation and
reduce consumption of fossil fuels such as, onsite renewable energy and/or increased
energy efficiency building standards (see Section 3.2, Air Quality), and site design and
other measures that would reduce vehicle miles traveled (pedestrian trails, bikeways,
compact residential development within walking distance of Old Town, trolley service
between Altair and Old Town, etc.).
Policy 4.3 Encourage energy-efficient design in new development projects. Consistent. In Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code, the City of Temecula has adopted the
2013 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), which is intended to
encourage sustainable building practices in several areas, including energy efficiency.
Development occurring under the Specific Plan would be subject to the provisions of the
CALGreen Code.
EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources
Open Space and Conservation Element
Goal 3 Conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern, wildlife movement corridors, and general biodiversity.
Policy 3.1 Require development proposals to identify significant biological resources and
provide mitigation, including the use of adequate buffering and sensitive site planning
techniques, selective preservation, provision of replacement habitats; and other
appropriate measures.
Consistent. The project has identified significant biological resources and proposed
mitigation, including the use of adequate buffering and sensitive site planning
techniques, selective preservation, provision of replacement habitats; and other
appropriate measures
Policy 3.2 Work with State, regional and non-profit agencies and organizations to
preserve and enhance significant biological resources.
Consistent .The project has worked with State and regional organizations to preserve
and enhance significant biological resources. The City and project proponents have met
with local non-profit organizations regarding the wildlife corridors.
Policy 3.3 Coordinate with the County of Riverside and other relevant agencies in the
adoption and implementation of the Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan.
Consistent .The project has coordinated with the County and the RCA regarding the
implementation of the MSHCP.
Policy 3.4 Encourage developers to incorporate native drought resistant vegetation,
mature trees, and other significant vegetation into site and landscape designs
for proposed projects.
Consistent .The project would revegetate slopes adjacent to Conserved Lands with
native plants.
Policy 3.5 Maintain an inventory of existing natural resources in the City. Consistent. The project has provided a compendium of biological resources recorded
within the project.
Policy 3.6 Limit recreational use of designated open space areas where there are
sensitive biological resources as needed to protect these resources.
Consistent. The project has been designed, to the extent possible, to separate out
proposed open space areas from areas allowing recreational use.
Policy 3.7 Maintain and enhance the resources of Temecula Creek, Pechanga Creek,
Murrieta Creek, Santa Gertrudis Creek, Santa Margarita River, and other waterways to
the ensure the long-term viability of the habitat, wildlife, and wildlife movement corridors.
Consistent. The construction of the project could impede wildlife movement at the
intersection of Santa Margarita River and Murrieta Creek. However, implementation of
MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-6b, MM-NOI-1a, MM-NOI-1b and MM-NOI-3 will result
in the project being consistent with this policy.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-14 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-4
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES
General Plan Goals and Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
Goal 5 Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features.
Policy 5.1 Conserve the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, the Santa
Margarita River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and other important landforms and
historic landscape features through the development review process.
Consistent. To the extent possible the western escarpment has been preserved.
Proposed dedicated open space has been included as part of the project elements.
Policy 5.2 Identify significant viewsheds to proposed projects that may be preserved
through the dedication of open space or the use of sensitive grading, site design, and
building techniques.
Consistent. The project proposes to dedicate and preserve open space area that will
protect viewsheds.
Policy 5.3 Encourage the use of clustered development and other site planning
techniques to maximize the preservation of permanent open spaces.
Consistent. The project has incorporated cluster design and other site planning
elements, including the realignment of the Western Bypass to maximize preservation of
open spaces.
Policy 5.4 Retain and improve the quality of landscaping in parkways, public slopes,
rights-of-way, parks, civic facilities, and other public open areas.
Consistent. Slopes along the Western Bypass will be revegetated with native plants
outside fuel modification zones.
Policy 5.8 Require re-vegetation of graded slopes concurrent with project development
to minimize erosion and maintain the scenic character of the community.
Consistent. Slopes adjacent to open space areas and the Western Bypass abutting the
Conserved lands will be restored to coastal sage scrub.
Policy 5.11 Encourage the use of native vegetation where revegetation and landscaping
is to occur.
Consistent. Slopes adjacent to open space areas and the Western Bypass abutting the
Conserved lands will be restored to coastal sage scrub.
EIR Section 3.4, Cultural Resources
Open Space/Conservation Element
Goal 6: Preservation of significant historical and cultural resources.
Policy 6.1: Maintain an inventory of areas with archaeological/paleontological sensitivity,
and historic sites in the Planning Area.
Consistent. Archaeological Investigation Report and a cultural resources assessment
were conducted for the project and findings were inventoried. See Section 3.4, Cultural
Resources, of this EIR.
Policy 6.2 Work to preserve or salvage potential archeological and paleontological
resources on sites proposed for future development through the development review
and mitigation monitoring processes.
Consistent. The project has been designed to preserve archeological and
paleontological resources within the Specific Plan area for future development.
Mitigation measures MM-CUL-1a through MM-CUL-1d will be implemented to avoid,
and/or minimize impacts to cultural resources. In addition, as stated in Mitigation
Measure MM-CUL-2a, a Paleontological Mitigation Program will be implemented.
Policy 6.4 Assist property owners in seeking State and/or federal registration and appropriate zoning for historic sites and assets.
Policy 6.8 Support an integrated approach to historic preservation in coordination with
other affected jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations for areas within the Planning
Area and surrounding region that seeks to establish linkages between historic sites or
buildings with other historic features such as roads, trails, ridges, and seasonal
waterways.
Not applicable.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-15 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-4
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES
General Plan Goals and Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
Policy 6.9 Encourage the preservation and re-use of historic structures, landscape
features, roads, landmark trees, and trails.
Consistent. The project has been designed to preserve, landscape features, roads, trees
etc.
Policy 6.10 Work with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians to identify and
appropriately address cultural resources and tribal sacred sites through the development
review process.
Consistent. The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians has been consulted regarding
cultural resources and tribal sacred sites and will have the opportunity to comment of
this EIR.
Policy 6.11 Encourage voluntary landowner efforts to protect cultural resource and tribal
sacred sites consistent with State requirements.
Consistent. The project has been designed to preserve cultural resources within the
Specific Plan area for future development. Additionally, Mitigation measures MM-CUL-
1a through MM-CUL-1d will be implemented to avoid, and/or minimize impacts to
cultural resources. See Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, of this EIR.
EIR Section 3.5, Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Public Safety Element
Goal 1 Protection from natural hazards associated with geologic instability, seismic events, wild land fires, flooding, and dam failures.
Policy 1.1 Identify and mitigate potential adverse impacts of ground surface rupture,
liquefaction, and landslides at the project level.
Consistent. Geologic hazards have been identified and assessed in Section 3.5,
Geology, Soils and Seismicity, of this EIR.
Policy 1.2 Apply and enforce seismic design standards and building construction codes
for new development.
Consistent. All applicable seismic design standards and California Building Code
standards will be implemented as a part of the project.
Policy 1.4 Monitor the potential for seismic events and other geologic activity with the
County of Riverside and California Geologic Survey.
Not applicable.
Policy 1.5 Establish development management techniques to lessen the potential for
erosion and landslides.
Consistent .The proposed project has been designed around the sites natural features
and would be developed on a natural bench at the base of the Santa Margarita
Mountains, thus minimizing development on steep slopes. Standard construction Best
Management Practices will be implemented including installation of silt fences, hay
bales or application of soil stabilization measures on exposed areas that are designed to
minimize the potential for erosion to occur.
EIR Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Air Quality Element
Goal 1 Continue coordination of air quality improvement efforts in the Western Riverside area.
Policy 1.1 Coordinate planning efforts with other local, regional and State agencies,
including the County of Riverside, Western Riverside Council of Governments
(WRCOG), SCAQMD and SCAG.
Not applicable.
Goal 2 Improve air quality through effective land use planning in Temecula.
Policy 2.1 Encourage new development that provides employment opportunities for
Temecula residents to improve the balance of jobs relative to housing.
Consistent. The project would create job opportunities during construction and operation
that would help improve the balance of jobs relative to housing.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-16 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-4
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES
General Plan Goals and Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
Policy 2.2 Encourage infill development near activity centers, within Mixed Use Overlay
Areas, and along transportation corridors.
Consistent. The proposed project would include a mixed-use specific plan within major
transportation corridors such as Temecula Parkway/Future Western Bypass and I-15.
Goal 3 Enhance mobility to minimize air pollutant emissions.
Policy 3.1 Use transportation demand reduction techniques to reduce motor vehicle
trips.
Consistent. The project would involve construction of the Western Bypass, which would
relieve traffic congestion in Old Town and would increase safety for other modes of
transportation both within the project site and in Old Town. Furthermore, the proposed
project would implement features of the Complete Streets program, which would
enhance mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles. In addition, the project
proposes to extend existing transit routes into the project area.
Policy 3.2 Use transportation systems management techniques to maintain an orderly
flow of traffic and improve mobility.
Consistent. As noted above, the project would involve construction of the Western
Bypass, which would relieve traffic congestion in Old Town and would increase safety
for other modes of transportation both within the project site and in Old Town.
Furthermore, the proposed project would implement features of the Complete Streets
program, which would enhance mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles.
In addition, the project proposes to extend existing transit routes into the project area.
Policy 3.3 Pursue development of a public transit system consisting of local shuttle and
bus routes, as well as bicycle and pedestrian trails that are linked to the regional transit
network.
Consistent. The proposed project would implement features of the Complete Streets
program, which would enhance mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles.
In addition, the project proposes to extend existing transit routes into the project area.
Policy 3.4 Establish a convenient and efficient system of bicycle routes and pedestrian
walkways.
Consistent. The proposed project would implement features of the Complete Streets
program, which would enhance mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles.
In addition, the project proposes to extend existing transit routes into the project area.
Policy 3.5 Promote the use of alternative clean-fueled vehicles, new transportation
technologies, and combustion engine alternatives for personal and business use.
Consistent. The project is designed to promote alternative modes of transportation in the
area to reduce the dependence on fuel based vehicles.
Policy 3.6 Develop and implement programs that reduce local traffic congestion at peak
hours and during special events
Consistent. As noted above, the project would involve construction of the Western
Bypass, which would relieve traffic congestion in Old Town and would increase safety
for other modes of transportation both within the project site and in Old Town.
Furthermore, the proposed project would implement features of the Complete Streets
program, which would enhance mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles.
In addition, the project proposes to extend existing transit routes into the project area.
Goal 4 Adopt effective energy conservation and recycling practices to reduce emissions.
Policy 4.1 Encourage community-wide reductions in energy consumption through
conservation.
Consistent. The project incorporates measures that promote energy conservation and
reduce consumption of fossil fuels such as, onsite renewable energy and/or increased
energy efficiency building standards (see Section 3.2, Air Quality), and site design and
other measures that would reduce vehicle miles traveled (pedestrian trails, bikeways,
compact residential development within walking distance of Old Town, trolley service
between Altair and Old Town, etc.).
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-17 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-4
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES
General Plan Goals and Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
Policy 4.2 Promote local recycling of wastes and the use of recycled materials. Consistent. The project will be required to meet the 50 percent diversion rate as
specified in the California Integrated Waste Management Act for all solid waste
generated by the project and will include waste recycling collection areas in the design
as outlined in the Altair Specific Plan (Chapter 7, Public Services).
Policy 4.3 Encourage energy-efficient design in new development projects. Consistent. In Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code, the City of Temecula has adopted the
2013 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), which is intended to
encourage sustainable building practices in several areas, including energy efficiency.
Development occurring under the Specific Plan would be subject to the provisions of the
CALGreen Code. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1d would further require that
buildings implement energy efficiency standards that exceed the 2013 Title 24 standards
by 15 percent or include onsite renewable energy, such as the incorporation of solar
panels into project development, such that 9 percent of the onsite energy consumption
is offset.
EIR Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Public Safety Element
Goal 2 Protection of the public and environmental resources from hazards related to hazardous materials and waste, and nuclear power production.
Policy 2.1 Minimize the risks associated with hazardous materials through careful land
use planning and coordination with responsible federal, State, and County agencies.
Consistent. The use and transportation of hazardous materials has been evaluated in
Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR.
Policy 2.2 Participate in local and regional programs that facilitate the proper disposal of
household hazardous waste.
Consistent. All hazardous waste associated with the proposed project will be properly
disposed of, consistent with all local, state and federal regulations.
Policy 2.3 The policies and programs of the current Riverside County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan (HWMP) are hereby adopted by reference.
Consistent. The proposed project will be consistent with the policies and programs
outlined in the HWMP, as applicable.
Policy 2.4 Coordinate with local, State and federal agencies to reduce the risks related
to nuclear power production.
Not applicable.
EIR Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality
Open Space/Conservation Element
Goal 2 Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water resources.
Policy 2.1 Coordinate with the Riverside County Flood Control District to design flood
control improvements that preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, important natural
features and resources of the local creeks and riparian forest of the Santa Margarita
River.
Consistent. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-HYD-1 through MM-HYD-3
would protect Murrieta Creek, a tributary to Santa Margarita River, from stormwater
runoff and erosion. See Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR.
Policy 2.2 Identify and protect groundwater resources from depletion and sources of
pollution in cooperation with the Rancho California Water District and the San Diego
Water Quality Control Board.
Consistent. Impacts to groundwater have been analyzed in Section 3.8, Hydrology and
Water Quality, of this EIR and were found to be less than significant.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-18 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-4
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES
General Plan Goals and Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
Policy 2.3 Conserve potable water by requiring water conservation techniques in all new
development.
Consistent. Water conservation measures will be implemented as Best Management
Practices, as applicable.
Policy 2.4 Use reclaimed water for the irrigation of parks, golf courses, public
landscaped areas and other feasible applications as service becomes available from
Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District.
Consistent. The use of reclaimed water for landscaping will be implemented, as feasible.
Policy 2.5 Require the use of soil management techniques to reduce erosion, eliminate
off-site sedimentation, and prevent other soil-related problems that may adversely affect
waterways in the community.
Consistent. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-HYD-1 through MM-HYD-3
would avoid and/or minimize stormwater runoff and erosion. A Preliminary Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared that identifies the Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for storm water treatment facilities, source control, and site design
(Appendix G of this EIR). See Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR.
Policy 2.6 Regulate and manage lands adjacent to or affecting watercourses as
stipulated by the Regional Water Resources Control Board.
Consistent. Operation of future developments within the project site would be required
to comply with the development planning requirements of the SDRWQCB MS4 permit.
Policy 2.7 Ensure that approved projects have filed a Notice of Intent and Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act, prior to
issuance of grading permits.
Consistent. Projects will file a Notice of Intent and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act, prior to issuance of grading permits.
Policy 2.8 Ensure adequate inspection and enforcement of the requirements of general
construction permits, particularly related to erosion control during grading and
construction.
Consistent. All requirements of general construction permits will be implanted during
grading.
Policy 2.9 Participate in regional planning for the Santa Margarita River Watershed in
conjunction with federal, State, regional and local agencies, and nonprofit organizations.
Not applicable.
Policy 2.10 Participate in water resource management planning to facilitate the long-
term availability of water resources for western Riverside County.
Not applicable.
Policy 2.11 Participate in outreach educational programs to educate the public about
water conservation methods, new technologies and drought resistant landscapes.
Not applicable.
Policy 2.12 Work with appropriate agencies to encourage ground water recharge
facilities along flood control channels and creeks.
Not applicable.
Public Safety Element
Goal 1 Protection from natural hazards associated with geologic instability, seismic events, wild land fires, flooding, and dam failures.
Policy 1.6 Provide and maintain adequate flood control facilities and limit development
within the 100-year floodplain and potential dam inundation areas.
Consistent. The project area is not within the 100-year flood zone of Murrieta Creek and
no structural development would occur in the within the 100-year flood zone. See
Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR.
Policy 1.7 Prohibit development of any kind within the floodway portion of the 100 year
floodplain.
Consistent. The project area is not within the 100-year flood zone of Murrieta Creek and
no structural development would occur in the within the 100-year flood zone. See
Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-19 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-4
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES
General Plan Goals and Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
Growth Management and Public Facilities Element
Goal 7 An effective, safe and environmentally compatible flood control system.
Policy 7.1 Work with the Riverside County Flood Control District and other agencies
involved with Murrieta Creek flood control improvements to implement a solution that
maximizes retention of natural resources and provision of recreation opportunities along
the Creek.
Not applicable.
Policy 7.3 Wherever possible, give priority to flood control methods that maintain natural
areas, maximize the beneficial uses of water through natural systems, and provide
additional trail opportunities.
Not applicable.
EIR Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning
Land Use Element
Goal 1: A Diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses.
Policy 1.1 Review all proposed development plans for consistency with community
goals, policies and implementation programs of this General Plan, and consider
potential impacts on surrounding land uses and infrastructure.
Consistent. The project would implement form-based code principals in order to
establish a set of detailed design guidelines by which future development within the
project area must comply.
Policy 1.2 Promote the use of innovative site planning techniques that contribute to
development of variety of residential product styles and designs, including housing
suitable for the community’s labor force.
Consistent .The project would include residential “villages” that encourage various
residential densities and development types, including high-density apartment buildings,
row houses, attached single-family homes, townhouses, etc.
Policy 1.3 Require development of unified or clustered community-level and
neighborhood-level commercial centers and discourage development strip commercial
uses.
Consistent .The project would only allow a small amount of neighborhood-serving
commercial uses within several of the residential villages and would provide several
direct pedestrian connections with the Old Town commercial district.
Policy1.5 Require the preparation of specific plans as designated on the Specific Plan
Areas map to achieve the comprehensive planning and phasing of development and
infrastructure.
Consistent .The project would involve adoption of a specific plan for the project area in
order to encourage a more cohesive development pattern and identity for the area.
Policy 1.6 Encourage flexible zoning techniques in appropriate locations to encourage
mixed-use development, preserve natural features, achieve innovative site design,
achieve a range of transition of densities, provide open space and recreation facilities,
and/or provide necessary amenities and facilities.
Consistent. The project involves adoption of a specific plan to guide development of a
primarily residential neighborhood with some commercial and civic and institutional
uses. The project would establish form-based code principals to encourage various
residential densities and building forms. The project also involves preservation of open
space areas and the development of publicly accessible and private parks.
Policy 1.7 Pursue opportunities to locate higher density housing with supporting
commercial and public uses west of I-15.
Consistent. The project area is located west of 1-15 and would provide for high-density
residential uses in proximity to the Old Town commercial district, in addition to a small
amount of neighborhood-serving commercial uses.
Policy 1.8 Encourage future development of a community hospital and related services,
as well as a community college, major college or university.
Consistent. The project would allow for an up to 450,000-square-foot civic use on the
55-acre South Parcel. This use could involve development of an educational facility, a
convention center, and/or hospital or cultural center.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-20 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-4
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES
General Plan Goals and Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
Policy 1.9 Establish paseos, greenbelts, linear parks and trails within buffer areas
between developments and at the City’s edge.
Consistent. The proposed project would retain approximately 85 acres of natural open
space along the western portion of the project site, which would provide a buffer
between the proposed project and the undeveloped lands to the west. While this area of
the project site would not contain trails, hiking trails would be incorporated throughout
the rest of the project site in order to provide pedestrian connectivity within the villages
of the project site as well as to the Old Town commercial district.
Policy 1.10 Distribute high-density housing throughout the community around transit
nodes.
Consistent. The proposed project would involve development of high-density housing
adjacent to Old Town and would involve extension of the trolley routes that serve Old
Town into the project area.
Goal 2: Successful, high-quality mixed-use development projects containing a mix of residential, commercial/office, and civic land uses, supported by alternative modes of
transportation.
Policy 2.4 Link mixed use projects and village centers with trails and potential transit
systems, including RTA bus, shuttles and commuter/high speed rail.
Consistent. While primarily residential, the project would also entail a small amount of
commercial and civic uses within proximity to public transit routes within Old Town. In
addition, the project would expand trolley routes from Old Town into the project site.
Policy 2.5 Ensure that the architecture, landscape design, and site planning of mixed
use projects is of the highest quality, emphasizing a pedestrian scale and safe and
convenient access between uses.
Consistent. The project includes design guidelines and development standards to
encourage high-quality architectural and landscape design. In addition, the project would
provide for pedestrian access to Old Town.
Policy 2.6 Ensure adequate public gathering areas or plazas are incorporated within
mixed use projects to allow for social interaction and community activities.
Consistent. The proposed project would involve development of several central
gathering spaces within each villages as well as a prominent public plaza within Village
C that is on direct access with Main Street and City Hall and would include a community
center with a recreation center and pool in the northwest of the plaza and a clubhouse in
the northeast of the plaza.
Goal 5: A land use pattern that protects and enhances residential neighborhoods.
Policy 5.1 Consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in terms
of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, preservation
of existing vegetation and landform, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic
impacts, and other environmental conditions.
Consistent. The purpose of this EIR is to evaluate the project’s compatibility with
surrounding uses, the project’s impact on existing vegetation and landform, and the
project’s impacts on access routes, noise, traffic, and other environmental conditions.
Policy 5.3 Require proposed development to evaluate the incremental traffic impacts on
local roads throughout the proposed project phasing in order to ensure that any adverse
impacts to local roads in residential areas are avoided or adequately mitigated.
Consistent. The traffic impacts of the project are analyzed as part of this EIR and are
presented in Section 3.13, Transportation and Traffic.
Goal 6 A development pattern that preserves aesthetics and enhances the environmental resources of the Planning Area.
Policy 6.1 Preserve the natural aesthetic quality of hillsides and reduce hazards
associated with hillside development within the Planning Area.
Consistent. The proposed project has been designed to minimize visual impacts on the
surrounding hillsides and would be developed on a natural bench at the base of the
Santa Margarita Mountains, thus minimizing development on steep slopes.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-21 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-4
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES
General Plan Goals and Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
Policy 6.3 Conserve the natural resources of area watercourses, including Santa
Gertrudis, Temecula and Murrieta Creeks, through appropriate development densities,
managing stormwater runoff, and conservation site planning.
Consistent. The project site is adjacent to Murrieta Creek and is near the Santa
Margarita River, but would not involve development adjacent to either of these
watercourses. Also, the project would incorporate “green” drainage infrastructure to
manage stormwater runoff from the site (see Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality).
Policy 6.4 Protect and enhance significant ecological and biological resources within and
surrounding Temecula.
Consistent. The project site is within the Murrieta Creek and Santa Rosa Plateau
subunits of the MSHCP’s Southwest Area Plan. The proposed project would include the
preservation of open space within the MSHCP area, and impacts to biological resources
that would result from the project would be reduced to less than significant in all areas
except wildlife corridor goals (see Section 3.3, Biological Resources). Implementation of
MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-6b, MM-BIO-7a through MM-BIO-7c, MM-NOI-1a, and
MM-NOI-1b would reduce potential direct and indirect impacts to mountain lion and
bobcat movement. However, the project would permanently affect the functioning of
wildlife corridors, and, therefore, even with the mitigation measures, impacts remain
significant.
Open Space Element/Conservation Element
Goal 1 A high quality parks and recreation system that meets the diverse recreation needs of residents.
Policy 1.1 Ensure sufficient parkland and recreation facilities to support new
development through acquisition and/or dedication that meets the requirement for 5
acres of useable park land per 1,000 population.
Consistent. The proposed project would include approximately 16 acres of total active
parkland. Depending on how many residential units are ultimately built, the project may
require up to 20 acres of active parkland to meet the City’s 5 acres of useable parkland
per 1,000 residents; however, the applicant also has the option of paying in-lieu fees to
meet the City’s standards.
Policy 1.3 Encourage the enhancement and preservation of historic structures and
landscape, and significant natural features, such as riparian areas, rock outcroppings,
sensitive habitat areas, and viewpoints through park design and site development.
Consistent. The proposed project has been designed to take advantage of the project
site’s landforms in order to minimize impacts on views of the hillsides and to minimize
impact to adjacent sensitive habitat areas.
Goal 3 Conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern, wildlife movement corridors, and general biodiversity.
Policy 3.3 Coordinate with the County of Riverside and other relevant agencies in the
adoption and implementation of the Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan.
Consistent. A MSHCP consistency report has been prepared for the proposed project
and the City is coordinating with the Western Riverside Regional Conservation Authority
on the project (see Section 3.3, Biological Resources).
Goal 6 Preservation of significant historical and cultural resources.
Policy 6.2 Work to preserve or salvage potential archeological and paleontological
resources on sites proposed for future development through the development review
and mitigation monitoring processes.
Consistent. The potential for archaeological or paleontological resources to exist within
the project area has been assessed as part of this EIR (see Section 3.4, Cultural
Resources) and mitigation measures have been identified to minimize impacts on
archaeological resources.
Policy 6.10 Work with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians to identify and
appropriately address cultural resources and tribal sacred sites through the development
review process.
Consistent. As part of the preparation of the project, the City has conducted
consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians per SB 18. In addition, further
outreach with the Pechanga was conducted during preparation of this EIR. See Section
3.4, Cultural Resources, for a summary of these outreach efforts.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-22 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-4
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES
General Plan Goals and Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
Growth Management/Public Facilities Element
Goal 3 Effective and cost-effective police, fire and emergency medical services within the City.
Policy 3.1 Evaluate police protection services for adequate facilities, staffing and
equipment based on changes in population and development and to ensure an
adequate response time for emergencies. Strive to provide a minimum of one full-time
officer per 1,000 residents for police protection services.
Consistent. The impacts of the project on police protection services have been analyzed
as part of this EIR, and as indicated in Section 3.12, Public Services, the project would
not inhibit the police department from meeting adequate response and service
standards.
Goal 4 A quality school system with adequate facilities and funding to educate the youth of Temecula.
Policy 4.1 Provide information to the Temecula Valley Unified School District when
considering General Plan Amendments, specific plans, zone changes, or other
legislative land use policy decisions.
Consistent. As part of the preparation of this EIR, Temecula Valley Unified School
District was contacted regarding the proposed specific plan (see Section 3.21, Public
Services).
Policy 4.2 Promote and encourage development phasing so that the School District may
plan, finance, and construct school facilities to serve new development.
Consistent. Buildout of the project is anticipated to occur over a 10-year period and
would include the option to develop an elementary school on the project site, thus,
aiding the School District with its facilities plans. The project would also be required to
pay development impact fees associated with the funding of school facilities under AB
2926.
Noise Element
Goal 3 Minimize the impact of noise levels throughout the community through land use planning.
Policy N- 3.4 Evaluate potential noise conflicts for individual sites and projects, and
require mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of project approval.
Consistent. Noise conflicts that may arise as part of implementation of the project are
analyzed in Section 3.10 of this EIR.
Community Design Element
Goal 2 Design excellence in site planning, architecture, landscape architecture and signs.
Policy CD- 2.1 Establish and consistently apply design standards and guidelines for both
residential and non-residential development.
Consistent. The project would establish design standards and guidelines for all new
development within the project area.
Goal 4 A streetscape system that provides cohesiveness and enhances community image.
Policy CD- 4.1 Promote the development of a continuous sidewalk and trail system
throughout the City.
Consistent. The project would incorporate Complete Streets design principles on the
project area’s roadways, including development of bicycle and pedestrian paths
throughout the site with several access points to the adjacent Old Town district.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-23 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-4
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES
General Plan Goals and Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
EIR Section 3.10, Noise
Noise Element
Goal 1 Separate significant noise generators from sensitive receptors.
Policy 1.1 Discourage noise sensitive land uses in noisy exterior environments unless
measures can be implemented to reduce exterior and interior noise to acceptable levels.
Alternatively, encourage less sensitive uses in areas adjacent to major noise generators
but require sound–appropriate interior working environment.
Consistent. NOI-1a and NOI-1b would reduce impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.
See Section 3.10, Noise and Vibration, of this EIR.
Policy 1.2 Limit the hours of construction activity next to residential areas to reduce
noise intrusion in the early morning, late evening, weekends and holidays.
Consistent. Per the Municipal Code, construction activities associated with the project
would not be allowed to occur between the hours of 6:30 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Monday
through Friday, and would only be allowed between 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. on
Saturday. Further, no construction activity is allowed to occur on Sundays and nationally
recognized holidays. Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1a, MM-NOI-1b, MM-NOI-2a, MM-
NOI-2b, MM-NOI-3, MM-NOI-4a, MM-NOI-4b, and MM-NOI-5 would further reduce
noise impacts and land use conflicts.
Policy 1.3 Use information from the noise contour map in the General Plan in the
development review process to prevent location of sensitive land uses near major
stationary noise sources.
Consistent. MM-NOI-1a and MM-NOI-1b would reduce impacts to nearby sensitive
receptors. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3 requires that, the applicant for the
development shall provide evidence to the City that the City’s noise/land use
compatibility standards are met for the land use being developed prior to City approval
of a future project-specific development within the project area. See Section 3.10, Noise
and Vibration, of this EIR.
Goal 2 Minimize transfer of noise impacts between adjacent land uses.
Policy 2.1 Limit the maximum permitted noise levels crossing property lines and
impacting adjacent land uses.
Consistent. Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1a, MM-NOI-1b, MM-NOI-2a, MM-NOI-2b,
MM-NOI-3, MM-NOI-4a, MM-NOI-4b, and MM-NOI-5 would reduce noise impacts and
land use conflicts.
Policy 2.2 Establish criteria for placement and operation of stationary outdoor
equipment.
Not applicable.
Policy 2.3 Require that mixed-use structures and areas be designed to prevent transfer
of noise and vibration from commercial areas to residential areas.
Consistent. Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1a, MM-NOI-1b, MM-NOI-2a, MM-NOI-2b,
MM-NOI-3, MM-NOI-4a, MM-NOI-4b, and MM-NOI-5 would reduce noise impacts and
land use conflicts.
Goal 3 Minimize the impact of noise levels throughout the community through land use planning
Policy 3.1 Enforce and maintain acceptable noise limit standards. Consistent. The project will comply with the noise limits set forth in the Municipal Code;
Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1a, MM-NOI-1b, MM-NOI-2a, MM-NOI-2b, MM-NOI-3,
MM-NOI-4a, MM-NOI-4b, and MM-NOI-5 would reduce noise impacts.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-24 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-4
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES
General Plan Goals and Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
Policy 3.2 Work with the County of Riverside and the City of Murrieta to minimize or
avoid land use/noise conflicts prior to project approvals.
Consistent. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3 requires that, the applicant for the
development shall provide evidence to the City that the City’s noise/land use
compatibility standards are met for the land use being developed prior to City approval
of a future project-specific development within the project area. See Section 3.10, Noise
and Vibration, of this EIR.
Policy 3.3 Encourage the creative use of site and building design techniques as a
means to minimize noise impacts
Consistent. The project will implement design techniques to minimize noise impacts, as
feasible.
Policy 3.7 Evaluate potential noise conflicts for individual sites and projects, and require
mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of project approval.
Consistent. Noise impacts have been analyzed in Section 3.10, Noise and Vibration, of
this EIR. Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1a, MM-NOI-1b, MM-NOI-2a, MM-NOI-2b, MM-
NOI-3, MM-NOI-4a, MM-NOI-4b, and MM-NOI-5 would reduce noise impacts.
Goal 4 Minimize impacts from transportation noise sources.
Policy 4.1 Minimize noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation network, and
mitigate sound levels where necessary or feasible to ensure the peace and quiet of the
community.
Consistent. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3 requires that, the applicant for the
development shall provide evidence to the City that the City’s noise/land use
compatibility standards are met for the land use being developed prior to City approval
of a future project-specific development within the project area.
Policy 4.2 Ensure the effective enforcement of City, State and Federal noise impacts
from vehicles, particularly in residential areas.
Consistent. Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1a, MM-NOI-1b, MM-NOI-2a, MM-NOI-2b,
MM-NOI-3, MM-NOI-4a, MM-NOI-4b, and MM-NOI-5 would reduce noise impacts and
land use conflicts relating to construction traffic.
Policy 4.3 Enforce the speed limit on arterials and local roads to reduce noise impacts
from vehicles, particularly in residential areas.
Not applicable.
Policy 4.4 Coordinate with Caltrans to ensure the inclusion of noise mitigation measures
in the design of new highways or improvement projects in the Planning Area.
Consistent. The project will coordinate with Caltrans for the design of the Western
Bypass.
Policy 4.5 Participate in the planning and impact assessment activities of the County
Airport Land Use Commission and other regional or State agencies relative to any
proposed expansion of the airport or change in flight patterns.
Not applicable.
EIR Section 3.11, Population and Housing
Housing Element
Goal 1 Provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula.
Policy 1.1 Provide an inventory of land at varying densities sufficient to accommodate
the existing and projected housing needs in the City.
Consistent .The project would include residential “villages” that encourage various
residential densities and development types, including high-density apartment buildings,
row houses, attached single-family homes, townhouses, etc.
Policy 1.2 Encourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in
terms of cost, density, and type, and provides the opportunity for local residents to live
and work in the same community by balancing jobs and housing types.
Consistent .The project would include residential “villages” that encourage various
residential densities and development types, including high-density apartment buildings,
row houses, attached single-family homes, townhouses, etc.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-25 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-4
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES
General Plan Goals and Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
Policy 1.3 Require a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new
developments around the village centers to enhance their people-orientation and
diversity.
Consistent .The project would include residential “villages” that encourage various
residential densities and development types. The project involves adoption of a specific
plan to guide development of a primarily residential neighborhood with some commercial
and civic and institutional uses. The project would establish form-based code principals
to encourage various residential densities and building forms.
Policy 1.4 Support the use of innovative site planning and architectural design in
residential development.
Consistent. The project includes design guidelines and development standards to
encourage high-quality architectural and landscape design.
Policy 1.5 Encourage the use of clustered development to preserve and enhance
important environmental resources and open space, consistent with sustainability
principles.
Consistent. The project also involves preservation of open space areas and the
development of publicly accessible and private parks.
Policy 1.6 Encourage the development of compatible mixed-use projects that promote
and enhance village concept, facilitate the efficient use of public facilities, support
alternative transit options, and provide affordable housing alternatives by establishing a
program of incentives for mixed-use projects.
Consistent. The proposed project would involve development of several central
gathering spaces within each villages as well as a prominent public plaza within Village
C that is on direct access with Main Street and City Hall and would include a community
center with a recreation center and pool in the northwest of the plaza and a clubhouse in
the northeast of the plaza. The project also supports accessibility to public transit and
alternative modes of transportation.
Goal 5 Provide equal housing opportunity for all residents in Temecula.
Policy 5.3 Encourage housing design standards that promote the accessibility of
housing for persons with special needs, such as the elderly, persons with disabilities,
large families, single-parent households, and the homeless.
Consistent. The project provides a wide mix of housing types that could serve these
special needs groups.
EIR Section 3.12, Public Services
Growth Management/Public Facilities Element
Goal 2 Orderly and efficient patterns of growth that enhance the life for Temecula residents.
Policy 2.2 Ensure that phasing of public facilities and services occurs in such a way that
new development is adequately supported as it develops.
Consistent. Impacts to public services are fully analyzed in Section 3.12, Public
Services, of this EIR. The project would pay all applicable development fees to ensure
the availability of public services in the area.
Goal 3 Effective and cost-efficient police, fire and emergency medical services within the City.
Policy 3.1 Evaluate police protection services for adequate facilities, staffing, and
equipment based on changes in population and development and to ensure an
adequate response time for emergencies. Strive to provide a minimum of 1 full-time
officer per 1,000 residents for police protection services.
Consistent. The proposed project would be required to pay development impact fees to
allow the police department to add additional staff to provide services to accommodate
growth associated with the project in order to maintain service ratios. Section 3.12,
Public Services, of this EIR.
Policy 3.2 Require new development to address fire and police protection proactively
through all-weather access, street design, orientation of entryways, siting of structures,
landscaping, lighting, and other security features. Require illuminated addresses on new
construction. Provide facilities, staffing, and equipment necessary to maintain a 5-minute
response time for 90 percent of all emergencies.
Consistent. Compliance with TMC 15.060.020 would ensure that the proposed buildings
would include adequate fire detection and suppression systems to allow for fires to be
quickly contained and would ensure that the fire department maintains an adequately
sized staff and equipment in order to meet any additional demands generated by the
project. Section 3.12, Public Services, of this EIR.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-26 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-4
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES
General Plan Goals and Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
Policy 3.4 Coordinate with the County of Riverside to locate and phase new sheriff
facilities and fire stations to ensure adequate service levels are maintained.
Consistent. Impacts to public services are fully analyzed in Section 3.12, Public
Services, of this EIR. The project would pay all applicable development fees to ensure
the availability of public services in the area.
Goal 4 A quality school system with adequate facilities and funding to educate the youth of Temecula.
Policy 4.2 Promote and encourage development phasing so that the School District may
plan, finance, and construct, school facilities to serve new development.
Consistent. Given the payment of developer fees, existing capacity at the schools in the
project area, the construction of an elementary school as a part of the project, and
Temecula Valley Unified School District (VUSD’s) proposed construction of five new
schools, TVUSD would be able to accommodate the students generated by the project
and would not require further expansion of facilities. Section 3.12, Public Services, of
this EIR.
EIR Section 3.13, Transportation and Traffic
Circulation Element
Goal 1 Strive to maintain a Level of Service “D” or better at intersections within the City during peak hours and Level of Service “C” or better during non-peak hours.
Policy 1.1 Use the Circulation Element Roadway Plan to guide detailed planning and
implementation of the City’s roadway system, including appropriate road width and
median transitions when a roadway classification changes.
Consistent. The project will comply with the Circulation Element’s Roadway Plan, as
applicable.
Policy 1.2 Pursue trip reductions and transportation systems management measures to
reduce and limit congestion at intersections and along streets within the City
Consistent. As noted above, the project would involve construction of the Western
Bypass, which would relieve traffic congestion in Old Town and would increase safety
for other modes of transportation both within the project site and in Old Town.
Furthermore, the proposed project would implement features of the Complete Streets
program, which would enhance mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles.
In addition, the project proposes to extend existing transit routes into the project area.
Policy 1.5 Require additional right-of-way and impose additional parking restrictions for
approaches to all Principal Intersections to allow for future intersection improvements
and turning movements.
Consistent. Section 3.13, Traffic and Transportation, of this EIR includes proposed
roadway improvements and fully analyzes traffic impacts. Mitigation Measures MM-TRA-
1 through MM-TRA-13 would ensure compliance with roadway design standards.
EIR Section 3.14, Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
Growth Management/Public Facilities Element
Goal 6 A water and wastewater infrastructure system that supports development in the planning area.
Policy 6.1 Require landowners to demonstrate that an available water supply and sewer
treatment capacity exists or will be provided to serve proposed development, prior to
issuance of building permits.
Consistent. Water supply is evaluated in Section 3.14, Utilities and Service Systems, of
this EIR. In addition, a Water Supply Assessment is provided in Appendix J of this EIR.
Policy 6.2 Require landowners, prior to issuance of building permits, to demonstrate that
adequate wastewater capacity exists to serve proposed development.
Consistent. Water supply is evaluated in Section 3.14, Utilities and Service Systems, of
this EIR. In addition, a Water Supply Assessment is provided in Appendix J of this EIR.
Goal 8 A solid waste management system providing safe and efficient collection, transportation, recovery and disposal of waste.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-27 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Land Use and Planning
TABLE 3.9-4
CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES
General Plan Goals and Policies Statement of Consistency, Non-Consistency, or Not Applicable
Policy 8.1 Coordinate with the County of Riverside to provide and expand solid waste
collection, storage, transportation, recovery, and disposal services to meet the needs of
the City.
Consistent. Existing solid waste facilities are adequate to accommodate the project; see
Section 3.14, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR.
Altair Specific Plan 3.9-28 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
This section evaluates the potential for noise and groundborne vibration impacts to result from
implementation of the project. This includes the potential for the project to produce a substantial
temporary and/or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site, or
to produce noise exposure in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance.
Data used to prepare this analysis were obtained from the City of Temecula General Plan Noise
Element, the City of Temecula Municipal Code, and by measuring existing and modeling future
noise levels at the project site and the surrounding land uses. Information contained in the project
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Fehr & Peers (Appendix I of this Draft EIR) was used
in the modeling of traffic noise exposure.
Noise Principles and Descriptors
Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a
source, exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) that is measured in decibels (dB),
which is the standard unit of sound amplitude measurement. The dB scale is a logarithmic scale
that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound, with 0 dB
corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the
threshold of pain. Pressure waves traveling through air exert a force registered by the human ear
as sound.
Sound pressure fluctuations can be measured in units of hertz (Hz), which correspond to the
frequency of a particular sound. Typically, sound does not consist of a single frequency, but
rather a broad band of frequencies varying in levels of magnitude. When all the audible
frequencies of a sound are measured, a sound spectrum is plotted consisting of a range of
frequency spanning 20 to 20,000 Hz. The sound pressure level, therefore, constitutes the additive
force exerted by a sound corresponding to the sound frequency/sound power level spectrum.
The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum.
As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic
filter that deemphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hz and above 5,000 Hz in a manner
corresponding to the human ear’s decreased sensitivity to extremely low and extremely high
frequencies. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed
in units of A-weighted decibels (dBA). A-weighting follows an international standard
methodology of frequency de-emphasis and is typically applied to community noise
measurements. Some representative noise sources and their corresponding A-weighted noise
levels are shown in Figure 3.10-1.
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Altair Specific Plan . 140106Figure 3.10-1Effects of Noise on People
SOURCE: ESA
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
LOCAL COMMITTEE ACTIVITY WITH
INFLUENTIAL OR LEGAL ACTION
LETTERS OF PROTEST
Rock Band
Inside Subway Train (New York)
Food Blender at 3 Ft.
Garbage Disposal at 3 Ft.
Shouting at 3 Ft.
Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Ft.
Large Business Office
Concert Hall (Background)
Broadcast and Recording Studio
Threshold of Hearing
Jet Flyover at 1000 Ft.
COMMON INDOORNOISE LEVELS COMMON OUTDOORNOISE LEVELS
NOISELEVEL(dBA, Leq)PUBLIC REACTION
Gas Lawn Mower at 3 Ft.
Diesel Truck at 50 Ft.
Noisy Urban Daytime
Gas Lawn Mower at 100 Ft.
Commercial AreaHeavy Traffic at 300 Ft.
Quiet Urban Nighttime
Quiet Suburban Nighttime
Quiet Rural Nighttime
COMPLAINTS LIKELY
COMPLAINTS POSSIBLE
COMPLAINTS RARE
ACCEPTANCE
4 Times As Loud
Twice As Loud
1/2 As Loud
1/4 As Loud
REFERENCE
Small Theater, Large
Conference Room (Background)
Library
Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Daytime
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
Noise Exposure and Community Noise
An individual’s noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. A noise level is a measure of
noise at a given instant in time. The noise levels presented in Figure 3.10-1 are representative of
measured noise at a given instant in time; however, they rarely persist consistently over a long period of
time. Rather, community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the
contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the
product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise
exposure, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes
throughout a typical day, but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of
distant noise sources such as traffic. What makes community noise variable throughout a day, besides
the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short-duration, single-event noise sources
(e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens), which are readily identifiable to the individual.
These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment change the community
noise level from instant to instant, requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of
time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise
impacts. This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise
descriptors. The most frequently used noise descriptors are summarized below:
Leq: The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is used to describe noise over a specified period of time in
terms of a single numerical value; the Leq of a time-varying signal and that of a steady
signal are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy over a given time. The Leq
may also be referred to as the average sound level.
Lmax: The maximum, instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time.
Lmin: The minimum, instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time.
Ldn: Also termed the DNL, the Ldn is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day,
obtained after an addition of 10 dB to measured noise levels between the hours of 10:00 PM
to 7:00 AM to account nighttime noise sensitivity.
CNEL: CNEL, or Community Noise Equivalent Level, is the average A-weighted noise level
during a 24-hour day that is obtained after an addition of 5 dBA to measured noise levels
between the hours of 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after an addition of 10 dBA to noise
levels between the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM to account for noise sensitivity in the
evening and nighttime, respectively.
Effects of Noise on People
Noise is generally loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired sound that is typically associated
with human activity that is a nuisance or disruptive. The effects of noise on people can be placed
into four general categories:
• Subjective effects (e.g., dissatisfaction, annoyance);
• Interference effects (e.g., communication, sleep, and learning interference);
• Physiological effects (e.g., startle response); and
• Physical effects (e.g., hearing loss).
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-3 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
Although exposure to high noise levels has been demonstrated to cause physical and
physiological effects, the principal human responses to typical environmental noise exposure are
related to subjective effects and interference with activities. Interference effects of environmental
noise refer to those effects that interrupt daily activities and include interference with human
communication activities, such as normal conversations, watching television, telephone
conversations, and interference with sleep. Sleep interference effects can include both awakening
and arousal to a lesser state of sleep. With regard to the subjective effects, the responses of
individuals to similar noise events are diverse and are influenced by many factors, including the
type of noise, the perceived importance of the noise, the appropriateness of the noise to the
setting, the duration of the noise, the time of day and the type of activity during which the noise
occurs, and individual noise sensitivity.
Overall, there is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or the
corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction on people. A wide variation in
individual thresholds of annoyance exists, and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based
on an individual’s past experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of predicting a human
reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which
one has adapted (i.e., comparison to the ambient noise environment). In general, the more a new
noise level exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new
noise level will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level,
the following relationships generally occur:
• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dB cannot be
perceived;
• Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change in noise levels is considered to be a barely
perceivable difference;
• A change in noise levels of 5 dB is considered to be a readily perceivable difference; and
• A change in noise levels of 10 dB is subjectively heard as doubling of the perceived
loudness.
These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system.
The human ear perceives sound in a non-linear fashion, hence the decibel scale was developed.
Because the decibel scale is based on logarithms, two noise sources do not combine in a simple
additive fashion, but rather logarithmically. For example, if two identical noise sources produce
noise levels of 50 dBA, the combined sound level would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA.
Noise Attenuation
Stationary point sources of noise, including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles,
attenuate (lessen) at a rate between 6 dBA for hard sites and 7.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling
of distance from the reference measurement. Hard sites are those with a reflective surface between
the source and the receiver, such as asphalt or concrete surfaces or smooth bodies of water.
No excess ground attenuation is assumed for hard sites and the changes in noise levels with
distance (drop-off rate) is simply the geometric spreading of the noise from the source. Soft sites
have an absorptive ground surface such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees. In
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
addition to geometric spreading, an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA (per doubling
distance) is normally assumed for soft sites. Line sources (such as traffic noise from vehicles)
attenuate at a rate between 3 dBA for hard sites and 4.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of
distance from the reference measurement (Caltrans, 1998).
Fundamentals of Vibration
As described in the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment (FTA, 2006), ground-borne vibration can be a serious concern for nearby neighbors
of a transit system route or maintenance facility, causing buildings to shake and rumbling sounds
to be heard. In contrast to airborne noise, ground-borne vibration is not a common environmental
problem. It is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even
in locations close to major roads. Some common sources of ground-borne vibration are trains,
heavy trucks and buses traveling on rough roads, and construction activities such as blasting, pile-
driving, and operation of heavy earth-moving equipment.
There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity
(PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most
frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings. The root mean square (RMS)
amplitude is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. The
RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. Decibel notation
(VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS. The relationship of PPV to RMS velocity is expressed
in terms of the “crest factor,” defined as the ratio of the PPV amplitude to the RMS amplitude.
Peak particle velocity is typically a factor of 1.7 to 6 times greater than RMS vibration velocity
(FTA, 2006). The decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe
vibration. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly
with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receptors for vibration include structures
(especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick), and
vibration sensitive equipment.
The effects of ground-borne vibration include movement of the building floors, rattling of
windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. In extreme cases,
the vibration can cause damage to buildings. Building damage is not a factor for most projects, with
the occasional exception of blasting and pile-driving during construction. Annoyance from
vibration often occurs when the vibration levels exceed the threshold of perception by only a small
margin. A vibration level that causes annoyance will be well below the damage threshold for
normal buildings. The FTA measure of the threshold of architectural damage for conventional
sensitive structures is 0.2 in/sec PPV (FTA, 2006).
In residential areas, the background vibration velocity level is usually around 50 VdB
(approximately 0.0013 in/sec PPV). This level is well below the vibration velocity level threshold
of perception for humans, which is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB
is considered to be the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly
perceptible levels for many people (FTA, 2006).
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-5 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
3.10.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Ambient Daytime Noise Levels
The proposed project involves the development of approximately 270 acres located west of and
adjacent to Old Town, within the City of Temecula, California (Figure 2-1). The City limits form
the western edge of the project. Altair is designed to be a pedestrian-oriented residential
community within walking or cycling distance of Old Town; offering such amenities as active
and passive parks, an elementary school, walking, running, and cycling trails, a civic/institutional
area, and natural open space. The project would encourage a mix of housing types and
combinations of neighborhood-serving commercial and residential. The buildout of the project is
anticipated to occur over an approximate 10-year period.
Sources of noise in the city of Temecula are typical of those found in other cities and include, but
not limited to, traffic, construction work, commercial operations, human activities, emergency
vehicles, aircraft overflights, etc. As described in the City’s General Plan Noise Element, noise in
the City is the cumulative effect of noise from transportation activities and stationary sources,
with motor vehicles being the dominant source of continuous noise. Interstate 15 (I-15), State
Route 79 (SR-79), Rancho California Road, Temecula Parkway, Front Street, Diaz Road,
Winchester Road, and Pechanga Parkway all carry appreciable volumes of commuter traffic and,
as a result, the neighborhoods bordering these roadways are subject to loud noise levels.
Properties adjacent to freeways can experience decibels as high as 70 to 75 dBA (City of
Temecula, 2005). Stationary noise typically refers to noise from commercial establishments,
machinery, air conditioning systems, compressors, residential and recreational uses, and
landscape maintenance equipment. Given the location of the project area, the dominant noise
sources in the area include vehicle traffic on I-15, Temecula Parkway, Ridge Park Drive, Pujol
Street, and Rancho California Road.
In order to characterize ambient noise conditions in the project area, short-term noise level
measurements were conducted around and adjacent to the project area. Short-term noise level
measurements were taken on February 5, 2015, from 12:03 PM to 3:20 PM at various locations in
the vicinity of the project area to provide a representative sample of daytime noise conditions at
existing offsite land uses. The noise surveys were conducted using a Metrosonics Model db-3080
sound level meter, which was calibrated prior to use to ensure the accuracy of the measurements.
The results of the noise survey are shown in Table 3.10-1. The measurement locations are
identified in Figure 3.10-2.
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-6 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
C a m i n o E s t r i b o
Vallejo
P
u
j
o
l
Via Santa Rosa
R
idgePark
Via Horca
V i a P e r e g r i n o
§¨¦15
R a n c h o V i s t a R d
OldTown
F
r
o
n
t
S
t
P a u b a R d
R a n c h o C a l i f o r n i a R dJ
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
A
v
e
SantiagoRd
YnezRd
¬«79
1
2
3
4 5
6
7
Altair Specific Plan . 140106Figure 3.10-2Sensitive Noise Receptors
SOURCE: ESRI, ESA
!Sensitive Noise R eceptors
Project Boundary
0 2,000
Feet
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
TABLE 3.10-1
EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENTS SURROUNDING THE PROJECT SITE
Location
Date and Time
Period Leq dBA Lmax dBA Noise Sources
Short-term Measurements
1. The corner of 6th Street and Pujol
Street
02/15/15
12:03 – 12:18 PM
54.3 73.1 Vehicular traffic on
Pujol Street;
Occasional noise from
clucking of chickens.
2. 28639 Pujol St (Temecula
Baptist Church)
02/15/15
12:33 – 12:48 PM
60.3 72.9 Vehicular traffic on
Pujol Street; People
walking by
occasionally; Birds
chirping.
3. 28845 Pujol Street (The
Vineyards at Old Town
Apartments)
02/15/15
1:13 – 1:28 PM
64.4 86.3 Vehicular traffic on
Pujol Street; Large
truck driving by;
people talking nearby.
4. End of Pujol Street (Where Pujol
dead ends into a dirt road)
02/15/15
1:37 – 11:52 PM
52.4 70.3 Vehicular traffic on
Pujol Street (overall
relatively quiet).
5. 28980 Old Town Front St
(Ramada Inn)
02/15/15
2:30 – 2:45 PM
59.4 77.9 Traffic from 1-15 faint
in the background;
Cars driving into
Ramada Inn
occasionally.
6. 29275 Santiago Rd (Hillcrest
Academy)
02/15/15
2:05 – 2:20 PM
65.2 80.1 Heavy vehicular traffic
from 1-15.
7. Residential housing off Via
Horca and Via Santa Rosa
02/15/15
3:05 3:20 PM
60.5 74.0 Primary traffic on Via
Santa Rosa; fairly light
vehicular traffic on Via
Santa Rosa; gardener
nearby.
SOURCE: ESA, 2015; Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix H.
Existing Roadway Noise Levels
Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for nine roadway segments located in proximity of
the project site. The roadway segments selected for analysis are considered to be those that are
expected to be most directly impacted by project-related traffic; which, for the purpose of this
analysis, includes the roadways that are nearest to the project site. These roadways, when
compared to roadways located further away from the project site, would experience the greatest
percentage increase in traffic generated by the project.
Calculation of the existing roadway noise levels was accomplished using the Federal Highway
Administration Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and traffic volumes at the
study intersections analyzed in the proposed project’s TIA. The Model calculates the average
noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, and site environmental
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-8 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
conditions. The average daily noise levels along these roadway segments are presented in
Table 3.10-2.
TABLE 3.10-2
EXISTING ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Roadway Segment
Existing Land Uses located
along Roadway Segment dB Ldna
Rancho California Road Diaz Road to Old Town Front
Street
Commercial 67.5
I-15 to Ynez Road Hotels/Commercial 74.0
Vincent Moraga Drive Rancho California Road to Ridge
Park Drive
Commercial 53.7
Temecula Parkway La Paz Road to Wabash Lane
Pechanga Parkway to Margarita
Road
Residential/Church
Residential/Commercial
72.2
68.4
Diaz Road Rancho California Road to Via
Montezuma Road
Church/Commercial 68.9
Via Montezuma Road to
Winchester Road
Commercial 71.5
Winchester Road Diaz Road to Jefferson Avenue Commercial 72.6
I-15 to Ynez Road Commercial 73.7
a Values represent noise levels from the centerline of each roadway to the approximate receptor property line.
TRAFFIC INFORMATION SOURCE: Fehr and Peers, 2015
TABLE SOURCE: ESA, 2015. Calculation data and results provided in Appendix H.
Existing Groundborne Vibration Levels
Aside from periodic construction work that may occur throughout the city, other sources of
groundborne vibration in the project site vicinity may include heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g.,
refuse trucks and delivery trucks) on local roadways. Trucks traveling at a distance of 50 feet
typically generate groundborne vibration velocity levels of around 63 VdB (approximately 0.006
in/sec PPV), and these levels could reach 72 VdB (approximately 0.016 in/sec PPV) where trucks
pass over bumps in the road (FTA, 2006).
Sensitive Receptors
Noise sensitive land use are defined as those specific land uses that have associated indoor and/or
outdoor human activities that may be subject to stress and/or significant interference from noise
produced by community sound sources. For instance, residences, hotels, schools, churches, rest
homes, and hospitals are generally more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial land
uses.
The project site, which is located at the base of the Santa Rosa Plateau, is currently undeveloped
and consists of open space that is mostly vegetated with low-lying sage scrub and chaparral.
Existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project area consist primarily of single- and
multi-family residential uses located adjacent to the project site boundary to the east. The
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-9 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
Temecula Baptist Church, located at 28845 Pujol Street, is also directly adjacent to the project
site’s eastern boundary. The Ramada Temecula Old Town hotel is also located east of the
southern portion of the project area, fronting Old Town Front Street. The project itself would also
introduce numerous sensitive receptors (e.g., residential uses and school) within the project area.
3.10.2 Regulatory Framework
Detailed below is a discussion of the relevant regulatory setting and noise regulations, plans, and
policies.
Federal Noise Standards
There are no federal noise standards that directly regulate environmental noise related to the
construction or operation of the proposed project. With regard to noise exposure and workers, the
U.S. Department of Labor Office of Safety and Health Administration (Fed/OSHA) regulations
safeguard the hearing of workers exposed to occupational noise. Federal regulations also establish
noise limits for medium and heavy trucks (more than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle weight rating) under
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 205, Subpart B. The federal truck pass-by noise
standard is 80 dB at 15 meters from the vehicle pathway centerline. These controls are
implemented through regulatory controls on truck manufacturers.
FTA Vibration Standards
The FTA has adopted vibration standards that are used to evaluate potential building damage
impacts related to construction activities. The vibration damage criteria adopted by the FTA are
shown in Table 3.10-3.
TABLE 3.10-3
CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION DAMAGE CRITERIA
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5
II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12
SOURCE: FTA, 2006.
In addition, the FTA has also adopted standards associated with human annoyance for
groundborne vibration impacts for the following three land-use categories: Vibration Category 1
– High Sensitivity, Vibration Category 2 – Residential, and Vibration Category 3 – Institutional.
The FTA defines Category 1 as buildings where vibration would interfere with operations within
the building, including vibration-sensitive research and manufacturing facilities, hospitals with
vibration-sensitive equipment, and university research operations. Vibration-sensitive equipment
includes, but is not limited to, electron microscopes, high-resolution lithographic equipment, and
normal optical microscopes. Category 2 refers to all residential land uses and any buildings where
people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. Category 3 refers to institutional land uses such as
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-10 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
schools, churches, other institutions, and quiet offices that do not have vibration-sensitive
equipment, but still have the potential for activity interference.
Under conditions where there are an infrequent number of events per day, the FTA has
established thresholds of 65 VdB for Category 1 buildings, 80 VdB for Category 2 buildings, and
83 VdB for Category 3 buildings.1 Under conditions where there are an occasional number of
events per day, the FTA has established thresholds of 65 VdB for Category 1 buildings, 75 VdB
for Category 2 buildings, and 78 VdB for Category 3 buildings.2 No thresholds have been
adopted or recommended for commercial and office uses.
California Department of Health Services Noise Standards
The California Department of Health Services (DHS) has established guidelines for evaluating
the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure. These
guidelines for land use and noise exposure compatibility are shown in Table 3.10-4. In addition,
Section 65302(f) of the California Government Code requires each county and city in the State to
prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-range general plan for its physical development, with
Section 65302(g) requiring a noise element to be included in the general plan. The noise element
must: (1) identify and appraise noise problems in the community; (2) recognize Office of Noise
Control guidelines; and (3) analyze and quantify current and projected noise levels.
The State of California also establishes noise limits for vehicles licensed to operate on public
roads. For heavy trucks, the state pass-by standard is consistent with the federal limit of 80 dBA.
The state pass-by standard for light trucks and passenger cars (less than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle
rating) is also 80 dBA at 15 meters from the centerline. These standards are implemented through
controls on vehicle manufacturers and by legal sanction of vehicle operators by state and local
law enforcement officials.
The state has also established noise insulation standards for new multi-family residential units,
hotels, and motels that would be subject to relatively high levels of transportation-related noise.
These requirements are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24,
California Code of Regulations). The noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of
45 dB Ldn in any habitable room. They require an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling
units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas
subject to noise levels greater than 60 dB Ldn. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local
jurisdictions through the building permit application process.
1 “Infrequent events” is defined by the FTA as being fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. 2 “Occasional events” is defined by the FTA as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day.
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-11 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
TABLE 3.10-4
COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (Ldn OR CNEL)
Land Use
Normally
Acceptablea
Conditionally
Acceptableb
Normally
Unacceptablec
Clearly
Unacceptabled
Single-family, Duplex, Mobile Homes 50 - 60 55 - 70 70 - 75 above 75
Multi-Family Homes 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 75 above 75
Schools, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 50 - 70 60 - 70 70 - 80 above 80
Transient Lodging – Motels, Hotels 50 - 65 60 - 70 70 - 80 above 75
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheaters --- 50 - 70 --- above 70
Sports Arena,
Outdoor Spectator Sports --- 50 - 75 --- above 75
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 - 70 --- 67 - 75 above 75
Golf Courses, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50 - 75 --- 70 - 80 above 80
Office Buildings, Business and
Professional Commercial 50 - 70 67 - 77 above 75 ---
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities,
Agriculture 50 - 75 70 - 80 above 75 ---
a Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal
conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
b Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise
reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with
closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
c Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development
does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included
in the design.
d Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
SOURCE: Office of Planning and Research, 2003
State Vibration Standards
There are no state vibration standards applicable to the project. Moreover, according to the
California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Transportation- and Construction-Induced
Vibration Guidance Manual (2004), there are no official Caltrans standards for vibration.
However, this manual provides guidelines for assessing vibration damage potential to various
types of buildings, ranging from 0.08-0.12 in/sec PPV for extremely fragile historic buildings,
ruins, and ancient monuments to 0.50-2.0 in/sec PPV for modern industrial/commercial buildings.
City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element
The California Government Code Section 65302(g) requires that a noise element be included in
the General Plan of each county and city in the state. The Noise Element of the City of Temecula
General Plan is intended to identify sources of noise and provide goals and policies that ensure
that noise from various sources does not create an unacceptable noise environment.
The City’s noise standards are correlated with land use zoning classifications in order to maintain
identified ambient noise levels and to limit, mitigate, or eliminate intrusive noise that exceeds the
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-12 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
ambient noise levels within a specified zone. The noise standards for each land use classification
defined in the City are summarized in Table 3.10-5. The standards shown in Table 3.10-5
represent the maximum acceptable exterior noise level, as measured at the property boundary,
which is used to determine noise impacts.
TABLE 3.10-5
TEMECULA LAND USE/NOISE STANDARDS
Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level (Ldn or CNEL, dBA)
Type of Use Land Use Designation Interior Exteriora
Residential
Hillside
45 65
Rural
Very Low
Low
Low Medium
Medium 45 65/70b
High 45 70b
Commercial and Office
Neighborhood, Service, etc.
-- 70 Community
Highway Tourist
Service
Professional Office 50 70
Light Industrial Industrial Park 55 75
Public/Industrial Schools 50 65
All others 50 70
Open Space Vineyards/Agriculture -- 70
Open Space -- 70/65c
a Regarding aircraft-related noise, the maximum acceptable exposure for new residential development is 60 dB CNEL.
b Maximum exterior noise level up to 70 dB CNEL are allowed for Multiple-Family Housing.
c Where quiet is a basis required for the land use
SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2005.
The City’s primary goal with regard to community noise is to minimize the exposure of residents to
unhealthful or excessive noise levels to the extent possible. To this end, the Noise Element
establishes noise/land use compatibility guidelines based on cumulative noise criteria for outdoor
noise. These guidelines are based, in part, on the community noise compatibility guidelines
established by the DHS for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types with a range
of noise levels. The City’s noise/land use compatibility guidelines are shown in Table 3.10-6.
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-13 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
TABLE 3.10-6
CITY OF TEMECULA NOISE/LAND USE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX
Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA)
Land Use
Normally
Acceptablea
Conditionally
Acceptableb
Normally
Unacceptablec
Clearly
Unacceptabled
Residentiale 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 75 above 75
Transient Lodging – Motel, Hotel 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 above 80
Schools, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 above 80
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheatersf
--- 50 - 70 --- above 70
Sports Arena,
Outdoor Spectator Sportsf
--- 50 - 75 --- above 75
Playgrounds, Parks 50 - 70 --- 70 - 75 above 75
Golf Course, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation, Cemeteries
50 - 70 --- 70 - 80 above 80
Office Buildings, Business
Commercial, and Professional
50 - 65 65 - 75 above 75 ---
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities,
Agriculture
50 - 70 70 - 80 above 80 ---
Agriculture above 50
a Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory based on the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal
conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
b Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise
requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed
windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
c Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If it does proceed, a detailed analysis of
the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
d Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
e Regarding aircraft-related noise, the maximum acceptable exposure for new residential development is 60 dB CNEL.
f No normally acceptable condition is defined for these uses. Noise studies are required prior to approval.
SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2005.
In accordance with the Noise Element of the City of Temecula General Plan, a noise exposure of
up to 60 dBA Ldn or CNEL exposure is considered to be the most desirable target for the exterior
of noise-sensitive land uses or at sensitive receptors such as homes, schools, churches, libraries,
hospitals, hotels, motels, etc. It is also recognized that such a level may not always be possible in
areas of substantial traffic noise intrusion. In addition, all new residential development in the City
would be required to comply with Title 24 standards of the State Health and Safety Code. These
standards establish maximum interior noise levels for new residential development, requiring that
sufficient insulation be provided to reduce interior ambient noise levels to 45 dBA Ldn or CNEL
or less.
The City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element contains various goals and policies to address
citywide noise issues. The following are relevant to the proposed project:
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-14 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
Goal 1 Separate significant noise generators from sensitive receptors.
Policy 1.1 Discourage noise sensitive land uses in noisy exterior environments
unless measures can be implemented to reduce exterior and interior
noise to acceptable levels. Alternatively, encourage less sensitive uses
in areas adjacent to major noise generators but require sound–
appropriate interior working environment.
Policy 1.2 Limit the hours of construction activity next to residential areas to
reduce noise intrusion in the early morning, late evening, weekends
and holidays.
Policy 1.3 Use information from the noise contour map in the General Plan in the
development review process to prevent location of sensitive land uses
near major stationary noise sources.
Goal 2 Minimize transfer of noise impacts between adjacent land uses.
Policy 2.1 Limit the maximum permitted noise levels crossing property lines and
impacting adjacent land uses.
Policy 2.2 Establish criteria for placement and operation of stationary outdoor
equipment.
Policy 2.3 Require that mixed-use structures and areas be designed to prevent
transfer of noise and vibration from commercial areas to residential
areas.
Goal 3 Minimize the impact of noise levels throughout the community through land use
planning.
Policy 3.1 Enforce and maintain acceptable noise limit standards.
Policy 3.2 Work with the County of Riverside and the City of Murrieta to
minimize or avoid land use/noise conflicts prior to project approvals.
Policy 3.3 Encourage the creative use of site and building design techniques as a
means to minimize noise impacts.
Policy 3.7 Evaluate potential noise conflicts for individual sites and projects, and
require mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of
project approval.
Goal 4 Minimize impacts from transportation noise sources.
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-15 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
Policy 4.1 Minimize noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation
network, and mitigate sound levels where necessary or feasible to
ensure the peace and quiet of the community.
Policy 4.2 Ensure the effective enforcement of City, State and Federal noise
impacts from vehicles, particularly in residential areas.
Policy 4.3 Enforce the speed limit on arterials and local roads to reduce noise
impacts from vehicles, particularly in residential areas.
Policy 4.4 Coordinate with Caltrans to ensure the inclusion of noise mitigation
measures in the design of new highways or improvement projects in
the Planning Area.
Policy 4.5 Participate in the planning and impact assessment activities of the
County Airport Land Use Commission and other regional or State
agencies relative to any proposed expansion of the airport or change in
flight patterns.
City of Temecula Municipal Code
The following sections of the Temecula Municipal Code are relevant to the project:
9.20.030 Exemptions
Sound emanating from the following sources is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 9.20
(Noise) of the City of Temecula municipal code:
• Property maintenance, including, but not limited to, the operation of lawnmowers, leaf
blowers, etc., provided such maintenance occurs between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00
PM.
• Motor vehicles, other than off-highway vehicles. This exemption does not include sound
emanating from motor vehicle sound systems.
• Heating and air conditioning equipment.
9.20.040 General Sound Level Standards
No person shall create any sound, or allow the creation of any sound, on any property that causes
the exterior sound level on any other occupied property to exceed the sound level standards set
forth in Table 3.10-5 and Table 3.10-6 (see above).
9.20.060 Special Sound Sources Standards 3
No person shall engage in or conduct construction activity, when the construction site is within
one-quarter mile of an occupied residence, between the hours of 6:30 PM and 7:00 AM, Monday
through Friday, and shall only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of
7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on
3 The general sound level standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City Municipal Code apply to sound
emanating from all sources, including special sound sources.
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-16 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. The City Council may, by formal action, exempt
projects from the provisions of this chapter.
9.20.070 Exceptions
Exceptions may be requested from the standards set forth in Sections 9.20.040 (general sound
standards) and 9.20.060 (special sound sources standards) and may be characterized as
construction-related or single event exceptions.
An application for a construction-related exception shall be made on a minor exception form. The
form shall be submitted in writing at least three working days (seventy-two hours) in advance of
the scheduled and permitted activity and shall be accompanied by the appropriate inspection
fee(s). The application is subject to approval by the city manager or designated representative. No
public hearing is required.
City of Temecula Groundborne Vibration Regulation
While the City of Temecula has not adopted any numerical thresholds for construction or
operational groundborne vibration impacts, Section 17.08.080 of the City Municipal Code states
that any existing or proposed use which generates vibrations that can or may be considered a
nuisance or hazard on any adjacent property shall be cushioned or isolated to prevent generation
of such vibrations.
3.10.3 Impact Assessment
Methodology
Implementation of the project could result in the introduction of noise levels that may exceed
permitted City noise levels. The primary sources of noise associated with the project would be
construction activities within the project area and project-related traffic volumes associated with
operation of the proposed residential, neighborhood-serving commercial, civic/institutional,
recreational, mixed use, and elementary education developments. Secondary sources of noise
would include new stationary sources (such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units)
associated with the new residential, commercial, and institutional developments. The increase in
noise levels generated by these activities and other sources associated with the project have been
quantitatively estimated and compared to the applicable noise standards and thresholds of
significance.
Aside from noise levels, groundborne vibration would also be generated during the construction
of the proposed developments occurring throughout the project area by various construction-
related activities and equipment. Thus, the groundborne vibration levels generated by these
sources have also been quantitatively estimated and compared to applicable thresholds of
significance.
Construction Noise Levels
Construction noise levels were estimated by data published by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) for general outdoor construction activities. These noise levels are
then analyzed against the construction noise standards established in the City’s Municipal Code
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-17 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
to determine whether an exceedance of allowable noise levels would occur across any adjacent
property boundaries.
Roadway Noise Levels
Roadway noise levels have been calculated for selected study area intersection segments located
within and in proximity to the project area based on information provided in the traffic report for
the project. The roadway segments selected for analysis are expected to be most directly impacted
by project-related traffic, which, for the purpose of this analysis, includes the roadways located
within and immediately adjacent to the project area. These roadways, when compared to
roadways located further away and beyond the boundaries of the project area, would experience
the greatest percentage increase in traffic generated by the project. The noise levels were
calculated using the FHWA-RD-77-108 model and traffic volumes from the project traffic
analysis.
Groundborne Vibration Associated with Project Construction and Operation
Groundborne vibration levels resulting from construction activities occurring within the project
area were estimated by data published by the FTA in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment document. Potential vibration levels resulting from construction of the proposed
residential, commercial, civic/institutional, recreational, mixed use, and elementary education
developments under the project are identified for offsite locations that are sensitive to vibration
based on their distance from construction activities. As the City has not adopted any thresholds
for construction or operational groundborne vibration impacts, the potential vibration levels at
offsite sensitive locations resulting from implementation of the project are analyzed against the
vibration thresholds established by the FTA to determine whether an exceedance of allowable
vibration levels would occur.
Thresholds of Significance
Based on the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment
with respect to noise and/or ground-borne vibration if it would result in:
• Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
• Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-
borne noise levels;
• A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project;
• A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project;
• Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels
(for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport); or
• Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels
(for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip).
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-18 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
Cumulative impacts from the proposed project are detailed in Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts.
Noise Criteria
For the purpose of determining whether the project would result in the exposure of persons to or
generate noise levels that would exceed established noise standards, construction and stationary
operational noise levels associated with the project would result in a significant impact if the
City’s construction noise regulations are violated and the City’s operational noise standards (see
Table 3.10-5) are exceeded.
The CEQA Guidelines does not define the levels at which permanent and temporary increases in
ambient noise are considered “substantial.” Therefore, with regards to traffic noise, the
significance of the project’s noise impacts can be determined by comparing estimated project-
related noise levels to existing no-project noise levels. With respect to the community noise
environment, the average healthy ear can barely perceive a noise level change of 3 dBA. A
change from 3 to 5 dBA may be noticed by some individuals who are sensitive to changes in
noise. A 5 dBA increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10 dBA increase
as a doubling of sound. As such, for the purpose of the project’s traffic noise analysis, traffic
noise would be considered significant if the project increases ambient noise levels along
roadways in the project vicinity above existing ambient noise levels by greater than 5 dBA and if
the resultant noise level falls within either the ”normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable”
categories in the General Plan land use/noise compatibility matrix (shown in Table 3.10-6). For
example, a 5 dBA increase in traffic noise levels at a residential land use as a result of project
operations would be considered potentially significant if the additional traffic noise contribution
would cause the noise levels to fall within the “normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable”
noise level categories (i.e., 70 dBA Ldn or greater). If the additional traffic noise contribution from
the project would not cause the noise levels at a residential land use to exceed 70 dBA Ldn, then a
5 dBA Ldn increase in noise levels would not cause a significant impact.
Vibration Criteria
The CEQA Guidelines also do not define the levels at which groundborne vibration or
groundborne noises are considered “excessive.” Thus, in terms of construction-related vibration
impacts on buildings, the adopted guidelines/recommendations by the FTA to limit groundborne
vibration based on the age and/or condition of the structures that are located in proximity to
construction activity are used in this analysis to evaluate potential groundborne vibration impacts.
Based on the FTA criteria, construction impacts relative to groundborne vibration would be
considered significant if any of the following were to occur:
• Project construction activities would cause a PPV groundborne vibration level to exceed
0.5 in/sec at a reinforced concrete, steel, or timber building;
• Project construction activities would cause a PPV groundborne vibration level to exceed
0.3 in/sec at any engineered concrete and masonry building;
• Project construction activities would cause a PPV groundborne vibration level to exceed
0.2 in/sec at any non-engineered timber and masonry buildings; or
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-19 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
• Project construction activities would cause a PPV ground-borne vibration level to exceed
0.12 in/sec at any buildings “extremely susceptible to vibration damage” (i.e., a historical
building).
In terms of groundborne vibration impacts associated with human annoyance, this analysis uses
the FTA’s vibration impact thresholds for sensitive buildings, residences, and institutional land
uses under conditions where there are an infrequent number of events per day. These thresholds
are 65 VdB at buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations, 80 VdB at
residences and buildings where people normally sleep, and 83 VdB at other institutional buildings
(FTA, 2006). The 65 VdB threshold applies to typical land uses where vibration would interfere
with interior operations, including vibration-sensitive research and manufacturing facilities,
hospitals with vibration-sensitive equipment, and university research operations. Vibration-
sensitive equipment include, but are not limited to, electron microscopes, high-resolution
lithographic equipment, and normal optical microscopes. The 80 VdB threshold applies to all
residential land uses and any buildings where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. The 83
VdB threshold applies to institutional land uses such as schools, churches, other institutions, and
quiet offices that do not have vibration-sensitive equipment, but still have the potential for
activity interference.
Given that the proposed land uses within the project area would consist of residential,
civic/institutional, commercial, mixed use, and elementary education developments, any
“excessive” groundborne vibration or noises that would occur at the project area would be those
generated during construction of these uses. It is not anticipated that operation of the proposed
land uses within the project area would result in the use of any heavy machinery or generate
heavy-duty truck trips that are often associated with large industrial uses. As such, no sources of
“excessive” groundborne vibration or noise levels are anticipated during project operations.
Impacts
Impacts in the following issue area were found to not be significant in the Initial Study prepared
for the project (Appendix A), and will not be discussed further in this Draft EIR:
Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated
with a public use airport or private airstrip. The project area is not located within any airport land
use plan nor is it located near any private airstrips. The nearest airport with an associated
Comprehensive Land Use Plan is the French Valley Airport, which is located approximately six
miles north of the project area. Given this distance, no impacts are anticipated as a result of the
project and no further analysis is warranted in this EIR.
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-20 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
Construction Noise
The project would be developed on an approximately 270 acres of land that currently consists of
what is now open space with limited rough grading from past activity. The project would be
developed in three phases over an approximate 10-year time frame, with the phased construction of
streets, utilities and other infrastructure, as needed, for each phase.4 It is anticipated that
development would start at the north end of the project and proceed southerly. The proposed
construction phasing plan for the project is shown in Figure 2-6. Each phase of construction would
involve site clearing, grading and excavation, site contouring, installation of improvements and
structural development, and site clean-up. Construction of each phase is estimated to take
approximately three years to complete. Initial construction is anticipated to begin within 12 months
of project approval by the City of Temecula.
While the project’s overall construction phasing is known, the specific timing and sequencing of
individual development projects within the project area during each of the three construction phases
have not been determined at this time. Nonetheless, it is expected that construction activities
associated with each of the project’s three construction phases would occur intermittently in their
respective areas throughout the course of their designated three-year construction period.
Construction noise impacts associated with each new individual development would be short-term
in nature and limited only to the period of time when construction activity is taking place for that
particular development.
Construction activity noise levels at and near construction areas of individual development projects
within the project area would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of
uses of various pieces of construction equipment. Generally, each new residential, commercial,
mixed -use, institutional, or other project-related development would require the use of heavy
construction equipment for activities such as site demolition, grading and excavation, installation of
utilities, paving, and building fabrication. Development activities would also involve the use of
smaller power tools, generators, and other sources of noise. During each stage of construction for
each individual development, there would be a different mix of equipment operating and noise
levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of the activity.
The USEPA has compiled data for outdoor noise levels for typical construction activities. These
data are presented in Table 3.10-7. The noise levels shown in Table 3.10-7 represent composite
noise levels associated with typical construction activities, which take into account both the number
of pieces and spacing of heavy construction equipment that are typically used during each phase of
construction. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a
rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 84 dBA Leq
measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would reduce to 78 dBA Leq at 100 feet
from the source to the receptor, and reduce by another 6 dBA Leq to 72 dBA Leq at 200 feet from the
4 It should be noted that the construction schedule for the project could potentially change to more than three phases
to better accommodate development. However, this change in phasing would only involve sub-dividing the areas of
development in a different manner than originally planned and would not alter the proposed duration of
development (10 years), intensity of construction activities, or the overall amount of development in the project
area. Thus, should the project eventually be developed over more than three phases, the construction-related noise
impacts analyzed in this section would not change.
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-21 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
source to the receptor. Table 3.10-8 shows typical noise levels produced by various types of
construction equipment.
TABLE 3.10-7
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
Construction Phase Noise Level (dBA, Leq)a
Ground Clearing
Excavation
Foundations
Erection
Finishing
84
89
78
85
89
a Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment
associated with a given phase of construction and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment
associated with that phase.
SOURCE: USEPA, 1971.
The construction activities for each new development that would occur under the project would
expose their respective nearby existing uses to increased noise levels. As discussed previously,
existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed project area consist primarily of single-
and multi-family residential uses located adjacent to the project site boundary to the east. The
Temecula Baptist Church, located at 28845 Pujol Street, is also directly adjacent to the project
site’s eastern boundary, while the existing Ramada Temecula Old Town hotel is also located east
of the southern portion of the project area, fronting Old Town Front Street. Additionally, the
proposed project itself would also introduce numerous sensitive receptors (e.g., residential uses
and school) within the project area. Consequently, as new developments occur gradually over
time within the project area, these new developments could be constructed immediately adjacent
to other recently constructed land uses (i.e., residential, school, and park uses) within the project
area as well as existing offsite land uses located immediately adjacent to the 270-acre project
area. Thus, depending on when and where a new development would occur, land uses that may
have already been constructed within the project area as well as existing land uses that are located
offsite and immediately adjacent to the project area boundaries could be exposed to increased
noise levels during project construction activities. During the construction of new developments
under the project, some of these nearby onsite and offsite land uses could be located less than 50
feet from a construction site.5 Consequently, construction activities occurring immediately
adjacent to onsite and offsite receptors would generate noise levels that would be substantially
greater than the existing noise levels at these receptor locations.
5 The offsite land uses that could be located less than 50 feet from construction activities associated with the
proposed project would be those located along and immediately adjacent to the project area’s eastern boundary,
which currently includes residential, commercial, light industrial, school, and hotel uses.
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-22 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
TABLE 3.10-8
TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Construction Equipment Noise Level (dBA, Leq at 50 feet )
Air Compressor 81
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Crane (Mobile) 83
Dozer 85
Grader 85
Jack Hammer 88
Loader 85
Paver 89
Pile –Driver (Impact) 101
Pile-Driver (Sonic) 96
Scraper 89
Truck 88
SOURCE: FTA, 2006.
Based on the noise levels for general outdoor construction activities shown in Table 3.10-7, noise
levels at adjacent land uses that are located within 50 feet of a proposed residential, commercial,
institutional park, mixed-use, or roadway development that is proposed under the project could
reach up to 89 dBA Leq or above. Under a conservative assumption that this noise level would
occur continuously for an entire hour during a construction day, the estimated Ldn noise level at
an adjacent receptor could reach up to 84 dBA or above over the course of an eight-hour
construction day. It should be noted that the estimated hourly 89 dBA Leq noise level is a
conservative assumption as construction equipment would rarely operate continuously for a full
hour at a construction site. Typically, the operating cycle for construction equipment would
involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower
power settings. Additionally, construction equipment engines would likely be intermittently
turned on and off over the course of an hour. Nonetheless, for the purposes of conducting a
conservative analysis that captures a worst-case scenario, an hourly construction noise level of 89
dBA Leq for up to eight hours is used for the construction noise analysis of the project.
According to Section 9.20.040 of the City’s Municipal Code, schools should not be exposed to an
exterior noise level that exceeds a maximum of 65 dBA Ldn/CNEL; multi-family residential,
commercial, office, transient lodging, and institutional (e.g., church) land uses should not be
exposed to an exterior noise level that exceeds a maximum of 70 dBA Ldn/CNEL; and light
industrial uses should not be exposed to an exterior noise level that exceeds a maximum of 75
dBA Ldn/CNEL (refer to Table 3.10-5) generated by a noise source, including construction
activities. Given that construction noise levels generated by future developments associated with
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-23 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
the project could reach as high as 89 dBA Ldn at 50 feet from a construction site, it is likely that
the City’s exterior noise levels for different land use types could be exceeded. Table 3.10-9
shows the distances at which construction noise levels associated with future developments in the
project area could exceed the City’s exterior noise levels for different land uses.
TABLE 3.10-9
EXCEEDANCE OF CITY CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS BASED ON DISTANCE
Land Use Types Allowable Exterior Noise
Level (dBA, Ldn/CNEL)a
Estimated Distance at
Which Applicable Noise
Standard Exceededb
Schools 65 450
Multi-family Residential, Commercial, Office,
Transient Lodging, and Institutional (e.g.,
church)
70 250
Light Industrial 75 145
a The allowable exterior noise level are based on the sound level standards set forth in Table 3.10-5 and Table 3.10-6, in
accordance with Section 9.20.040 of the City’s Municipal Code.
b The estimated distance is based on an estimated construction noise level of 84 dBA L at a distance of 50 feet from the noise
source.
Given that the existing land uses located offsite and immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary
of the project area consists of residential (i.e., single- and multi-family), school-related, church,
commercial, and light industrial uses that are located within the distances shown in Table 3.10-9
for the different land uses, the construction noise levels generated by future development projects
associated with the project could potentially exceed the maximum allowable exterior noise levels
for these uses. Furthermore, as part of the project, residential, school, and park uses would also be
introduced into the project area. As such, it would be likely that some of the future developments
associated with the project over the buildout period would be constructed adjacent to or in the
vicinity of these land uses. Depending on the distance of the future development sites to nearby
land uses that have already been developed over time within the project area, which may be
within the distances identified in Table 3.10-9, the construction noise levels generated could also
potentially exceed the maximum allowable exterior noise levels for these onsite uses. Thus, given
the likelihood that some of the future development projects occurring under the project would be
located within 50 feet from an existing use, the applicable City exterior noise standards shown in
Table 3.10-5 for different land uses would be exceeded.
Per the Municipal Code, construction activities associated with the project would not be allowed
to occur between the hours of 6:30 PM and 7:00 AM Monday through Friday, and would only be
allowed between 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on Saturday. Further, no construction activity is allowed
to occur on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays (Section 9.20.060 of the City’s
Municipal Code). In addition, Section 9.20.070 (Exceptions) of the City Municipal Code allows
for construction-related exceptions from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the
Code to be requested from the City Manager. The request for construction-related exceptions
must be submitted in writing at least three working days in advance of the scheduled and
permitted construction activity, and be accompanied with the appropriate inspection fee(s). As
such, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1a would require that an applicant provide
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-24 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
evidence to the City that an individual development project would not exceed the City’s noise
standard; however, where it is determined that City noise standards for construction activities
would be exceeded, an exception may be filed with the City. Although this exception would
allow for the City’s noise standards to be exceeded from a regulatory perspective, the
construction noise levels generated by a new development proposed in the project area would be
considered a significant environmental impact because the resultant noise levels could potentially
result in a substantial temporary increase in noise levels at an adjacent onsite and/or offsite
receptor(s).
As shown in Table 3.10-1, the existing daytime noise levels measured at locations surrounding
the project site range from approximately 52 dBA to 65 dBA Leq. As construction noise levels
associated with new developments in the project area could reach as high as 89 dBA Leq at a
distance of 50 feet from a construction site, an increase in noise levels of 20 to 30 dBA could
potentially occur at a neighboring receptor to a construction site. Such an increase in the ambient
noise levels at a neighboring receptor would be considered to be substantial, since, for the
purpose of providing perspective, a change in noise levels of 10 dBA is subjectively heard as
doubling of the perceived loudness. Consequently, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1b, 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 other 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 as the noise reduction devices and techniques prescribed under
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1b would not be able to fully attenuate construction noise levels.
Although Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1b 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.
Impact NOI-1: 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.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1a: Prior to the issuance any grading or building permits for a
phase or sub phase (project-specific future development within a construction phase), 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
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-25 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
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. Factors the City shall consider
when granting a noise exception include, but are not limited to, the consideration of the level of
noise, duration of noise, constancy or intermittency of noise, time of day or night, place,
proximity to sensitive receptors, nature and circumstances of the emission or transmission of any
such loud noise. If a construction-related exception request is not approved 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-1b: The applicant shall comply with the following noise
reduction measures during construction:
• Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific
location on a construction site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and
generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible
from the nearest noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses.
• Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest
peak noise generation potential will be minimized. Examples include the use of drills and
jackhammers. When impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and caisson
drills) are necessary, they shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever
possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically
powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the
compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the
exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used
where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures, such as use
of drills rather than impact tools, shall be used whenever feasible, as determined by the
City of Temecula’s Building Official based on the circumstances such as exposure to
sensitive receptors, type and number of equipment used, and duration of noise.
• 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, as determined by the City’s Building Official based on the
circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors, type and number of equipment
used, and duration of noise.
• Construction truck traffic shall be restricted to routes approved by the City of Temecula,
and 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.
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-26 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
• 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.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable
Exposure to Ground-Borne Vibration – Construction
Construction activities for individual development projects that would occur within the project
area would include demolition and grading activities, which would have the potential to generate
low levels of groundborne vibration. Persons residing and working in close proximity to a
construction site could be exposed to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels related to construction activities. The results from vibration can range
from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible
vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Site ground
vibrations from construction activities very rarely reach the levels that can damage structures, but
they can be perceived in the audible range and be felt in buildings very close to a construction
site.
The various PPV and RMS velocity (in VdB) levels for the types of construction equipment that
would operate during the construction of an individual development project within the project
area are identified in Table 3.10-10. Based on the information presented in Table 3.10-10,
vibration velocities could reach as high as approximately 0.089 inch-per-second PPV at 25 feet
from the source activity, depending on the type of construction equipment in use. This
corresponds to a RMS velocity level (in VdB) of 87 VdB at 25 feet from the source activity.
TABLE 3.10-10
VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Equipment
Approximate PPV (in/sec) Approximate RMS (VdB)
25
Feet
50
Feet
60
Feet
75
Feet
100
Feet
25
Feet
50
Feet
60
Feet
75
Feet
100
Feet
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.020 0.015 0.010 86 77 75 72 68
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.009 0.007 0.004 79 70 68 65 61
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 58 49 47 44 40
SOURCE: FTA, 2006
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-27 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
Over the course of the 10-year buildout period for the project, construction activities associated
with each new development in the project area could occur adjacent to or in the vicinity of
sensitive receptors that are located either onsite or offsite.6 During the construction of a new
development, existing adjacent uses could be located less than 50 feet from the construction site.
This scenario would occur especially during the development of new residential uses within the
project area, as the project would allow for zero lot line residential development. Consequently,
receptors that are located immediately adjacent to a construction site could be exposed to
excessive groundborne vibration levels. Based on the vibration source levels shown in Table
3.10-10, adjacent receptors that are located less than 50 feet from a construction site could be
exposed to peak vibration levels of above 0.031 PPV and 78 VdB during construction . Scenarios
where a construction site associated with the project is located within 25 feet from an existing
adjacent land use, the peak vibration levels experienced by these adjacent land uses can be above
0.089 PPV and 87 VdB during construction activities.
As future project-specific developments would be spread over the designated neighborhood
villages within the project area 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 this
EIR 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, because the
project allows for attached and small-lot residential development, future residential developments
may not be able to meet the distance criteria recommended in MM-NOI-2a and MM-NOI-2.
Impact NOI-2: Construction activities in the project area may 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.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
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
activities 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.
6 Onsite uses that would be affected by construction-related vibration levels include vibration-sensitive land uses
(residential and institutional) that have been gradually constructed over time within the project site, while offsite
uses that would be affected by the project’s construction-related vibration levels would include those uses located
along and directly adjacent to the project site’s eastern boundary.
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-28 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-2b: The operation of jackhammers shall be prohibited within 25
feet of existing residential structures and 20 feet of institutional structures during construction
activities, to the extent feasible.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable
Implementation of MM-NOI-2a and MM-NOI-2b would reduce the possibility of exposing
sensitive land uses to excessive vibration levels; however, impacts may not be reduced to a less-
than-significant level. The type of residential development allowed (e.g., compact single-family
residential, high-density multifamily) may make it difficult to achieve the desired distance
between these existing land uses and active construction. As such, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Exposure to Ground-Borne Vibration – Operations
The proposed project is primarily a residential mixed-use development with supporting civic uses
and open space. The proposed types of land uses (i.e., residential, commercial, institutional,
primary education, community recreation, open space/parks, roadways and mixed-use
developments) to be developed in the project area would not involve activities or operation of
stationary or mobile equipment that would result in high vibration levels, which are more typical
for large industrial projects that employ heavy machinery. Additionally, while groundborne
vibration within and surrounding the project area may currently result from heavy-duty vehicular
travel (e.g., refuse trucks, delivery trucks, and transit buses) on the nearby local roadways, the
proposed land uses under the project would not result in the increased use of these existing heavy-
duty vehicles on the local roadways. As such, vibration impacts associated with operation of the
future residential, commercial, institutional, primary education, community recreation, open
space/parks, roadways and mixed-use developments under the project would be less than
significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Operation Noise
Violation of City Exterior Noise Standards
With respect to operational noise levels, the City has established exterior noise standards that are
correlated with land use zoning classifications, which are shown in Table 3.10-5. The standards
represent the maximum acceptable exterior noise level, as measured at the property boundary,
which is used to determine noise impacts.
Under the project, new land uses that would occur in the project area include residential,
commercial, institutional, primary education, community recreation, open space/parks, roadways
and mixed-use developments. The nearest offsite land uses that would be exposed to operational
noise levels generated by the project’s new land uses would be those that are currently located
along and immediately adjacent to the project site’s eastern boundary. However, because open
space areas are proposed to be located between the adjacent offsite land uses to the east and the
new neighborhood villages within the project site, it is not anticipated that operational noise
levels generated by the new onsite land uses would result in violations of the City’s exterior noise
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-29 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
standards at the existing offsite land uses. However, as development of new land uses would
gradually occur within the project area over the 10-year buildout period, the operational noise
levels that would be introduced by a new development could potentially exceed the City’s
exterior noise standards at an adjacent land use that has already been development within the
project area. The determination of operational noise impacts associated with any violation of the
City’s exterior noise standards at the future properties within the project area would be too
speculative at this point in the planning process, as the specific location of individual projects and
their distances from each other is currently unknown. However, for the purpose of conducting a
conservative analysis in this EIR, it is anticipated that there would be scenarios in the future
where the operation of a future individual development project within the project area would
result in the violation of the City’s exterior noise standards at an adjacent or nearby land use.
These impacts are considered to be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3 would
require applicants of future developments in the project area to demonstrate compliance with the
City’s permissible exterior noise standards prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City.
Where the City’s exterior noise standards would be exceeded for a new development, adequate
design measures would need to be incorporated into the new development (e.g., noise walls,
landscaping, setbacks) such that the noise standards can be achieved. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3 would result in operational noise impacts that are less-than-
significant.
Impact NOI-3: New developments within the project area may introduce noise levels that could
exceed the City’s exterior noise standards at adjacent properties to and/or near the new
development sites.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for future
developments in the project, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational
noise levels generated by the proposed development would not exceed the City’s permissible
exterior noise standards that are applicable to adjacent properties. If City noise standards at the
adjacent properties would be exceeded, design measures shall be taken to ensure that operational
noise levels associated with the proposed development 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.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Equipment Noise
Aside from compliance with the City’s established noise standards, a potential noise impact can
also occur if a new development project would introduce a noise source that would result in a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project. Typically a permanent increase in ambient noise levels can result from the
operation of a stationary noise source that generates constant noise levels. Upon completion and
operation of the various new developments that would occur under the project, these stationary
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-30 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
noise sources would consist predominantly of mechanical equipment such as heating, ventilating,
and air conditioning (HVAC) units and exhaust fans. Although Section 9.20.030 (Exemptions) of
the City Municipal Code exempts sound emanating from heating and air conditioning equipment
from the City’s noise standards, the noise levels generated by this equipment could potentially
disturb land uses that are located adjacent to a new development. However, as an industry
practice, the design of the onsite HVAC units and other noise-generating mechanical equipment
associated with the new developments in the project area would typically be installed on the
rooftops of residential, commercial, institutional, and mixed-use buildings and located either
within an enclosure or behind other intervening structures that would provide a level of noise
shielding for nearby noise-sensitive uses. With implementation of these standard design
measures, the noise generated from the HVAC units at the new development sites would likely
not be perceptible at adjacent or nearby uses. To ensure that the nearby noise-sensitive uses to the
project site would not be adversely affected by any HVAC equipment noise, Mitigation Measure
MM-NOI-4a would be implemented, which prohibits noise from HVAC equipment from
exceeding the ambient noise level on the premises of other occupied properties by more than 5
dBA. Specifically, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4a would require future development projects
to locate their HVAC equipment away from receptor areas, install proper acoustical shielding for
their HVAC equipment, and incorporate the use of parapets into their building design to ensure
that noise levels generated from the HVAC equipment would not be audibly perceptible on the
premises of other existing developments. Thus, although noise from HVAC equipment is exempt
from the City’s noise standards, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4a would
nonetheless reduce the potential for HVAC-related noise from new developments to be audibly
perceptible at existing neighboring developments.
In addition, the maximum of 1,750 multi-family dwelling units proposed in the project area are
also sensitive receptors that could be affected by the operation of mechanical equipment on
adjacent properties. 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, which would comply with Title 24 standards of the California
Building Code. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4b, the interior noise limit
of 45 dBA Ldn or CNEL would be achieved at all proposed residential uses and any potential
noise impacts on the future residential uses in the project area from mechanical equipment from
adjacent properties would be less than significant.
Impact NOI-4: New development within the project area could expose nearby sensitive receptors
to noise levels exceeding 5 dBA over ambient levels due to operation of HVAC equipment; or to
noise levels from the operation of mechanical equipment such that interior noise residential noise
levels could exceed 45 dBA Ldn.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-31 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4a: The applicant of individual development projects within the
project area 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.
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 dBA in any habitable room.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Traffic Noise
The potential increase in traffic resulting from implementation of the project could increase the
ambient noise levels at land uses located within and in proximity of the project area. These
concerns were addressed using the FHWA-RD-77-108, which estimates the traffic noise exposure
in terms of the Ldn for a particular set of input conditions, based on site-specific traffic volumes,
distances, speeds, and/or noise barriers. Based on the TIA prepared for the project, included as
Appendix I of this EIR, in combination with an analysis of the surrounding land uses, roadway
noise levels were forecasted to determine if the project’s vehicular traffic would result in a
significant impact at receptor locations located within and in proximity to the project area.
Traffic noise levels within and in proximity to the project area would experience an increase in
noise resulting from the net additional traffic generated by the project at buildout. The increases
in noise levels at selected roadway segments are identified in Table 3.10-11.
As shown in Table 3.10-11, the project would increase local noise levels by a maximum of 9.3
dBA Ldn at the roadway segment of Vincent Moraga Drive from Rancho California Road to
Ridge Park Drive. Although this segment would experience an increase in traffic noise levels
greater than 5 dBA, impacts would be less than significant because the resultant noise levels
along this roadway segment would be less than 75 dBA Ldn, which is the maximum conditionally
acceptable noise level for commercial uses according to the land use/noise compatibility matrix in
the General Plan Noise Element (refer to Table 3.10-6). As these noise increases would not
exceed the identified thresholds of significance, these traffic noise impacts would be less than
significant. In addition, as the other roadway segments that are located even further away from
the project area than those analyzed in Table 3.10-11 would experience less traffic increases due
to the project, the increase in local noise levels at those roadway segments would also not exceed
the identified thresholds of significance, and impacts would be less than significant.
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-32 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
TABLE 3.10-11
ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS WITH PROJECT
Roadway Segment
Existing Land Uses
Located Along
Roadway Segmentb
Noise Levels in dBA Ldna
Existing
Project
Traffic
Volumes
Existing
With
Project
Traffic
Volumes Increase
Significance
Threshold Exceed
Threshold?
Rancho California Road,
between Diaz Road and
Old Town Front Street
Commercial 67.5 68.5 1.0 5.0 No
Rancho California Road,
between 1-15 and Ynez
Road
Hotels/Commercial 74.0 74.1 0.1 5.0 No
Vincent Moraga Drive,
between Rancho California
Road and Ridge Park Drive
Commercial 53.7 63.1 9.3 5.0 Yes
Western Bypass, between
A Street and Pujol Street
N/A N/Ac 66.3d N/A N/A N/A
Western Bypass, between
Pujol Street and Old Town
Front Street
N/A N/Ac 69.4d N/A N/A N/A
Temecula Parkway,
between La Paz Road and
Wabash Lane
Residential/Church 72.2 72.4 0.2 5.0 No
Temecula Parkway,
between Pechanga Parkway
and Margarita Road
Residential/
Commercial
68.4 68.7 0.3 5.0 No
Diaz Road, between
Rancho California Road and
Via Montezuma Road
Church/
Commercial
68.9 70.2 1.3 5.0 No
Diaz Road, between Via
Montezuma Road and
Winchester Road
Commercial 71.5 72.5 1.0 5.0 No
Winchester Road, between
Diaz Road and Jefferson
Avenue
Commercial 72.6 72.8 0.2 5.0 No
Winchester Road, between
I-15 and Ynez Road
Commercial 73.7 73.8 0.1 5.0 No
N/A = Non-applicable
a Values represent noise levels at the approximate property line of the nearest receptors.
b Along roadway segments that have multiple land uses, the lower noise level standard amongst the multiple land uses was used to provide a
conservative analysis.
c No existing roadway noise levels are available as the Western Bypass does not currently exist.
d As the Western Bypass does not currently exist, the noise level presented for the “Existing With Project” scenario is at 50 feet from the centerline
of this future roadway.
SOURCE: ESA, 2015. Calculation data and results are provided in Appendix H.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-33 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
Noise/Land Use Compatibility
Based on the City’s noise/land use compatibility matrix shown in Table 3.10-6, the City allows
new residences to be constructed where the average noise environment in outdoor activity areas is
up to 70 dBA Ldn, while new commercial and office buildings 7 may be constructed in areas where
the average outdoor noise level is up to 75 dBA Ldn. The 70 dBA Ldn and 75 dBA Ldn noise levels
for residential uses and commercial/office uses, respectively, are allowed provided that the
buildings are constructed using conventional design and that fresh air supply systems or air
conditioning are provided to allow windows to be kept closed.
From a community noise perspective, the 24-hour average noise levels surrounding the project
area are influenced primarily by traffic on local roadways. As presented in Table 3.10-1, which
shows the short-term noise level measurement results conducted at locations surrounding and
adjacent to the project area along with the observations of noise sources at the measurement
locations, traffic noise was the dominant noise source. While noise from heavy traffic on the I-15
was noted during the noise measurement at Receptor 6 (refer to Table 3.10-1), this receptor is
located at a further distance from the project boundary than all of the other receptors. Based on
observations made during the short-term noise level measurements, traffic noise from the local
roadways was the primary noise source at all of the other receptors that were closer to the
boundary of the project area. As shown in Table 3.10-2, the existing noise levels on roadway
segments located in the vicinity of the project area range from 53.7 dBA Ldn (segment Vincent
Moraga Drive from Rancho California to Ridge Park Drive) to 74 dBA Ldn (segment of Rancho
California Road from I-15 to Ynez Road). While not every single roadway segment located in the
vicinity of the project area could be modeled for traffic noise levels, the sample of selected
roadways that have been modeled for the project provides a representative indication of the
current traffic noise levels that exist in the vicinity the project area.
Within the project area, however, because it currently consists of 270 acres of undeveloped open
space, the current noise environment is relatively low when compared to the offsite areas located
adjacent to the project site’s eastern boundary that are occupied by existing developments. Based
on the existing ambient daytime noise level measurements that were conducted around the
perimeter of the project area (refer to Figure 3.10-2), the noise levels measured at Receptor 7,
which is located at a single-family residence off Via Horca and Via Santa Rosa, is considered to
be most representative of the noise levels within the project area given its remote environmental
setting. As noted in Table 3.10-1, the primary noise source observed at Receptor 7 was traffic on
Via Santa Rosa and fairly light vehicular traffic on Via Santa Rosa in addition to noise generated
by a gardener nearby. Thus, within the project area, the daytime noise levels would be even lower
than 60.5 dBA Leq that was measured at Receptor 7 as no roadways are currently located within
the project area. Thus, the relatively quiet noise environment within the currently undeveloped
project area would be compatible with the new land uses proposed (i.e., residential, commercial,
school, etc.) as part of the project.
7 While no stand-alone office use developments are proposed under the project, future live/work units allowed in
Villages A-F could include office uses.
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-34 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
In addition, development under the project would also entail construction of the Western Bypass,
which is a proposed four-lane thoroughfare that would run along the western boundary of the
project area, to link Temecula Parkway to Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Road.
Traffic noise levels generated on the Western Bypass could be audible at the new land uses that
are proposed along the western boundary of the project area. To evaluate the future noise
environment in the project area from traffic on the proposed Western Bypass, the future traffic
noise levels on this thoroughfare was estimated based on future traffic volumes provided in the
project’s traffic study. The calculation of future traffic noise levels was done using the FHWA-
RD-77-108. The average daily noise levels at 50 feet from the centerline of the Western Bypass
along with the distances from the centerline of this thoroughfare to its 60 dBA CNEL, 65 dBA
CNEL, and 70 dBA Ldn contours are presented in Table 3.10-12.
As shown in Table 3.10-12 below, future traffic noise levels along the segment of the Western
Bypass between A Street and Pujol Street would reach 66.5 dBA Ldn at 100 feet from its
centerline. As shown, the 75 dBA Ldn noise contour for this segment of the Western Bypass,
which runs along the entire western boundary of the project area, would be located within the
roadway lanes, while the distance from the 60, 65, and 70 dBA Ldn noise contours would be 442,
140, and 44 feet, respectively. As new commercial and office buildings may be constructed in
areas where the average outdoor noise level is up to 75 dBA Ldn, and given that the 75 dBA Ldn
noise contour for the Western Bypass would be located within the roadway lanes, all future
commercial- and office-related developments that would be developed along the Western Bypass
in the project area would meet the noise/land use compatibility guidelines as shown in Table
3.10-6. With respect to residential uses, the City allows new residences to be constructed where
the average noise environment in outdoor activity areas is up to 70 dBA Ldn. As shown in Table
3.10-12, the distance from the 70 dBA Ldn noise contour for the Western Bypass would be 44 feet
from the centerline. Because the exact locations of future residential developments located along
the western boundary of the project area and their specific setback distances from roadways have
not been determined at this time, the determination of noise/land use compatibility impacts for
each individual residential development project, or a combination of these projects, would be too
speculative at this point in the planning process. As such, for the purposes of conducting a
conservative analysis, it is anticipated that there would be future residential developments
proposed in the project area along the Western Bypass that would not meet the City’s noise/land
use compatibility standards. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-5 would require all future residential
developments associated with the project to be set back at distances greater than 45 feet from the
centerline of the Western Bypass or to implement other measures to ensure that the City’s
noise/land use compatibility standard of 70 dBA Ldn for residential uses would be achieved. The
location of future residential developments beyond this distance would ensure that these new
developments would be exposed to noise levels less of less than 70 dBA Ldn from the Western
Bypass, which would meet the City’s noise/land use compatibility guidelines for residential uses.
Therefore, with implementation of this mitigation, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level.
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-35 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.10 Noise and Vibration
Table 3.10-12
FUTURE (2025) WITH PROJECT ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment
Noise Level at 50 feet
from Roadway Center
Line (dBA Ldn)a
Distance (feet) from Roadway Centerline to:
75 Ldn Noise
Contour
70 Ldn Noise
Contour
65 Ldn Noise
Contour
60 Ldn Noise
Contour
Western Bypass
A Street to Pujol Street 66.5 --b 44 140 442
a Noise level value is based on the Western Bypass being a 4 lane road with an average speed limit of 50 miles per hour. b Noise contour is located within the roadway lanes.
TRAFFIC INFORMATION SOURCE: Fehr and Peers, 2015
TABLE SOURCE: ESA, 2015. Calculation data and results provided in Appendix H.
Impact NOI-5: With addition of the Western Bypass that would run along the western boundary
of the project area, new development projects proposed in the project area adjacent to the Western
Bypass may not meet the applicable noise/land use compatibility noise standards established by
the City.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-5: All future residential developments located adjacent to the
proposed Western Bypass in the project area shall be set back a minimum of 45 feet from the
centerline of the Western Bypass. If this minimum setback distance cannot be achieved, other
measures shall be taken to ensure compliance with the City’s noise/land use compatibility
standard of 70 dBA Ldn, including, but not limited to, greater setback distances, the erection of
noise walls or use of landscaping.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.10-36 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.11 Population and Housing
This section evaluates the potential population and housing effects of the project. It describes and
compares the existing and projected population and housing conditions within the project area.
Demographic data presented in this section is primarily based on projection growth estimates
from the U.S. Census Bureau, California Department of Finance, and Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG).
3.11.1 Environmental Setting
Population Growth
Temecula is located in Riverside County, which includes 24 cities and has a total population of
2,279,967 (California Department of Finance, 2014a). The City of Temecula occupies 30 square
miles. Located with access to both Orange and Los Angeles Counties to the west, and San Diego
County to the south, the City of Temecula has experienced rapid population growth since its
incorporation in 1989. According to the Department of Finance, population has nearly
quadrupled, increasing from 27,099 persons in 1990 to 106,289 in 2014. Table 3.11-1
summarizes population changes in Temecula over the past 20 years and provides estimates of
future population trends.
TABLE 3.11-1
POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS
Riverside County City of Temecula
Year Population Percent Change Population Percent Change
1990 1,193,000 – 27,099 –
2000 1,559,000 30.7 57,716 113.0
2010 2,189,641 40.5 100,158 73.5
2014 2,279,967 4.13 106,289 6.12
2020* 2,592,000 13.7 109,800 3.3
2035* 3,324,000 28.2 118,900 8.3
* Adopted 2012 SCAG population projection (SCAG, 2012).
SOURCES: California Department of Finance, 2014a and 2014b; US Census Bureau 2012; 2014a and 2014b.
From 2000 to 2010, population growth in Temecula occurred at a faster rate (73.5 percent) than
Riverside County (40.5 percent) as a whole. Temecula’s population comprises 4.7 percent of
Riverside County’s total population. Temecula’s growth can be attributed to many factors,
including an increased supply of affordable housing when compared to higher prices in nearby
housing markets such as those in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties, and annexation
of adjacent developed areas.
Altair Specific Plan 3.11-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.11 Population and Housing
SCAG’s population, housing, jobs, and income projections for the six-county southern California
region estimate that Temecula will continue to experience growth over the next few decades
(SCAG, 2012). The percent change in growth, however, is anticipated to be less than that
experienced between 1990 and 2010. SCAG estimates Temecula’s population will increase
between 2014 and 2035 by an overall 11.9 percent, reaching 118,900 by 2035. Riverside
County’s projected growth rate is expected to be well above Temecula’s growth rate, with an
overall 45.8 percent growth from 2,279,967 persons in 2014 to 3,324,000 persons in 2035.
The Land Use Element in the City of Temecula’s General Plan includes target levels of
residential and non-residential development, where all land within the Temecula Planning Area is
developed according to the Land Use Policy Map. The target levels of development establish a
capacity for a Land Use Plan that is expressed as estimates of total dwelling units, total
population and total square footage of non-residential development in the future. Within the
planning area, development capacity is provided for approximately 166,250 persons in
53,700 dwelling units, as identified in Table LU-3 of the City’s General Plan (City of Temecula,
2005).
Housing
According to the California Department of Finance, the city of Temecula had 34,603 housing
units in 2014. A majority of the housing units (approximately 83 percent) were single-family
units, reflecting the City’s young, family-oriented population and desire to maintain
suburban/rural traditions. Multi-family units made up 16.7 percent of total units, while mobile-
homes account for the remaining 0.46 percent. Table 3.11-2 provides a breakdown of housing
units in Temecula by type.
TABLE 3.11-2
HOUSING UNITS IN TEMECULA BY TYPE: 2014
Unit Type
Total Units
Number Percent
Single-family detached 27,610 79.8
Single-family attached 1,057 3.1
Multi-family (2-4 units) 757 2.2
Multi-family (5+ units) 5,019 14.5
Mobile-Home 160 0.46
Total 34,603 100
SOURCE: California Department of Finance, 2014a.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Temecula has 31,781 occupied households. A majority of
households (81.3 percent) were families. The second largest group of households comprise single
individuals (13.8 percent). Other households (for example, unrelated persons living together)
accounted for the remaining 4.9 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014a). In addition, according to
Altair Specific Plan 3.11-2 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.11 Population and Housing
U.S. Census Data, the City of Temecula had an average household size of 2.63 persons per
household in 2014. Table 3.11-3 shows historic household trends in Temecula.
TABLE 3.11-3
HOUSEHOLD TRENDS IN TEMECULA CITY
1990 2000 2010
2020
(projected)
2035
(projected)
Total Households 10,659 18,293 31,781 34,300 37,200
SOURCE: US Census Bureau 2012 and 2014b; SCAG, 2012.
Housing tenure refers to whether a housing unit is owned, rented, or vacant. In 2013, 63.5 percent
of Temecula households were owner-occupied units while the remaining 36.5 percent were
renter-occupied (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). The California Department of Finance lists the
vacancy rate for Temecula at 6.5 percent (California Department of Finance, 2014a).
Employment
According to SCAG’s Profile of the City of Temecula dated May 2013, there were a total of
42,583 jobs in the City of Temecula, which reflects an11.8 percent decrease from 2007.
Approximately 18 percent of jobs were in retail, 16.3 percent were in education, 13.6 percent
were in professional management, and 13.3 percent were in leisure hospitality (SCAG, 2013).
Between 2007 and 2012, there were changes in the share of jobs by sector in the City of
Temecula. During this time, the share of education jobs increased from 13 percent to 16.3
percent, while the share of construction jobs declined from 9.1 percent to 5.2 percent.
According to SCAG, average salaries for jobs in Temecula increased from $32,936 in 2003 to
$37,178 in 2011, showing a 12.9 percent change. The sector providing the highest annual salary
per job in the city was professional management at $52,167, whereas the sector with the lowest
annual salary job was the leisure hospitality sector at $15,565. As of December 2014, the
unemployment rate in the city of Temecula was 4.9 percent (EDD, 2015).
3.11.2 Regulatory Framework
Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) serves as a comprehensive planning guide,
focusing on growth through the year 2035. The primary goals of the RCP are to improve the
standard of living, enhance the quality of life, and promote social and economic equity. Within
the RCP, issues related to housing availability and growth are addressed primarily in the Land
Use and Housing chapter. This chapter identifies land use and housing challenges of the region,
introduces the Compass Blueprint growth vision, and specifies goals and outcomes of that vision
(SCAG, 2008).
Altair Specific Plan 3.11-3 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.11 Population and Housing
In addition, SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) provides forecasts of population,
households, and employment levels for counties, subregions, cities, and census tract within
SCAG’s jurisdiction. The primary goal of the 2012–2035 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) is to increase mobility for the region’s
residents and includes a “strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to
comply with [Senate Bill (SB)] 375, improve public health, and meet the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards as set forth by the federal Clean Air Act.” SCAG’s population and household
projections for Temecula are presented in Tables 3.11-1 and 3.11-3, above.
City of Temecula
The Housing Element of the General Plan, adopted in January 2014, covers the planning period
of July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2021. The Housing Element has been prepared to assess the
community’s housing needs, identify constraints on housing development, and identify resources
and strategies on how to meet the housing needs of the City, including for special-needs
populations. The goals described in the General Plan that pertain to the proposed project include:
Goal 1 Provide a diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social, and
economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula.
Policy 1.1 Provide an inventory of land at varying densities sufficient to
accommodate the existing and projected housing needs in the City.
Policy 1.2 Encourage residential development that provides a range of housing
types in terms of cost, density, and type, and provides the opportunity
for local residents to live and work in the same community by
balancing jobs and housing types.
Policy 1.3 Require a mixture of diverse housing types and densities in new
developments around the village centers to enhance their people-
orientation and diversity.
Policy 1.4 Support the use of innovative site planning and architectural design in
residential development.
Policy 1.5 Encourage the use of clustered development to preserve and enhance
important environmental resources and open space, consistent with
sustainability principles.
Policy 1.6 Encourage the development of compatible mixed-use projects that
promote and enhance village concept, facilitate the efficient use of
public facilities, support alternative transit options, and provide
affordable housing alternatives by establishing a program of incentives
for mixed-use projects.
Altair Specific Plan 3.11-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.11 Population and Housing
Goal 5 Provide equal housing opportunity for all residents in Temecula.
Policy 5.3 Encourage housing design standards that promote the accessibility of
housing for persons with special needs, such as the elderly, persons
with disabilities, large families, single-parent households, and the
homeless.
In accordance with the General Plan, all new development should be evaluated with respect to the
potential impacts to the local population and housing that might result from the proposed change.
3.11.3 Impact Assessment
Thresholds of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to population and housing would
be considered significant if the proposed project would:
• Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure);
• Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere; or
• Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.
Cumulative impacts from the proposed project are detailed in Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts.
Methodology
The evaluation of population and housing impacts is based on the development assumptions for
the project, as described in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, and a review of available population,
employment, and housing data described above.
Impacts
Impacts in the following issue areas were found not to be significant in the Initial Study prepared
for the project (Appendix A), and will not be discussed further in this EIR:
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing and people. There are no existing residential
units or homes located within the project area; therefore, no displacement of existing housing
would occur. In addition, the project would encourage mixed-use and residential projects and
would result in additional housing opportunities. Therefore, there are no impacts related to these
two threshold criteria.
Population Growth and Growth Inducement
The proposed project would involve adoption of the Altair Specific Plan that would enable new
residential development that has the potential to induce population growth within the city. As
Altair Specific Plan 3.11-5 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.11 Population and Housing
shown in Table 2-2 of Chapter 2, Project Description, the proposed project could result in a range
of 870 to 1,750 dwelling units. Using an average household size of 2.63 persons per household (see
Section 3.11.1, above), the proposed project could generate a new population of between 2,288 and
4,603 people. However, portions of the project site would be developed with multi-family housing,
which typically does not have as large a household size as single-family housing; therefore, this
range of potential new residents represents a conservative estimate for population generated by the
project. As shown in Table 3.11-1, by the year 2035, the population of the city is expected to grow
to 118,900 from the existing population of 106,289. This is an increase of 12,600 persons. Based on
this number, the development of the proposed residential uses would constitute between 18 and 37
percent of the population growth expected in the City between 2014 and 2035. Thus, the population
associated with the proposed residential uses would be within the anticipated population growth for
the City and would not exceed the projections on which the City has based plans related to
provision of public services, utilities, and other amenities to maintain the current quality of life it
provides its residents.
The project would also create a minimal amount of employment opportunities, consisting mostly
of retail jobs associated with the small amount of neighborhood-serving commercial uses that
would be allowed within Altair. There would also be new institutional jobs available associated
with the civic and school sites. It is anticipated that the most of the retail and institutional
employees would be drawn from the region’s existing employment stock, and it is not expected
that new employment opportunities would draw large numbers of new employees from outside of
the region. Therefore, the project would not result in a new population of employees that would
result in growth inducement beyond that already projected for the city.
In general, the project would accommodate predicted growth, and would not result in a
substantial increase in population. The project’s residential units would help to meet housing
demands from projected population growth in the city and the region. Therefore, the project
would result in less-than-significant impacts related to population and housing.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.11-6 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.12 Public Services
This section provides an analysis of the ability of public service providers to accommodate the
project, and whether the project would require expanded or new public facilities that could result
in new environmental impacts.
3.12.1 Environmental Setting
Fire Protection and Emergency Services
The City of Temecula contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) for fire
protection services through a cooperative agreement with California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) (Obmann, 2015). The RCFD is composed of 15 battalions with 94
stations throughout Riverside County. The RVCFD area is organized into eight divisions. The
project area is located in the Temecula Division of the RCFD and is served primarily by stations
that are a part of Battalion 15 (Temecula). Battalion 15 is located in and around Temecula with a
total of seven fire stations and approximately 95 employees (Obmann, 2015). The equipment
used by the RCFD has the versatility to respond to both urban and wildland emergency
conditions. Battalion 15’s inventory includes seven staffed fire engines and one staffed aerial
ladder truck. Inventory includes a fire fighting helicopter, hazardous materials teams, fire crews,
air tankers, and an air tactics airplane. In addition, the Department has access to water tenders,
fire crew vehicles, mobile communications centers, breathing support units, lighting units, power
supply units, fire dozers, mobile training vans, and mobile emergency feeding units (Obmann,
2015).
The closest fire station in Battalion 15 that provides fire protection and paramedic services to the
project area is Fire Station No. 12, located at 28330 Mercedes Street, approximately 0.34 miles
northeast of the project area. Fire Station No. 12 currently responds to an average of five calls per
day (Obmann, 2015). The station has one medic engine, one aerial ladder truck, and an Urban
Search and Rescue (USAR) unit. The station has four employees, including one captain, one
engineer, one firefighter, and one paramedic. In addition, Fire Station No. 73, located at 27415
Enterprise Circle West in Temecula, is approximately 1.5 miles north of the project area and
provides back-up fire protection (Obmann, 2015). Fire Station No. 84, which is the battalion
headquarters, is located at 30650 Pauba Road in Temecula and is approximately 1.79 miles east
of the project area. This fire station is able to respond to emergencies within the project area if the
first two fire stations are unavailable or should the primary responders need additional support.
Per RCFD’s Strategic Master Plan, the project area is categorized as an “urban” land use and has
a Total Response Time standard of 6.5 minutes (Johnson, 2013). The RCFD’s Battalion 15 has a
target goal of responding within five minutes to any call for services. In addition, Battalion 15 has
a target of staffing each shift in each station with a minimum of a four-person team within city
stations, and a minimum of a three-person team of professional firefighters within county
stations. The goal of the RCFD is to achieve a 90 percent response time within the city of
Temecula (Obmann, 2015). Currently, fire responders are meeting that goal with a 79.3 percent
response time (Obmann, 2015). Table 3.12-1 describes the stations within the project vicinity,
including location, available equipment, staffing, response distance, and response time.
Altair Specific Plan 3.12-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.12 Public Services
TABLE 3.12-1
FIRE STATIONS
Station No. Daily Staffing Equipment
Response
Distance
Response
Time
Fire Station No.12
28330 Mercedes Street
Temecula
• 1 Captains
• 1 Engineers
• 1 Paramedic
• 1 Firefighters
• 1 Medic engine
• 1 Reserve engine
• 1 Brush engine (seasonal)
0.34 3.9 mins
Fire Station No. 73
27415 Enterprise Circle West
Temecula
• 2 Captains
• 2 Engineers
• 2 Firefighters
• 2 Paramedic
• 1 Medic engine
• 1 Aerial truck
• 1 USAR unit
1.5 3.7 mins
Fire Station No. 84
30650 Pauba Road Temecula
• 1 Captains
• 1 Engineers
• 1 Paramedic
• 1 Firefighters
• 1 Medic engine
• 1 Reserve engine
• 1 Medic squad
1.79 4.6 mins
SOURCE: Obmann, 2015.
As identified in Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project is located near a
wildfire hazard area. According to the City of Temecula General Plan and GIS Map Data, a
portion of the project area is adjacent to a High Fire Hazard Area (Riverside County, 2015). The
High Fire Hazard Area is located approximately a quarter of a mile southwest of the project area.
Classification of a zone as moderate, high, or very high fire hazard is based on a combination of
how a fire will behave and the probability of flames and embers threatening buildings. Each area
of the map gets a score for flame length, embers, and the likelihood of the area burning. Scores
are then averaged over the zone areas. Final zone class (moderate, high and very high) is based on
the average scores for the zone.
Police Protection
Law enforcement in the City of Temecula is provided by the Temecula Police Department. The
Temecula Police Department contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff Department (RCSD),
which provides necessary staff and equipment. Services provided by the RCSD include: first
responder service, police services, search and rescue services, mutual aid coordination services,1
enforcement of criminal law on Tribal Lands, jail system services, court services, Coroner-Public
Administrator services, and Joint Task Force services (Edwards, 2015).
The average response times for the RCSD in 2014 were 3.9 minutes for priority 1 calls and 8.6
minutes for priority 1 through 4 calls combined. The police beat that includes the project area is
west of the Interstate 15 between Rancho California Road and Temecula Parkway. This area is
patrolled by car and occasional foot patrols. All emergency calls are routed through the RCSD
Dispatch Center and the average monthly calls for service vary, with the top three being alarms,
disturbing the peace, and miscellaneous non-criminal calls.
1 The RCSD maintains a mutual aid agreement with the San Diego Sheriff’s Department to provide police services in
the event that the RCSD is unable to respond to a service call.
Altair Specific Plan 3.12-2 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.12 Public Services
The primary RCSD station that serves the project area is the RCSD Southwest Station located at
30755-A Auld Road in Murrieta, approximately 6.4 miles northeast of the project area. In
addition, the RCSD has two satellite storefront offices, a traffic team, an investigations bureau,
and special teams to deal with drugs and gang-related issues. The City of Temecula’s Police
Department, a subset of the RCSD, operates the two satellite storefront stations within the City of
Temecula. These stations provide convenient police services for residents since the primary
station is located in Murrieta (Edwards, 2015). The Old Town storefront station is located at
28690 Mercedes Street and the Promenade Mall storefront station is located at 40820 Winchester
Road, Suite 2020. The storefront stations are 0.35 mile and 2.2 miles, respectively, from the
project area. According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the personnel to population ratio
for the City is 1 officer per every 1,000 people. Currently, the RCSD employs officers at the rate
of approximately 0 .94 officers per 1,000 residents (Edwards, 2015).
Schools
The project area is within the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD), which
encompasses approximately 213 square miles, operates 33 schools, and serves approximately
28,468 students (TVUSD, 2015a). The boundaries of the school district are north to French
Valley, south to the Riverside County line, east to Vail Lake, and west to Temecula’s city limits.
Currently, TVUSD operates 17 elementary schools, 6 middle schools, 3 high schools, 1
continuation high school, 1 independent study high school, 1 virtual school (grades 6 through 12),
1 home school academy (K through 8), 3 charter schools, and 1 adult school. The nearest school
to the project area, the Julian Charter School, is a K-12 school and is located approximately 0.3
mile east of the project area. The nearest elementary school is Vail Elementary School, located
approximately 1.12 miles northeast of the project area. Margarita Middle School is the closest
Middle School, located 2.26 miles east of the project area; and Temecula Valley High School is
located 2.03 miles northeast of the project area. Table 3.12-2 provides enrollment and capacity
data for the 2013-2014 school year for the schools that serve the project area. As shown below,
all of the existing schools that would serve the project area are operating below capacity.
TABLE 3.12-2
EXISTING TVUSD SCHOOLS SERVING THE PROJECT AREA
School/Type Location Grade Level
Enrollment
September
2013-2014
School’s
Gross
Student
Capacity
September
2013-2014
Vail Elementary 29915 Mira Loma Drive K through 5 595 1,421
Margarita Middle School 30600 Margarita Road 6-8 857 1,922
Temecula Valley High School 31555 Rancho Vista Road 9-12 2,695 3,973
SOURCE: TVUSD, 2015a
Altair Specific Plan 3.12-3 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.12 Public Services
Parks
Parks are an important resource in Temecula as they provide community gathering areas and
recreational facilities as well as a source of civic pride. The City of Temecula currently owns and
maintains a full range of parks and recreational facilities. According to the Temecula 2030
Quality of Life Master Plan, the City owns 39 parks with a total area of approximately 315 acres
and about 117,000 square feet of recreational and cultural facilities. The City has 27
neighborhood parks, 3 specialty parks, 7 sports parks, 2 passive parks, and 6 recreational facilities
(City of Temecula, 2015). Neighborhood parks are intended to serve their immediate area, are
generally 3 to 10 acres of open space and play areas, and should be easily accessed by
pedestrians. The three specialty parks within Temecula include a duck pond, a skate park, and an
outdoor basketball facility. Sports parks offer athletic facilities such as soccer fields, baseball
fields, basketball courts, and/or tennis courts. Other recreational opportunities in the city include
facilities such as two community centers, a theater, and history and children’s museums, and a
senior center. Lake Skinner Regional Park is approximately 9.5 miles northeast of the project
area. The 600-acre park offers overnight camping, fishing, swimming, sailing, picnicking, and
other activities. The City also has plans to renovate the YMCA building at 2611 Ynez Road into a
recreational facility. At this time, no new parks are planned for development (Myers-Russo,
2015).
The City has a joint-use agreement with the TVUSD, which allows the City to use school
recreational facilities (City of Temecula, 2005). These recreational facilities are generally open to
the public during non-school hours, weekends, and vacations and, as such, are considered
adjuncts to the city-wide park system. The following schools sites are presently joint facilities:
Temecula Middle School (illuminated baseball and soccer fields); Temecula Elementary School
(pool); Vail Ranch Middle School (illuminated basketball and tennis courts); James L. Day
Middle School (baseball fields and tennis courts); Erle Stanley Gardner Middle School (tennis
courts); Great Oak High School (tennis courts); Temecula Valley High (illuminated tennis
courts); and Chaparral High School (pool).
As shown in Table 3.12-3, the nearest park to the project area is Rotary Park, located at 28816
Pujol Street, approximately less than 0.1 mile east of the project area. Rotary Park encompasses
1.09 acres, is handicap accessible, and includes barbecue facilities and picnic tables. Table 3.12-3
provides a summary of the parks within 1.5 miles of the project area.
Altair Specific Plan 3.12-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.12 Public Services
TABLE 3.12-3
PUBLIC PARKS SERVING THE PROJECT AREA
Park Type Amenities Acres
Distance
from the
project area
(miles)
Rotary Park
28816 Pujol Street
Neighborhood • BBQ
• Picnic Tables
• Handicap Accessible
1.09 0.09
Town Square Park
Main Street
Passive • Turf
• Benches
• Water feature
• Drinking fountain
0.41 0.30
Sam Hicks Monument Park
41970 Moreno Road
Neighborhood • Children's Play Area
• Picnic Tables
• Restrooms
• Handicap Accessible
1.8 0.31
Temecula Duck Pond
28250 Ynez Road
Neighborhood • Wildlife viewing
• BBQ
• Picnic Tables and Shelter
• Restrooms
• Handicap Accessible
7.51 0.77
Pala Community Park
44900 Temecula Lane
Sports • 1 Lit Football / Soccer Field
• Outdoor Basketball
• Volleyball
• Tennis
• Children's Play Area
• BBQ
• Picnic Tables
• Restrooms
• Handicap Accessible
• 10 acres
10 1.42
SOURCE: Myers-Russo, 2015.
Libraries
The City of Temecula is a member of the Riverside County Library System (RCLS), which
operates 35 libraries and 2 bookmobiles throughout Riverside County and has an annual
circulation of 3,045,195 (Vanderhaak, 2015). According to the City’s General Plan, the County
Library System has district-wide standards of 1.2 volumes and 0.5 square feet of library space per
capita (City of Temecula, 2005). Within Temecula, the district currently provides approximately
2.0 volumes and 0.5 square feet of library space per capita.
The nearest library to the project area is the Temecula Public Library, located 1.63 miles east of
the project area, at 30600 Pauaba Road. According to the Institute of Museum and Library
Services, the Temecula Public Library is a 34,000 square foot facility that has 141,595 volumes,
as well as access to regional book volumes (Vanderhaak, 2015). The library is open seven days a
week and offers free Wi-Fi. The Technology Homework Center is open Monday-Thursday from
3:00 PM until 6:00 PM and on Sundays from 1:00 PM until 5:00 PM. Free peer tutoring is
Altair Specific Plan 3.12-5 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.12 Public Services
available. A Law Resource Library is located in the public library. Law databases, legal books
and assistance from a law librarian are available to the public. There are 68 public workstations in
the library with internet access. Two community rooms that each have a capacity of 100 can be
rented along with a small conference room, and the Grace Mellman Heritage Room. There are
five study rooms that are free to use on a first come basis for two hours daily. Friends of the
Temecula Library Bookstore is located at both library locations (Vanderhaak, 2015).
Grace Mellman Community Library at 41000 County Center Drive is the next closest library to
the project area, located 2.1 miles north of the project area. This is a 15,380-square-foot facility
and includes 65,587 volumes. Other amenities the library offers include access to over two-
million items located in county and neighboring libraries, internet access on multiple
workstations, free Wi-Fi, community events, and a Friends of the Library used bookstore adjacent
to the facility (Vanderhaak, 2015).
Hospitals
The project area is within proximity of three regional hospitals—the Temecula Valley Hospital
(TVH), the Rancho Springs Medical Center, and the Inland Valley Regional Medical Center. The
Temecula Valley Hospital is a 140-bed hospital that consists of a 20-bed intensive care unit
(ICU), a Consolidated Treatment Unit, a cardiac catheterization lab and a fitness rehabilitation
center on 37 acres of land in the city of Temecula. This facility is situated on the north side of
State Route 79, south of De Portola Road. TVH offers major specialty services, including open
heart surgery. TVH is also designated as a STEMI (Heart Attack) Receiving Center and Stroke
Ready Hospital by the Riverside County Emergency Medical Services Agency (Universal Health
Services, 2015). The hospital is located at 31700 Temecula Parkway, approximately 2.28 miles
from the project area. The Rancho Springs Medical Center is a 120-bed hospital that is best
known for its cancer care center and birthing suites. This hospital is located at 25500 Medical
Center Drive, Murrieta, 4.96 miles from the project area. In addition, the Inland Valley Regional
Medical Center is a 122-bed facility that serves as the region’s only trauma center and provides
medical services, trauma surgery, intensive care, diagnostic imaging, rehabilitation, and other
medical care (Southwest Health Care System, 2015). This hospital is located at 36485 Inland
Valley Drive, Wildomar, approximately 8.11 miles northeast of the project area.
3.12.2 Regulatory Framework
State
School Facility Development Fees – Assembly Bill 2926
In September 1986, the State Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 (Chapter 887, Statutes
of 1986). This bill granted school districts in California the power to levy fees on residential,
commercial, and industrial development for the purpose of financing construction of school
facilities. State law prohibits a city or county from issuing a building permit unless the local
school district has certified that the application is in compliance with its fee program. School
districts are also allowed to increase the level of fees every 2 years, based on the change in the
Class B construction cost index, as determined by the State Allocation Board. TVUSD’s current
developer fee for residential development is $3.36 per square foot. The current developer fee for
Altair Specific Plan 3.12-6 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.12 Public Services
commercial, industrial, and federally qualified senior housing is $0.54 per square foot (TVUSD,
2015b).
Quimby Act (Government Code 66477)
State Subdivision Map, Section 66477 (Quimby Act) allows the legislative body of a city or
county, by ordinance, to require the dedication of land, the payment of in-lieu fees, or a
combination of both, for park and recreational purposes as a condition of approval for a final tract
map or parcel map. The Quimby Act requires that developers set aside land, donate conservation
easements, or pay fees for park improvements. The goal of the Quimby Act is to require
developers to help mitigate the impacts of property improvements. The City of Temecula requires
5 acres of park area, or the proportional share thereof, for each 1,000 residents. This requirement
may be met by dedication of land, payment of in-lieu fees or a combination of both as defined by
the City’s Subdivision Ordinance 99.23 (City of Temecula, 2005).
Local
Temecula Municipal Code
The Temecula Municipal Code (TMC) includes provisions for new construction projects within
the City. It contains, by reference, the California Building Code building construction standards,
including the California Fire Code (CFC). The Fire Prevention Code (Chapter 15.16) of the TMC
sets forth regulatory requirements pertaining to fees, changes and additions to the CFC, and a fire
hazard abatement measures.
City of Temecula General Plan
Growth Management/Public Facilities Element
The City of Temecula General Plan establishes goals and policies related to public services for
the City. The following General Plan goals and policies for public services are relevant to the
project:
Goal 2: Orderly and efficient patterns of growth that enhance the life for Temecula residents.
Policy 2.2: Ensure that phasing of public facilities and services occurs in such a way
that new development is adequately supported as it develops.
Goal 3: Effective and cost-efficient police, fire and emergency medical services within the
City.
Policy 3.1: Evaluate police protection services for adequate facilities, staffing, and
equipment based on changes in population and development and to
ensure an adequate response time for emergencies. Strive to provide a
minimum of 1 full-time officer per 1,000 residents for police protection
services.
Policy 3.2: Require new development to address fire and police protection
proactively through all-weather access, street design, orientation of
entryways, siting of structures, landscaping, lighting, and other security
Altair Specific Plan 3.12-7 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.12 Public Services
features. Require illuminated addresses on new construction. Provide
facilities, staffing, and equipment necessary to maintain a 5-minute
response time for 90 percent of all emergencies.
Policy 3.4: Coordinate with the County of Riverside to locate and phase new sheriff
facilities and fire stations to ensure adequate service levels are
maintained.
Goal 4: A quality school system with adequate facilities and funding to educate the youth of
Temecula.
Policy 4.2: Promote and encourage development phasing so that the School District
may plan, finance, and construct, school facilities to serve new
development.
Open Space/Conservation Element
The Open Space Element contains goals and policies concerned with managing all open space
areas, including undeveloped wilderness lands and outdoor recreation uses. The Government
Code defines that open space should be preserved for: preservation of natural resources; managed
production of resources; recreation; and public health and safety. The basic park acreage standard
for Temecula is 5 acres of usable City-owned parkland per 1,000 residents. This standard does
not include special use facilities, natural open space, or trails.
Temecula 2030 Quality of Life Master Plan
Core Value: Healthy and Livable City
The Healthy and Livable City Core Value contains goals encompassing the elements that make
up the community’s quality of life, including: the built and natural environment, economic and
educational opportunities, access to cultural, religious, recreational, shopping and entertainment
resources, and the ability to have a healthy and safe lifestyle. Goals related to public services
include:
• Provide accessible recreational, sports, cultural, health/therapeutic and community
engagement facilities, programs and resources for all of Temecula residents, including
seniors, youth, families, and those with special needs.
• Support healthy and active lifestyles by promoting recreation programs, parks, trails, and
competitive facilities for swimming, tennis, soccer, baseball, basketball, and other sports.
Strategic priorities for Temecula 2030 related to public services include:
• “Reinvent” older commercial areas (such as Jefferson/Ynez) into vibrant mixed-use and
pedestrian-friendly areas with different housing types (such as lofts and townhouses),
more density, better transit linkages, and access to “urban amenities.”
• Ensure capacity for high-quality parks, both active and passive, and recreation and
community facilities and programs, including for youth indoor facilities, for seniors and
those with special needs.
Altair Specific Plan 3.12-8 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.12 Public Services
• Create an accessible park for seniors and special-needs children that provides specialized
training and play equipment.
• Enhance tennis facilities and facilitate the development of an aquatics center. Work with
the private sector to develop high-quality facilities and a possible competitive sports
complex. Partner with the School District to improve tennis facilities, including
resurfacing of middle school courts, lighting of high school courts, and engaging in
additional joint-use agreements.
• Expand parkways and trail system to provide linkages for pedestrians and bicycles
throughout the city and adjacent communities to promote an active and healthy
community.
3.12.3 Impact Assessment
Thresholds of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to public services would be
considered significant if the proposed project would:
• Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
– Fire protection
– Police protection
– Schools
– Parks
– Other public facilities
• Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated; and/or
• Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Cumulative impacts from the proposed project are detailed in Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts.
Methodology
Fire Protection and Emergency Services
Impacts on fire protection and emergency services are considered significant if an increase in
population or development levels as a result of the project would result in inadequate staffing
levels, increased response times, and/or increased demand for services that would require the
construction or expansion of new or altered facilities that themselves could have an adverse
Altair Specific Plan 3.12-9 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.12 Public Services
physical effect on the environment. Thus, a significant impact would occur if the fire station
serving the project area could not meet project demand, or require the construction of new or
expanded fire facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts. The methodology
used to evaluate potential fire protection service impacts includes the following: (1) evaluation of
existing fire services for the fire stations serving the project site; (2) determination of whether the
existing fire services and personnel are capable of servicing the project; and (3) determining
whether the project’s contribution to the future service population would cause the fire station(s)
to operate beyond its service capacity.
Police Protection
Impacts on police protection services are considered significant if an increase in population or
development levels as a result of the project would result in inadequate staffing levels, increased
response times, and/or increased demand for services that would require the construction or
expansion of new or altered facilities that themselves could have an adverse physical effect on the
environment. Thus, a significant impact would occur if the police station serving the project area
could not meet project demand, or require the construction of new or expanded police facilities
that would cause significant environmental impacts. The methodology used to evaluate potential
police protection service impacts includes the following: (1) evaluation of existing police services
for the police station(s) serving the project site; (2) determination whether the existing police
services and personnel are capable of servicing the proposed project; and (3) determining whether
the project’s contribution to the future service population would cause the police station(s) to
operate beyond its service capacity.
Schools
Impacts on schools are considered significant if an increase in population or development levels
as a result of the project would result in inadequate staffing levels, overcrowding, and/or
increased demand for services requiring the construction or expansion of new or altered school
facilities that could have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Thus, a significant
impact would occur if the local TVUSD schools could not accommodate additional students
expected from the project, thereby requiring the construction or expansion of school facilities that
would cause significant environmental impacts. Accordingly, this analysis focuses on public
schools that would provide service to the project site.
Parks
Impacts on parks and recreational facilities are considered significant if an increase in population
or development levels as a result of the project would result in the increase in use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial deterioration
of the facility would occur or the increase in demand would require the construction of additional
facilities that could have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Thus, a significant
impact would occur if use of the existing parks and recreational facilities would result in physical
deterioration, thereby requiring the construction of additional facilities that would cause
significant environmental impacts. The methodology used to evaluate potential impacts to parks
and recreational facilities includes the following: (1) evaluation of existing parks and recreational
facilities serving the project site; (2) determination whether the existing parks and recreational
Altair Specific Plan 3.12-10 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.12 Public Services
facilities could accommodate the increase in population that would occur under the proposed
project; and (3) determining whether the project’s contribution to the future population would
increase use of existing park and recreation facilities such that physical deterioration would occur.
Libraries
The methodology used to evaluate potential library impacts includes the following:
(1) identifying the primary library that would serve the project area; (2) projecting the future
service population for the library that would serve the project area; and (3) determining whether
the project’s contribution to the future service population would cause the library to operate
beyond its service capacity.
Hospitals
The methodology used to evaluate potential impacts to hospitals includes the following:
(1) identifying the primary hospitals that would serve the project area; (2) projecting the future
service population for the hospitals that would serve the project area; and (3) determining whether
the project’s contribution to the future service population would cause the hospitals to operate
beyond its service capacity.
Impacts
Fire Protection and Emergency Services
New development under the project would include the development of 870 to 1,750 dwelling
units within the project area, which would result in a maximum of approximately 4,603 new
residents in the project area over the next 10 years (see Section 3.11, Population and Housing).
The new development and population would increase the demand for fire protection services,
including emergency medical response, and could result in the need for additional personnel or
fire protection facilities. The project would also introduce buildings up to five stories in height,
which is above the heights of existing buildings in the project area.
The project would be located within the service area of an existing fire station (Fire Station No.
12), and would be within the existing 3.9-minute response radius for emergency calls. While the
project could result in an increased number of emergency calls and an increase in maintenance
needs related to facilities and equipment, this increase would occur over a 10-year period and the
fire department would add staff, equipment, and maintenance on an as-needed basis in order to
accommodate these increased demands. The fire department already possesses the necessary
equipment (an aerial ladder engine) to accommodate the proposed five-story height limits within
the project area. Furthermore, the proposed residential buildings would require incorporation of
fire detection and suppression systems (fire alarms and sprinklers), emergency access (fire lanes),
and properly placed fire hydrants as required by the Fire Code (as described in Sections
15.04.020, 15.06.020 and 15.16.020). These project design elements are reviewed and approved
by the fire department prior to receipt of development permits for every project in the City (City
of Temecula, 2005).
In addition, as set forth in TMC 15.060.020, the applicant would be required to pay development
impact fees related to fire protection to enable the expansion of fire protection facilities, the
Altair Specific Plan 3.12-11 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.12 Public Services
addition of fire protection personnel, and the acquisition of additional fire equipment, as needed
to maintain their performance standards. According to the RCFD, Fire Station No. 12 would
require additional staff and equipment to accommodate the increase in population that would
occur over the project’s 10-year buildout. However, no additional fire stations would need to be
constructed as a result of development of the proposed project. Compliance with City goals,
policies, and performance standards, as well as TMC 15.060.020, would ensure that the proposed
buildings would include adequate fire detection and suppression systems to allow for fires to be
quickly contained and would ensure that the fire department maintains an adequately sized staff
and equipment in order to meet any additional demands generated by the project. Compliance
with such regulations would reduce the burden on existing fire stations serving the project area,
and would ensure that the RCFD has adequate equipment, staff, and station space to provide fire
protection and emergency services to the project area and the city.
Given the project area’s proximity to an adjacent High Fire Hazard Area there is the potential for
wildland fires within the project area. As discussed in Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, the Western Bypass would serve as a fire break between wildland areas and the
proposed development. Furthermore, a Fuel Modification Plan would be incorporated into the
Altair Specific Plan to identify appropriate structure setbacks and landscape requirements to
address this hazard. All development would be required to adhere to all fire suppression
requirements in accordance with the most recent CFC, which provides minimum fire safety
measures that would be incorporated into all building designs. Thus, with adherence to the CFC,
implementation of the Fuel Modification Plan, and the capabilities of existing fire protection
services, the potential impact from wildfires would be less than significant.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not require construction of an additional or
expanded fire protection and emergency service facilities, and impacts related to fire protection
services would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Police Protection
As discussed earlier, the current standard established by the General Plan for police officers to
population is 1 full-time officer per 1,000 residents. The Temecula Police Department currently
employs officers at the rate of 0.94 officers per 1,000 residents (Edwards, 2015). The project area
is currently vacant and development within this area would require police services to be expanded
to this area. The project would likely result in a higher volume of service calls and, thus, slower
response times. According to the RCSD, in order to accommodate the 4,603 residents that would
be generated by the project, there would need to be approximately five to six new police officers
in order for the City to maintain its current ratio. In addition, the RCSD has indicated that existing
police facilities would be sufficient to accommodate the new officers and staff. Five to six
additional officers and new equipment, such as police cars and firearms, could be accommodated
by the Murrieta station and the two storefront locations in Temecula. The proposed project would
be required to pay development impact fees, as set forth in TMC 15.06.020, which would allow
the police department to add additional staff to provide services to accommodate this growth.
Thus, while the project would likely result in a higher volume of service calls and the need for
Altair Specific Plan 3.12-12 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.12 Public Services
additional staffing, staffing needs would be accommodated by the payment of development
impact fees. For these reasons, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police facilities and there
would be a less than significant impact.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Schools
The project would result in 4,603 new residents, which would generate an additional student
population for the TVUSD. Table 3.12-4, Generation Rates for the Proposed Project, provides
the generation rates that TVUSD uses to project future student population. As shown in Table
3.12-4, the project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,971 K-12 students; however, this
represents a conservative estimate because the generation rates are based on single-family
housing, and the project would also include the development of detached, multiplex, rowhouse,
live/work, multifamily walk-up, multifamily podium, micro-unit, and mixed-use housing.
TVUSD does not currently have generation rates for multi-family housing.
TABLE 3.12-4
GENERATION RATES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Grade
Generation Rates
(per dwelling unit)
Total Students for
the proposed project
(1,750 New Residential Dwellings)
K-5 0.754 1,319
6-8 0.1718 300
9-12 0.2011 352
Total 1,971
SOURCE: TVUSD, 2012.
Based on the existing capacity (see Table 3.12-2), TVUSD would need additional facilities in
order to accommodate the 1,971 students that would be generated from a maximum of 1,750 new
residential dwellings units. Student enrollment within TVUSD is anticipated to increase in the
next 10 years. The expected buildout of the school district would result in a student population of
approximately 38,000 students (Ryan, 2012). The 1,971 students generated by the project has
been anticipated by the expected build-out of the school district.
While the schools serving the project area currently have sufficient capacity to handle additional
numbers of students generated by the project, a new elementary school would be constructed as
part of the project. This elementary school would be able to accommodate approximately 600 to
730 students. In addition, TVUSD has plans to build additional schools in the area to
accommodate future population growth in the next 10 to 15 years. Currently, two elementary
schools, two middle schools, and one high school are planned (TVUSD, 2015a). The current
schools serving the area, the schools planned by TVUSD, and the elementary school proposed as
Altair Specific Plan 3.12-13 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.12 Public Services
part of the project, would be sufficient to meet the needs of the additional population resulting
from the project.
In 1986, the State passed AB 2926 to assist in providing funding for school facilities to serve
students generated by new development projects. AB 2926 allowed school districts to collect
impact fees from developers of new residential and commercial/industrial developments. These
development fees are deemed to fully mitigate for impacts to schools caused by new
development. As of 2014, TVUSD’s developer fees for residential development are $3.36 per
square foot of residential development and $0.54 per square foot (TVUSD, 2015b). Given the
payment of developer fees, existing capacity at the schools in the project area, the construction of
an elementary school as a part of the project, and TVUSD’s proposed construction of five new
schools, TVUSD would be able to accommodate the students generated by the project and would
not require further expansion of facilities. Therefore, project impacts to schools are considered to
be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Parks
The project would increase the population of the City of Temecula by introducing new residential
units into the area. The project would add an estimated 4,603 residents which would increase
demand for City-owned park and recreational facilities. New development is required to
dedicated park land, pay a fee in-lieu, or a combination, thereof, to provide for the recreational
needs of its residents (City of Temecula, Ord. 99-23). Based on the City’s formula for park land
dedication, and knowing the project could produce a range of dwelling units (870 to 1,750 units);
the project, at buildout, would be required to dedicate an estimated 10 to 22 acres of park land,
depending on the total number of dwelling units constructed. The required park land dedication,
payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination, thereof, would offset any adverse impacts associated
with the construction of new or expansion of existing recreational facilities to meet the City’s
General Plan standard of five acres of park land for every 1,000 residents.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Libraries
As described in Section 3.11, Population and Housing, the City of Temecula has an approximate
population of 106,289 residents. Based on this population and the General Plan’s district-wide
standards of 1.2 volumes and 0.5 square feet of library space per capita, the City should have a
standard service level of 127,546 book volumes and 53,145 square feet of library floor area.
The Grace Mellman Library is a 15,380 square-foot full-service library offering approximately
65,587 items to support the local population (Vanderhaak, 2015). In addition, the library is a
member of the Riverside County Library System, which affords customers access to over 2
million items located in the branches throughout the system. The Temecula Public Library is a
34,000 square-foot facility that has approximately 141,595 volumes items, as well as access to
regional book volumes (Table 3.12-5).
Altair Specific Plan 3.12-14 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.12 Public Services
TABLE 3.12-5
EXISTING LIBRARY FACILITIES AND BOOK SUPPLIES
Service
Library Area
(square feet) Book Volumes1
Grace Mellman Library 15,380 65,587
Temecula Public Library 34,000 141,595
Total 49,380 207,182
1 Polaris/Vanderhaak, 2015
The project would increase the demand for library services over the buildout timeframe of 10
years. However, the population increase generated by the project (approximately 4,603 people
max) is accounted for in the City’s anticipated population growth forecast of 118,900 people by
2035 (See Section 3-11, Population and Housing). The project is anticipated to have minimal
impacts on library services and would not affect the County’s ability to provide library services or
create the need to construct new library facilities or expand existing facilities. Therefore, the
project would result in less than significant impacts to library services.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Hospitals
There are a number of healthcare facilities that would have capacity to serve residents of the
project. These include the Temecula Valley Hospital (TVH), the Rancho Springs Medical Center
and the Inland Valley Regional Medical Center. The TVH is a recently opened and expanded
facility in Murrieta. TVH is operated by Universal Health Services and consists of a 140-bed
hospital, a 20-bed intensive care unit (ICU), a Consolidated Treatment Unit, a cardiac
catheterization lab and a fitness rehabilitation center. This hospital is located approximately 2.28
miles southeast of the project area and would serve the future residents of the project. The
hospital opened in October 2013 to accommodate the growing population of the City of
Temecula. The TVH has more than 275 affiliated physicians, close to 500 employees and 150
volunteers (Karnes, 2014). The TVH building was designed for future expansion to help
accommodate the area’s continued growth, and the hospital’s 37-acre campus can accommodate
additional expansion as community needs grow (Universal Health Services, 2015). Given the
capacity of the existing healthcare facilities, the population of 4,603 new residents (maximum)
generated by the project would be adequately served by the existing facilities. Impacts related to
the expansion or provision of additional healthcare facilities would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.12-15 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
This section provides an evaluation of the potential for the project to significantly affect traffic
operations in and around the project site. This analysis is a summary of the Transportation Impact
Analysis (TIA) Report prepared by Fehr & Peers (April 2015), which is provided in Appendix I
of this EIR.
3.13.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Roadway Network
Regional access to Altair is provided by Interstate 15 (I-15). Local access is provided mainly by
Rancho California Road, and Camino Estribo. Characteristics of the roadways in the study area
are summarized in Table 3.13-1 and are described in more detail in Appendix I. Figure 3.13-1
shows the project study area including analyzed intersection and roadway segment locations.
TABLE 3.13-1
ANALYZED ROADWAY SEGMENTS – EXISTING (2015) CONDITIONS
Roadway From To Classification
Speed
Limit
(mph)
Bike
Lanes
1. Rancho California Rd Diaz Rd Old Town Front St Principal Arterial 40 Class II
2. Vincent Moraga Dr Rancho California Rd Ridge Park Drive Collector 25 Class III
3. Western Bypass* A St Pujol St. Major Arterial n/a n/a
4. Western Bypass* Calle Cerillo Old Town Front St Major Arterial n/a n/a
5. Temecula Pkwy La Paz Rd Wabash Ln Urban Arterial 55 No
6. Temecula Pkwy Pechanga Pkwy Margarita Rd Principal Arterial 55 No
7. Diaz Rd Rancho California Rd Via Montezuma Rd Major Arterial 45 Class I
8. Rancho California Rd I-15 Ynez Rd Urban Arterial 40 Class II
9. Diaz Rd Via Montezuma Rd Winchester Rd Major Arterial 45 Class I
10. Winchester Rd Diaz Rd Jefferson Ave Major Arterial 45 No
11. Winchester Rd I-15 Ynez Rd Urban Arterial 40 No
*Segment #3 and #4 do not exist and will be constructed as part of the proposed project.
SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan, 2005.
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
Project
Location
2
1
3
4
5
16
17
18
10
12
14
19
20
21
23
13
11
22
24
9 25
6
7
8
15
98
1
2
3
4
5 6
7 8
9
10
11
OL
D
TO
W
N
E
F
R
O
N
T
S
T
P
U
J
O
L
S
T
V
I
A
N O R T E
SAN T I A GO RD
DE P O R T O L A R D
RANCHO VISTA RD
P A U B A R D
D E L R E Y
R D M
E
A
D
O
W
S
PKY
S O L A N A W A Y
L A S E R E N A
W A Y
PE
C
H
A
N
G
A
P
K
W
Y
RANCHO CALI FOR N I A R D
OVERLAND DR
R A N C H O CA LIFORNIA RD
WINC
H
E
S
T
E
R
R
D
V
I
A
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
A
V
E
YN
E
Z
R
D
D
I
A
Z
R
D
V I A SA N TA R O S A
MARGARITA
R
D
J E D E D I A H S M I T H
B
U
S
I
N
E
S
S
PARK
C A M I N O E S T R I B O
TEMECUL
A
P
K
W
Y
LOMA
L
I
N
D
A
R
D
YNEZ
RA
I
N
B
O
W
C
A
N
Y ON
R
D
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
B
Y
P
A
S
S
(
F
U
T
U
R
E
)
Altair Specic Plan . 140106
Figure 3.13-1
Intersection and Roadway
Segment Analysis Locations
SOURCE: Fehr & Peers
N
Project Study Intersection
Project Study Roadway Segment
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
Existing Bus Transit Facilities
The study area is serviced by the Riverside Transit Agency and operates the following nine bus
routes near the Altair Specific Plan project site (RTA, 2015):1
Route 23 is a circulator bus route primarily serving the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and
Wildomar. It connects regional facilities, such as the Inland Valley Regional Medical Center
and the Riverside County Superior Court House, to local retail and residential facilities, such
as Rancho Springs Medical Center, several local schools, and Wal-Mart. Route 23 operates
on Winchester Road, Ynez Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, among others, within the
study area, on 50- to 70-minute headways during weekdays and on 70-minute headways
during weekends.
Route 24 is a circulator bus route primarily serving the City of Temecula. It connects retail
uses at the north end of the City to Old Town, Pechanga Resort, and Redhawk areas of the
City. It operates on Pechanga Parkway, Old Town Front Street, Rancho California Road, and
Margarita Road, among others, within the study area, on 30- to 70-minute headways during
weekdays and on 60- to 90-minute headways on weekends.
Route 55, also known as the Temecula Trolley, is a trolley route serving the City of
Temecula. It connects mostly residential neighborhoods to commercial, retail and school
uses, including Promenade Mall and the County Center. Route 55 operates on Winchester
Road, Ynez Road, Overland Drive, and Margarita Road, among others, within the study area.
Route 61 is a circulator bus route primarily serving the cities of Sun City, Menifee, Murrieta,
and Temecula. This route provides connections to the County Center, Sun City Center, and
Loma Linda Medical Building, among others. Route 61 operates on Margarita Road, Ynez
Road, and Winchester Road, among others, within the study area, on 80- to 90-minute
headways on weekdays and on 60- to 65-minute headways on weekends.
Route 79 is a circulator bus route primarily serving the cities of Hemet, Winchester, and
Temecula. This route connects residential and retail areas to many places of interest, such as
the Hemet Valley Mall, Promenade Mall and the County Center, among others. Route 79
operates on Ynez Road, Overland Drive and Winchester Road, among others, within the
study area, on 70-minute headways during weekdays and on 60-minute headways on
Saturdays.
Route 202 is a commuter bus route primarily serving the cities of Murrieta, Temecula, and
Oceanside. Route 202 connects major employment areas in Oceanside, such as the Oceanside
Transit Center, to major transit stops in Temecula and Murrieta for morning and evening
commutes. Route 202 operates on Rancho California Road, Winchester Road and Ynez Road,
among others, within the study area. The route only operates on weekdays during the
morning peak hours of 4:00 AM to 9:00 AM and evening peak hours of 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM
on 20- to 50-minute headways.
1 The Riverside Transit Agency is currently completing its Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA), which may
modify these routes from their current configuration. This COA may also recommend changes to the bus lines
either in the short-term or long-term horizon. Therefore, no information can be provided regarding future bus
service with the study area.
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-3 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
Route 206 is a commuter bus route primarily serving the cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Lake
Elsinore, and Corona. This route connects the Corona Transit Center to major transit
connections to the south, including the Lake Elsinore Outlet Center, the Murrieta Wal-Mart,
and the Promenade Mall in Temecula. Within the study area, Route 206 operates on
Winchester Road and Margarita Road. The route operates on weekdays only between 4:00
AM to 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM on 20- to 60-minute headways.
Route 208 is a commuter bus route primarily serving the cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Perris,
Moreno Valley and Riverside. This route connects the Riverside Downtown Terminal and
Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station to major transit connections, including Moreno
Valley Mall, Perris Station Transit Center and the Promenade Mall in the City of Temecula,
among others. Within the study area, it operates on Winchester Road and the I-15 Freeway.
The route operates on weekdays only between 3:40 AM to 9:00 AM and 2:35 PM to 9:15 PM
at 30- to 60-minute headways.
Route 217 is a commuter bus route primarily serving the cities of San Jacinto, Hemet,
Temecula, and Escondido. This route connects the Escondido Transit Center to major transit
stops, including the Promenade Mall in the City of Temecula, Hemet Valley Mall, and Mt.
San Jacinto College, among others. Within the study area, Route 217 operates on Winchester
Road, Ynez Road, and the I-15 Freeway. The route operates on weekdays only between 4:00
AM to 8:30 AM and 3:00 PM to 8:30 PM on 30-to 40-minute headways.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails Network
Bicycle facilities are designated by the following four classifications:
Class I - Bike Path or Bike Trail: Class I facilities are bicycle trails or paths that are
essentially off street and separated from automobiles. A Class I bike path may parallel a
roadway (within the parkway) or may be a completely separate right-of-way that meanders
through a neighborhood or along a flood control channel or utility right-of-way.
Class II - Bike Lane: Class II bike lanes can be either located next to a curb or parking lane.
If located next to a curb, a minimum width of five feet is recommended. A minimum width of
five feet is also recommended for bike lanes adjacent to parking, unless there is a marked
buffer in between. However, a bike lane adjacent to a parking lane can be four feet in width.
Bike Lanes are exclusively for the use of bicycles and include bike lane signage, special lane
lines, and pavement markings.
Class III – Bike Route: Street provides for shared use by motor vehicles and bicyclists.
While bicyclists have no exclusive use or priority, signage may occur both by the side of the
street and stenciled on the roadway surface.
Class IV – Cycle Track: Class IV bikeways are cycle tracks or separated bikeways that
provide a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and are
protected from vehicular traffic via separations (e.g., grade separation, flexible posts,
inflexible physical barriers, on-street parking).
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
Within the study area, existing roadways that provide bicycle facilities include:
Class I: Diaz Road
Class II: Winchester Road; Jefferson Avenue; Margarita Road; Pechanga Parkway; Rancho
California Road; Ynez Road Overland Drive; Santiago Road
Planned bike lanes within the study area are identified in the City of Temecula General Plan and
depicted in Table 3.13-2. The City of Temecula is currently updating its Citywide Bicycle Master
Plan, which may result in changes to the existing or proposed facilities identified below. For
purposes of this EIR, no changes are assumed beyond those noted in the City’s General Plan.
Pedestrian facilities throughout Temecula are well-developed along most major roadways,
however several roads within the study area have undeveloped or discontinuous pedestrian
facilities. Within and adjacent to the Specific Plan area, sidewalks range from being provided on
both sides of the street, to only one side of the street or not available at all. Connectivity is limited
throughout the study area, especially adjacent to undeveloped parcels.
TABLE 3.13-2
PLANNED BIKE LANES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Roadway Classification
Old Town Front Street Class III
Temecula Parkway Class II
Rainbow Canyon Road Class II
Margarita Road Class II
Diaz Road Class I
SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan, 2005
The city of Temecula also has an extensive trail network. The City of Temecula General Plan
designates the following roadways within the study area as multi-use trails:
• Diaz Road
• Rancho California Road
• Ynez Road
• Temecula Parkway
• Pechanga Parkway
• Santiago Road
Analysis Methodologies
Level of Service Analysis
The traffic analysis employs a methodology based on empirical research conducted by the
Transportation Research Board (TRB) and other authorities, which are consistent with the City of
Temecula Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (May 2011) requirements (City of Temecula,
2011). TRB’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology for signalized and all-way
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-5 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
stop-controlled intersections estimates the average control delay for the vehicle at the
intersection. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, the methodology estimates the control
delays for each turning movement and identifies the delay for the longest delayed approach (if
there is a shared lane, delay is averaged for all turning movements from that lane) (TRB, 2010).
After the quantitative delay estimates are complete, the methodology assigns a qualitative letter
grade that represents the operations of the intersection. These grades range from level of service
(LOS) A (minimal delay) to LOS F (excessive congestion). LOS E represents at-capacity
operations. Descriptions of the LOS letter grades for signalized and unsignalized intersections are
provided in Table 3.13-3.
TABLE 3.13-3
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
LOS Description
Signalized Delay
(Seconds)
Unsignalized Delay
(Seconds)
A Progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive
during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all.
Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.
< 10.0 < 10.0
B Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More
vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of
average delay.
> 10.0 to 20.0 >10.0 to 15.0
C Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer
cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to
appear at this level, though many still pass through the
intersection without stopping.
> 20.0 to 35.0 >15.0 to 25.0
D The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable.
Longer delays may result from some combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C
ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not
stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
> 35.0 to 55.0 >25.0 to 35.0
E This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of
acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate
poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.
Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
> 55.0 to 80.0 >35.0 to 50.0
F This level is considered unacceptable with oversaturation,
which is when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the
intersection. This level may also occur at high V/C ratios
below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor
progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing
factors to such delay levels.
> 80.0 >50.0
SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010).
Intersection Assessment
Intersection LOS at 25 area intersections was determined based on average delay per the standard
TRB HCM 2010 methodology. Delay (in seconds) was calculated at each study intersection using
Trafficware Synchro Software v. 8, and compared to the LOS thresholds outlined in the HCM
2010. Project impacts on the study area roadway facilities were determined by measuring the
effect that Project traffic would have on intersections during the AM and PM peak hours (which
fall, respectfully, during the 2-hour [7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM] peak
periods). The 25 study intersections were selected for this analysis based on expectation of
potential project impacts, and proximity to the proposed project.
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-6 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
Roadway Segment Assessment
Operation on 11 roadway segments were evaluated by comparing the projected traffic volumes to
the maximum two-way daily traffic volume identified in the City of Temecula General Plan
Circulation Element (City of Temecula, 2005) and shown in Table 3.13-4. The maximum two-
way traffic volume is assumed to represent an LOS E threshold.
TABLE 3.13-4
ROADWAY SEGMENT THRESHOLDS
Roadway Classification
Number of
Lanes
Maximum Two-Way
Traffic Volume (ADT)
Urban Arterial 8-10 72,200
Principal Arterial 6 54,000
Major Arterial 4 36,000
Secondary Arterial 4 29,000
Modified Secondary Arterial 4 20,000
Limited Secondary Arterial 2 16,000
Collector 2 14,000
Rural Highway 2 10,000
(1) All capacity figures are based on optimum conditions and are intended as guidelines
for planning purposes only.
(2) Two-lane roadways designated as future arterials that conform to arterial design
standards for vertical and horizontal alignment are analyzed as arterials.
SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan, 2005
Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service
Recent traffic count data were supplemented by new traffic counts conducted in mid-January
2015 during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak periods and at
study roadway segments during one 24-hour period. The weekday AM peak-hour of traffic for
the study area generally occurs between 7:30 AM and 8:30 AM, and the weekday PM peak hour
generally occurs between 4:30 PM and 5:30 PM. Intersection turning movements and existing
traffic count data are provided in Appendix I.
The existing intersection lane configurations signal timings and peak-hour turning movement
volumes were used to calculate the levels of service for the study intersections during each peak
hour. As shown in Table 3.13-5, most study intersections operate at acceptable levels (LOS D or
better) during the AM and PM peak hours with the following four exceptions (LOS calculation
sheets are included in Appendix I):
• Intersection #2: Jefferson Avenue and Rancho California Road (LOS F in the AM peak
hour, and LOS E in the PM peak hour)
• Intersection #13: Pechanga Parkway Canyon Road (LOS F in the PM peak hour)
• Intersection #14: Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway (LOS F in the AM peak hour)
• Intersection #15: Pujol Street and First Street (LOS E in the PM peak hour)
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-7 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
TABLE 3.13-5
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE: EXISTING (2015) CONDITIONS
Intersection
Traffic
Control
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Vincent Moraga Drive/Diaz Road & Rancho California Road Signal 22.7 C 49.9 D
2. Jefferson Avenue & Rancho California Road Signal 85.4 F 70.7 E
3. I-15 Southbound & Rancho California Road Signal 29.0 C 29.6 C
4. I-15 Northbound & Rancho California Road Signal 9.8 A 23.0 C
5. Ynez Road & Rancho California Road Signal 37.8 D 48.4 D
6. Vincent Moraga Drive & Ridge Park Drive2 Does Not Exist
7. A Street & Western Bypass2 Does Not Exist
8. Project Road & Western Bypass2 Does Not Exist
9. Old Town Front Street & Temecula Parkway Signal 22.0 C 27.8 C
10. I-15 Northbound & Temecula Parkway Signal 9.1 A 41.4 D
11. La Paz Road & Temecula Parkway Signal 9.6 A 21.3 C
12. Pechanga Parkway & Temecula Parkway Signal 23.1 C 26.2 C
13. Pechanga Parkway & Rainbow Canyon Signal 15.4 B 101.0 F
14. Margarita Road & Temecula Parkway Signal 88.7 F 52.5 D
15. Pujol Street & First Street SSSC 12.3 B 41.0 E
16. Old Town Front Street & First Street/Santiago Road Signal 16.2 B 23.3 C
17. Ynez Road & Santiago Road Signal 25.5 C 48.4 D
18. Business Park Drive & Rancho California Road Signal 13.1 B 36.6 D
19. Diaz Road & Rancho Way Signal 7.9 A 9.5 A
20. Diaz Road & Winchester Road Signal 23.8 C 40.6 D
21. Jefferson Avenue & Winchester Road Signal 36.3 D 49.2 D
22. I-15 Southbound & Winchester Road Signal 14.6 B 13.4 B
23. I-15 Northbound & Winchester Road Signal 13.8 B 11.9 B
24. Ynez Road & Winchester Road Signal 30.3 C 33.9 C
25. I-15 Southbound & Temecula Parkway Signal 41.1 D 35.5 D
1. Intersections operating below acceptable standards are noted in bold.
2. Intersection does not exist under Existing (2015) Conditions.
3. SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control
SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2015
Existing daily traffic volumes and lane configurations were used to evaluate the operations at
study roadway segments. As shown in Table 3.13-6, all of the study roadways segments currently
operate at an acceptable LOS E or better on a daily basis.
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-8 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
TABLE 3.13-6
ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE: EXISTING (2015) CONDITIONS
Roadway From To Classification Capacity ADT LOS1
1. Rancho California Rd Diaz Rd Old Town Front St Principal Arterial 54,000 14,706 E or Better
2. Vincent Moraga Dr Rancho California Rd Ridge Park Dr Collector 14,000 984 E or Better
3. Future Roadway Segment
4. Future Roadway
Segment
5. Temecula Pkwy La Paz Rd Wabash Ln Urban Arterial 72,200 66,650 E or Better
6. Temecula Pkwy Pechanga Pkwy Margarita Rd Principal Arterial 54,000 41,999 E or Better
7. Diaz Rd Rancho California Rd Via Montezuma Rd Major Arterial 36,000 7,657 E or Better
8. Rancho California Rd I-15 Ynez Rd Urban Arterial 72,200 56,534 E or Better
9. Diaz Rd Via Montezuma Rd Winchester Rd Major Arterial 36,000 12,395 E or Better
10. Winchester Rd Diaz Rd Jefferson Ave Major Arterial 36,000 27,459 E or Better
11. Winchester Rd I-15 Ynez Rd Urban Arterial 72,200 65,952 E or Better
1. Maximum ADT capacities assumed to represent LOS E thresholds.
SOURCES: City of Temecula, 2005; Fehr & Peers, 2015.
3.13.2 Regulatory Framework
Congestion Management Program
The purpose of the state-mandated Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to monitor
roadway congestion and assess the overall performance of the region’s transportation system.
Based upon this assessment, the CMP contains specific strategies and improvements to reduce
traffic congestion and improve the performance of a multi-modal transportation system.
Examples of strategies include increased emphasis on public transportation and rideshare
programs, mitigating the impacts of new development, and better coordinating land use and
transportation planning decisions.
Based on the approval of Proposition 111 in 1990, regulations require the preparation,
implementation, and annual updating of a CMP in each of California’s urbanized counties. One
required element of the CMP is a process to evaluate the transportation and traffic impacts of
large projects on the regional transportation system. That process is undertaken by local agencies,
project applicants, and traffic consultants through a transportation impact report usually
conducted as part of the CEQA project review process. Authority for local land use decisions
including project approvals and any required mitigation remains the responsibility of local
jurisdictions. The intent of the CMP is to more directly link land use, transportation, and air
quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize
new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts, and improve air quality.
The Riverside County Transportation Committee (RCTC) significantly modified the Riverside
County CMP in 1997 to focus on federal Congestion Management System (CMS) requirements
as well as incorporate elements of the State CMP requirements. The 1997 CMP also focused on
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-9 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
development of an Enhanced Traffic Monitoring System in which real-time traffic count data can
be accessed by RCTC to evaluate the condition of the CMS, as well as meet other monitoring
requirements at the state and federal levels. This monitoring effort was completed in 2004 and in
2011. The CMP was updated to address deficiencies found during the evaluation (RCTC, 2011).
As stated in the 2011 CMP, RCTC does not require Traffic Impact Assessments for development
proposals, but instead defers to the local Lead Agency to assess the potential impacts of
development proposals on CMP roadways.
Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program
The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) is designated as the program
administrator for the Western Riverside Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
Program, which funds large regional infrastructure improvements, i.e., interchanges, major
regional roadways, etc. The Western Riverside TUMF charges a development fee for each new
single-family unit and multi-family unit in the City of Temecula. As administrator, WRCOG
receives all fees generated from the TUMF as collected by the local jurisdictions, and invests,
accounts for, and expends the fee in accordance with the TUMF ordinance, the administrative
plan and applicable state laws (WRCOG, 2014).
Southern California Association of Governments 2012–2035 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) developed the Regional
Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), which is a long-range
transportation plan that encompasses its member counties and is updated every four years. The
RTP/SCS provides a vision for transportation investments throughout the region. Using growth
forecasts and economic trends that project out over a 20-year period, the RTP/SCS considers the
role of transportation in the broader context of economic, environmental, and quality-of-life goals
for the future, identifying regional transportation strategies to address mobility needs. The
RTP/SCS contains specific implementation strategies that local governments, SCAG, and other
stakeholders may consider in order to successfully implement the RTP/SCS.
City of Temecula General Plan – Circulation Element
The City of Temecula General Plan defines traffic congestion using the LOS system described
above. The minimum LOS deemed acceptable by the City of Temecula is LOS D. Goals, policies,
and an implementation program in the Circulation Element of the General Plan that pertain to this
project include the following (City of Temecula, 2005):
Goal 1 Strive to maintain a Level of Service “D” or better at intersections within the City
during peak hours and Level of Service “C” or better during non-peak hours.
Policy 1.1 Use the Circulation Element Roadway Plan to guide detailed planning
and implementation of the City’s roadway system, including
appropriate road width and median transitions when a roadway
classification changes.
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-10 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
Policy 1.2 Pursue trip reductions and transportation systems management
measures to reduce and limit congestion at intersections and along
streets within the City.
Policy 1.5 Require additional right-of-way and impose additional parking restrictions
for approaches to all Principal Intersections to allow for future
intersection improvements and turning movements.
Implementation Program 6: Implement the following procedures and requirements to minimize
the impacts of proposed development projects on the City’s circulation system, and to encourage
increased use of alternative transportation.
• Evaluate development proposals for potential impacts to the transportation and
infrastructure systems.
• Require mitigation in the form of physical improvements and/or impact fees for
significant impacts prior to or concurrent with project development.
• Require dedication of adequate right-of-way along new roadways to permit pedestrian
and bicycle facilities.
• Require new development to incorporate design features which facilitate transit service
and encourage transit ridership, such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop facilities,
efficient trail systems through projects to transit stops, installation of bike lanes,
bikeways, and bicycle parking, and incorporation of pedestrian walkways that pass
through subdivision boundary walls, as appropriate.
3.13.3 Impact Assessment
Thresholds of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, traffic and circulation impacts would be
considered significant if the project would:
• Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes
of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit;
• Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited
to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established
by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways;
• Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks;
• Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment);
• Result in inadequate emergency access; or
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-11 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
• Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
Cumulative impacts from the proposed project are detailed in Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts.
The City of Temecula Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines defines the following LOS standards
for determining acceptable operations on their facilities for “plus project” conditions:
• LOS D or better at intersections during peak hours.
• LOS E or better for roadway segments on a daily basis.
• LOS F or better is permitted on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno
Road North.
According to the City of Temecula Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, “an increase in delay of
2.0 seconds or more at intersections operating at LOS E or F shall be considered a significant
impact, and mitigation measures will be required to reduce the delay to pre-project or acceptable
conditions.” The project is not responsible for mitigating intersections for which the project does
not cause an increase in delay of 2.0 or more seconds, even if the intersection is operating at an
unacceptable LOS (LOS E or LOS F).
The City of Temecula does not have any thresholds of significance related to roadway segments.
For purposes of this EIR, it was assumed that a significant roadway segment impact occurs when
the following two conditions are met:
• The roadway segment operates deficiently (LOS F) with the addition of project trips
• The roadway segment volume increases by more than two percent with the addition of
project trips
Methodology
For the proposed land uses within the project site, trip generation was determined using standard
rates developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and published in Trip
Generation Manual (9th Edition) (ITE, 2012). Use of these rates is consistent with industry
procedures for estimating traffic impacts. The following project-level traffic impact analysis
considers three study scenarios:
• Existing Plus Project – This condition represents reassigned baseline (Year 2015) traffic
volumes plus trips associated with the proposed Project. Existing baseline (Year 2015)
traffic volumes were adjusted according to changes in traffic patterns anticipated to occur
due to the various project roadway improvements including the Western Bypass.
• Cumulative (2025) – This condition consists of adding traffic generated by the proposed
project to conditions projected for the Year 2025 (derived by applying an ambient growth
rate of two percent per year to the reassigned baseline traffic counts, then adding traffic
generated by other approved and/or pending projects in the study area).
• General Plan Build Out (2035) – This condition consists of adding traffic generated by
the proposed project to conditions projected for the Year 2035 (derived by applying
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-12 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
growth rates developed from the City of Temecula’s General Plan Build Out 2035 traffic
model and existing 24-hour roadway segment counts to the existing traffic counts, then
adding traffic generated by other approved and/or pending projects in the study area).
Impacts
The following section identifies specific impacts pertaining to traffic and circulation and assesses
the change from the existing conditions. Impacts in the following issue areas were found to not be
significant in the Initial Study prepared for the project (see Appendix A), and will not be
discussed further in this EIR.
Result in a change in air traffic patterns. The project is not within the French Valley Airport
influence area; therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project.
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or Result in inadequate emergency access. All development within the Specific
Plan area would be required to be designed consistent with City standards, including street
design, emergency access, and compatibility of proposed uses. Less than significant impacts
related to hazardous design features or emergency access are anticipated as a result of the
proposed Specific Plan.
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities. Since the project promotes the use of bicycles, pedestrians, and transit, and all
development projects within the project area will be required to be consistent with adopted
policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks), no impacts are anticipated as a result of the project.
Existing (2015) Plus Project Traffic Conditions
Project Trip Generation
Traffic volumes for the Existing Plus Project scenario include existing traffic volumes plus
project volumes from full development of the project. While the project would be developed in
three phases over an approximate 10-year time frame, the analysis of potential impacts assumes
full development on top of existing conditions. The project would construct several roadway
improvements including the Western Bypass, a proposed four-lane arterial roadway that will link
Temecula Parkway with Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Road, widening
improvements at the intersection of Vincent Moraga Drive / Diaz Road and Rancho California
Road, and three new intersections along the Western Bypass. The following three study
intersections on the Western Bypass were evaluated under all “plus project” conditions:
6. Vincent Moraga Drive and Ridge Park Drive
7. “A” Street and Western Bypass
8. Calle Cerillo and Western Bypass
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-13 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
For the proposed land uses on the project site, trip generation was determined using standard rates
developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and published in the Trip
Generation Manual (9th Edition) (ITE, 2012). A key element of the project trip generation
estimates is the use of the MXD (mixed-use development) trip generation model. Traditionally,
traffic engineers and transportation planners have estimated internalization of project trips using
one of two methods – either based on their professional judgment or by using the methodology
presented in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. The MXD model was developed through
collaboration between consultants, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and an
academic research team. The MXD model estimates trip generation and internal capture by
adjusting trip generation rates to account for the influence of built environment variables. A
variety of research studies have demonstrated that these variables influence vehicle trip
generation. The MXD method is described in more detail in the TIA (Appendix I). Table 3.13-7
summarizes the trip generation estimates for the project.
TABLE 3.13-7
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
Planning
Area Land Use
ITE
Code Units
Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
In Out Total In Out Total
Village A Apartments 220 280 DU 1,862 29 114 143 113 61 174
Village B Apartments 220 220 DU 1,463 23 90 113 89 48 137
Village C Apartments 220 665 DU 4,423 68 272 340 268 145 413
Retail 820 7 KSF 253 13 4 17 7 18 25
Village D Apartments 220 160 DU 1,064 16 66 82 65 35 100
Retail 820 15 KSF 542 28 8 36 15 39 54
Village E Apartments 220 115 DU 765 12 47 59 47 25 72
Village F Apartments 220 180 DU 1,197 18 74 92 73 39 112
Village G Apartments 220 130 DU 865 13 54 67 53 28 81
School Elementary
School
520 730
Students
942 181 148 329 54 56 110
College University /
College
550 5,000
Students
8,550 663 187 850 272 578 850
Rec. Center Community
Center
495 29 KSF 981 40 20 60 39 41 80
Subtotal: 22,907 1,104 1,084 2,188 1,095 2,208
Mode Shift Adjustment / Internalization Reduction
(using the MXD model)
-16% -12% -16%
-3,675 -136 -134 -270 -171 -174 -344
Total Net Project Trip Generation 19,232 968 950 1,918 924 939 1,864
DU = Dwelling Unit; KSF = 1,000 Square Feet
SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2015, using ITE Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition.
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-14 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
The project trip distribution reflects the likely approach and departure routes to the project site.
Project traffic was assigned to the roadway network based on distributions from Riverside Traffic
Analysis Model (RIVTAM) forecasts. AM and PM peak hour RIVTAM “select zone run”
forecasts were utilized to develop specific project trip distributions for each peak hour.2 The
following overall trip distribution pattern was estimated for the project-generated traffic:
• 17 percent to/from the North on I-15
• 20 percent to/from the South on I-15
• 20 percent to/from the East along Temecula Parkway
• 15 percent to/from the East along Rancho California
• 5 percent to/from the West along Rancho California
• 15 percent to/from the North along Diaz Road and Winchester Road
• 3 percent to/from the East on Santiago Road
• 5 percent to/from the Old Town/Front Street areas
Trip generation volumes were applied to trip distribution percentages to obtain the volume of
project trips assigned to study area roadways and intersections. The assignment of trips are shown
on figures within the TIA (Appendix I). Total project trips described above were added to
Existing Conditions volumes to develop Existing Plus Project volumes.
Intersection Operations
The intersection LOS results are summarized in Table 3.13-8 for Existing Plus Project Conditions,
and Table 3.13-9 compares the changes in delay and LOS between Existing Conditions and
Existing Plus Project Conditions at intersections that operate at LOS E or worse. Lane
configurations and peak hour traffic volumes at study intersections for Existing Plus Project
Conditions information can be found in the TIA (Appendix I).
The results of the LOS calculations indicate that the majority of the study intersections will operate
at an acceptable level of service according to their designated LOS standard. However, under
Existing Plus Project Conditions, the project would have a significant impact at seven intersections,
as described below.
2 The select zone analysis represents a project-only traffic model run, where the project’s trips are distributed and
assigned to the model roadway network.
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-15 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
TABLE 3.13-8
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – EXISTING (2015) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
Intersection
Traffic
Control1
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Vincent Moraga Dr./Diaz Rd. & Rancho California Rd. Signal 29.4 C 43.8 D
2. Jefferson Avenue & Rancho California Road Signal 61.1 E 100.1 F
3. I-15 Southbound & Rancho California Road Signal 29.4 C 32.2 C
4. I-15 Northbound & Rancho California Road Signal 9.8 A 24.6 C
5. Ynez Road & Rancho California Road Signal 39.9 D 80.8 F
6. Vincent Moraga Drive & Ridge Park Drive2 SSSC 19.7 C 30.9 D
7. A Street & Western Bypass2 Signal 8.8 A 9.0 A
8. Calle Cerillo & Western Bypass2 Signal 21.0 C 8.8 A
9. Old Town Front Street & Temecula Parkway Signal 10.0 B 19.0 B
10. I-15 Northbound & Temecula Parkway Signal 19.2 B 113.5 F
11. La Paz Road & Temecula Parkway Signal 17.6 B 24.9 C
12. Pechanga Parkway & Temecula Parkway Signal 23.2 C 31.5 C
13. Pechanga Parkway & Rainbow Canyon Signal 15.4 B 102.0 F
14. Margarita Road & Temecula Parkway Signal 104.6 F 72.7 E
15. Pujol Street & First Street SSSC 12.6 B 61.4 F
16. Old Town Front Street & First Street/Santiago Road Signal 16.1 B 22.3 C
17. Ynez Road & Santiago Road Signal 27.7 C 58.0 E
18. Business Park Drive & Rancho California Road Signal 17.2 B 33.1 C
19. Diaz Road & Rancho Way Signal 8.8 A 10.0 B
20. Diaz Road & Winchester Road Signal 24.8 C 42.2 D
21. Jefferson Avenue & Winchester Road Signal 35.6 D 54.6 D
22. I-15 Southbound & Winchester Road Signal 14.1 B 12.0 B
23. I-15 Northbound & Winchester Road Signal 13.4 B 12.5 B
24. Ynez Road & Winchester Road Signal 30.2 C 49.8 D
25. I-15 Southbound & Temecula Parkway Signal 99.8 F 97.3 F
1. SSSC = Side=Street Stop=Controlled
2. Intersections that do not currently exist, but would be created when the project constructs the Western Bypass.
3. Intersections operating below acceptable standards are noted in bold.
SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2015
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-16 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
TABLE 3.13-9
COMPARISON OF EXISTING VS. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
(change in vehicle delay vs. allowable)
Intersection
Traffic
Control1
With Project
LOS
AM
(PM)
Allowable
Δ Delay
AM
(PM)
No
Project
AM
(PM)
With
Project
AM
(PM)
Δ Delay
AM
(PM)
2. Jefferson Avenue & Rancho
California Road
Signal E
(F)
<2.0
(<2.0)
85.4
(70.7)
61.1
(100.1)
-24.3
(29.4)
5. Ynez Road &
Rancho California Road
Signal D
(F)
--
(<2.0)
--
(48.4)
--
(80.8)
--
(32.4)
10. I-15 Northbound Ramps &
Temecula Parkway
Signal B
(F)
--
(<2.0)
--
(41.4)
--
(113.5)
--
(72.1)
13. Pechanga Parkway &
Rainbow Canyon Rd.
Signal B
(F)
--
(<2.0)
--
101.0
--
102.0
--
(1.0)3
14. Margarita Road &
Temecula Parkway
Signal F
(E)
<2.0
(<2.0)
88.7
(52.5)
104.6
(72.7)
15.9
(20.2)
15. Pujol Street &
First Street
SSSC B
(F)
--
(<2.0)
--
(41.0)
--
(61.4)
--
(20.4)
17. Ynez Road &
Santiago Drive
Signal C
(E)
--
(<2.0)
--
(48.4)
--
(58.0)
--
(9.6)
25. I-15 Southbound Ramps &
Temecula Parkway
Signal F
(F)
-<2.0
(<2.0)
41.1
35.5
99.8
(97.3)
58.7
(61.8)
1. SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control
2. Bold-italicized type indicates significant project impact.
3. No project impact at Intersection #13 as the addition of Project traffic does not increase delay by more than 2 seconds.
SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2015
Table 3.13-9 compares the change in delay and LOS between “Existing” and “Existing Plus Project
scenarios for intersections operating at an unacceptable LOS E of F. As shown in this table, the
project would not result in an increase in delay of 2.0 seconds or more at the Pechanga Parkway
and Rainbow Canyon Road intersection that already operates at an unacceptable LOS F under
Existing Conditions. This intersection would continue to operate at LOS F during the PM peak
hour with delay increasing by 1.0 second under Existing Plus Project Conditions. Because the
project would increase delay by less than two seconds, the result would be a less-than-significant
impact.
Impact TRA-1: Development of the Specific Plan will cause the average delay at Jefferson
Avenue/ Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road (Intersection #2) to degrade from an
unacceptable LOS E to LOS F and would increase delay by more than the 2.0-second threshold of
significance during the PM peak hour.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-17 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-1: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3,
the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system-wide signal timing
optimization (phase timings and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since
Rancho California Road and Jefferson Avenue operate on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing
Program, the developer shall be responsible for system-wide optimization along both corridors to
mitigate impacts.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
This mitigation will improve PM peak-hour operations to an acceptable LOS D, reducing the
project impact at this intersection to a less than significant level.
Impact TRA-2: Development of the Specific Plan will cause the level of service at Ynez Road
and Rancho California Road (Intersection #5) to degrade from an acceptable LOS D or better to
an unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-2: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3,
the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system-wide signal timing
optimization (phase timings and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since
Rancho California Road and Ynez Road operate on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program,
the developer shall be responsible for system-wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate
impacts.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
This mitigation will improve PM peak hour operations to an acceptable LOS D, reducing the
project impact at this intersection to a less than significant level.
Impact TRA-3: Development of the Specific Plan will cause the level of service at I-15
Northbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway (Intersection #10) to degrade from an acceptable
LOS D or better to an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-3: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3,
the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for signal timing optimization
(phase timings and cycle length) at the intersection of I-15 Northbound Ramps and Temecula
Parkway to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. The project proponent/developer shall coordinate implementation of this improvement
with Caltrans.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
This mitigation will improve PM peak hour operations to an acceptable LOS B, reducing the
project impact at this intersection to a less than significant level.
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-18 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
Impact TRA-4: Development of the Specific Plan will cause the average delay at Margarita
Road and Temecula Parkway (Intersection #14) to increase by more than the 2.0-second threshold
of significance, within unacceptable LOS F conditions, during the AM peak hour, and would
cause the PM peak-hour level of service to degrade from an acceptable LOS D to an unacceptable
LOS E.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-4: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3,
the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system-wide signal timing
optimization (phase timings and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since
Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway operate an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the
developer shall be responsible for system-wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate
impacts.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
This mitigation will improve AM and PM peak-hour operations to an acceptable LOS D,
reducing the project impact at this intersection to a less than significant level.
Impact TRA-5: Development of the Specific Plan will cause the level of service for the
westbound First Street approach at unsignalized Pujol Street and First Street (Intersection #15) to
degrade from an acceptable LOS D to an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-5: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3,
the project proponent/developer shall install stop signs on the Pujol Street approaches at the
intersection of Pujol Street and First Street, converting the intersection from side-street stop-
control to all-way stop control.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
This mitigation will improve PM peak-hour operations to an acceptable LOS B, reducing the
project impact at this intersection to a less than significant level. Per the TIA (Appendix I of this
DEIR), the intersection would not meet the peak hour signal warrant under the AM or PM peak
hour condition.
Impact TRA-6: Development of the Specific Plan will cause the average delay at Ynez Road and
Santiago Road (Intersection #17) to increase by more than the 2.0 second threshold of
significance, within unacceptable LOS E conditions, during the PM peak hour.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-6: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 2,
the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for one additional exclusive
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-19 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
eastbound left turn lane and signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) at the
intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
This mitigation will improve PM peak hour operations to an acceptable LOS D, reducing the
project impact at this intersection to a less than significant level
Impact TRA-7: Development of the Specific Plan will cause the level of service at the existing I-
15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway (Intersection #25) to degrade from an acceptable
LOS D or better to an unacceptable LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours.
It is acknowledged under the Existing Plus Project scenario that a Capital Improvement Project
(CIP) by the City of Temecula, entitled “I-15 / SR 79 South (Temecula Parkway) Ultimate
Interchange”, has been permitted and fully funded and is scheduled to start construction in Fiscal
Year 2015-2016, well ahead of the first building permit being issued for the project. The
intersection is within Caltrans’ jurisdiction and requires Caltrans approval. Scheduled
improvements to this intersection will remove this intersection; replacing it with a reconfigured
intersection of Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway to accommodate a southbound loop
off-ramp and southbound on-ramp for I-15.These improvements would reduce project impacts at
this intersection to below a level of significance.
However, the schedule for the improvements is outside the control of the City of Temecula, and it
cannot be guaranteed that the improvements will be completed prior to the issuance of any
certificate of occupancy for the project. Based on this information, and to exercise a conservative
approach to impact assessment, it is possible that there could be a significant impact at this
intersection. There is no feasible mitigation to reduce this potential impact to less than significant.
Significance Determination: Significant and unavoidable
Roadway Segment Operations
The roadway segment LOS results are summarized in Table 3.13-10 for weekday conditions
under the Existing Plus Project scenario. As shown in the table, all of the study roadway segments
would operate acceptably at LOS E or better, and impacts would be less than significant.
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-20 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
TABLE 3.13-10
ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE – EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
Roadway From To Classification Capacity ADT1 LOS2
1. Rancho California Rd Diaz Road Old Town Front St Principal Arterial 54,000 18,619 E or Better
2. Vincent Moraga Dr Rancho California Rd Ridge Park Dr Major Arterial 36,000 8,528 E or Better
3. Western Bypass A Street Pujol Street Major Arterial 36,000 5,903 E or Better
4. Western Bypass Pujol Street Old Town Front St Major Arterial 36,000 12,085 E or Better
5. Temecula Pkwy La Paz Road Wabash Lane Urban Arterial 72,200 70,113 E or Better
6. Temecula Pkwy Pechanga Pkwy Margarita Road Principal Arterial 54,000 44,500 E or Better
7. Diaz Rd Rancho California Rd Via Montezuma Rd Major Arterial 36,000 10,561 E or Better
8. Rancho California Rd I-15 Ynez Road Urban Arterial 72,200 58,842 E or Better
9. Diaz Rd Via Montezuma Rd Winchester Road Major Arterial 36,000 15,599 E or Better
10. Winchester Rd Diaz Road Jefferson Ave Major Arterial 36,000 28,614 E or Better
11. Winchester Rd I-15 Ynez Road Urban Arterial 72,200 67,106 E or Better
1. ADT = Average Daily Traffic volume.
2. Capacities (maximum ADT) represents LOS E thresholds.
SOURCES: City of Temecula General Plan, 2005. Fehr & Peers, 2015
Cumulative (2025) Traffic Conditions
Existing traffic is expected to increase about 2 percent per year between year 2015 and year 2025
as a result of general area-wide and regional growth and development. In addition to the ambient
growth, 2025 Baseline Traffic Volumes include estimated traffic generated by related projects
(see Appendix F in the TIA) expected to be implemented in the vicinity of the project study area
prior to 2025. Trip generation estimates for the related projects were calculated using a
combination of previous studies and trip generation rates contained in the Trip Generation
Manual, 9th Edition (ITE, 2010). The related projects are forecast to generate a combined total of
about 24,388 daily trips, with 2,961 AM peak-hour trips and 1,673 PM peak-hour trips. Trips
generated from the project were added to the year 2025 baseline traffic volumes to develop traffic
volumes for Cumulative (2025) plus Project Conditions.
Planned Roadway Improvements
Cumulative (2025) conditions assumed construction of the I-15/Temecula Parkway intersection
reconfiguration project (slated to start during Fiscal Year 2014-15), which will remove the
existing southbound I-15 freeway ramps at Temecula Parkway, and reconfigure the intersection
of Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway to accommodate southbound on- and off-ramps
for I-15. The improved intersection of Old Town/Front Street/I-15 Southbound and Temecula
Parkway will have the following lane configurations:
Northbound Approach (I-15 On-/Off-Ramps): one left, one through, one shared through-
right, and one channelized free right turn lane
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-21 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
Southbound Approach (Old Town /Front Street): one left, one through, and one shared
through-right
Eastbound Approach (Western Bypass): one left, one through, and one shared through-
right
Westbound Approach (Temecula Parkway): two lefts, two through lanes, and one right
turn lane
Intersection Operations Analysis
Level of service calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations
under Cumulative (2025) conditions without and with project traffic for the weekday AM and PM
peak hours. Signal timing plans were optimized using engineering judgment as well as the Synchro
8 software to reflect the likelihood that in the future, existing timings will be changed to
accommodate substantially different traffic volumes and conditions. The intersection analysis
results are summarized in Table 3.13-11, which indicates that the majority of the study
intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service according to their designated LOS
standard.3 However, under Cumulative (2025) plus Project Conditions, the project would have a
significant impact at five intersections, as described below.
Development of the Specific Plan will cause the Cumulative (2025) level of service for the
westbound First Street approach at unsignalized Pujol Street and First Street (Intersection #15) to
degrade from an acceptable LOS D or better to an unacceptable LOS F during both the AM and
PM peak hours. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-5 would result in a
less than significant impact. This mitigation will improve PM peak hour operations to an
acceptable LOS C, reducing the project impact at this intersection to a less than significant level.
It is noted that the intersection would not meet the peak hour signal warrant under the AM or PM
peak hour condition.
Development of the Specific Plan will cause the Cumulative (2025) average delay at Ynez Road
and Santiago Road (Intersection #17) to increase by more than the 2.0-second threshold of
significance, within unacceptable LOS E conditions, during the PM peak hour. However,
implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-6 would result in a less than significant impact.
This mitigation will improve PM peak hour operations to an acceptable LOS D, reducing the
project impact at this intersection to a less than significant level.
3 It should be noted that operating LOS at several study intersections would improve with implementation of the
project due to the construction of the Western Bypass. The bypass would provide an alternative north/south route
for trips that currently are required to travel through Old Town on Pujol Street and Old Town Front Street. The
decrease in traffic on these corridors resulted in improved LOS operations at several study intersections.
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-22 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
TABLE 3.13-11
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – CUMULATIVE (2025) CONDITIONS
Intersection
Traffic
Control1
Cumulative (2025) without Project Cumulative (2025) with Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Vincent Moraga/Diaz &
Rancho California Signal 25.9 C 46.6 D 29.2 C 46.2 D
2. Jefferson /Old Town Front
St. &
Rancho California
Signal 51.6 D 49.8 D 50.3 D 49.0 D
3. I-15 Southbound & Rancho
California Signal 29.7 C 30.3 C 31.4 C 34.4 C
4. I-15 Northbound & Rancho
California Signal 9.0 A 17.5 B 9.1 A 18.6 B
5. Ynez Road &
Rancho California Signal 41.8 D 53.0 D 46.8 D 56.4 E
6. Vincent Moraga &
Ridge Park2 SSSC Would Not Exist without Project 27.5 D 32.0 D
7. A Street &
Western Bypass2 Signal Would Not Exist without Project 9.2 A 9.2 A
8. Project Road & Western
Bypass2 Signal Would Not Exist without Project 21.2 C 9.2 A
9. Old Town Front.I-15 SB &
Temecula Pkwy Signal 28.5 C 44.8 D 53.7 D 52.8 D
10. I-15 Northbound &
Temecula Pkwy Signal 39.1 D 34.2 C 23.3 C 30.3 C
11. La Paz Road & Temecula
Pkwy Signal 59.8 E 68.4 E 68.8 E 92.7 F
12. Pechanga Pkwy &
Temecula Pkwy Signal 29.9 C 34.0 C 32.2 C 34.7 C
13. Pechanga Pkwy &
Rainbow Canyon Signal 30.4 C 176.9 F 31.9 C 178.0 F
14. Margarita Road &
Temecula Parkway Signal 50.7 D 54.0 D 55.1 E 58.2 E
15. Pujol Street &
First Street SSSC 13.7 B 101.1 F 22.1 C >200 F
16. Old Town Front &
First/Santiago Signal 17.0 B 27.6 C 16.4 B 25.0 C
17. Ynez Road &
Santiago Road Signal 28.8 C 63.0 E 34.0 C 72.5 E
18. Business Park & Rancho
California Signal 14.6 B 31.3 C 20.3 C 32.1 C
19. Diaz Road &
Rancho Way Signal 8.2 A 9.6 A 9.2 A 10.3 B
20. Diaz Road & Winchester
Road Signal 24.0 C 43.7 D 24.6 C 42.0 D
21. Jefferson Avenue &
Winchester Road Signal 47.0 D 45.0 D 47.2 D 43.0 D
22. I-15 Southbound &
Winchester Road Signal 13.1 B 16.6 B 13.3 B 17.1 B
23. I-15 Northbound &
Winchester Road Signal 11.1 B 14.0 B 11.2 B 14.1 B
24. Ynez Road & Winchester
Road Signal 37.1 D 37.9 D 37.3 D 37.9 D
1. SSSC = Side-Street Stop-Controlled
2. Intersections that do not currently exist, but would be created when the project constructs the Western Bypass.
3. Intersections operating below acceptable standards are noted in bold; shaded-bold signifies significant impact.
SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2015
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-23 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
Impact TRA-8: Development of the Specific Plan will cause the Cumulative (2025) level of
service at Ynez Road and Rancho California Road (Intersection #5) to degrade from an
acceptable LOS D to an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-8: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3,
the project proponent/developer shall contribute 20 percent of the cost for the construction of one
additional exclusive right turn lane for eastbound Rancho California Road at Ynez Road for
acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
This mitigation will improve PM peak hour operations to an acceptable LOS D, reducing the
project impact at this intersection to a less than significant level.
Impact TRA-9: Development of the Specific Plan will cause the Cumulative (2025) average
delay at La Paz Road and Temecula Parkway (Intersection #11) to increase by more than the
2.0-second threshold of significance, within unacceptable LOS E conditions, during the AM peak
hour, and would cause the PM peak-hour level of service to degrade from an unacceptable LOS E
to an unacceptable LOS F.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-9: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3,
the project proponent/developer shall contribute 20 percent of the cost for the construction of a
fourth through lane for eastbound and westbound Temecula Parkway at La Paz Road, for
acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
This mitigation will improve AM and PM peak hour operations to an acceptable LOS D, reducing
the project impact at this intersection to a less than significant level.
Impact TRA-10: Development of the Specific Plan will cause the Cumulative (2025) level of
service at Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway (Intersection #14) to degrade from an
acceptable LOS D or better to an unacceptable LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-10: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3,
the project proponent/developer shall contribute 15 percent of the cost for the construction of an
exclusive right turn for westbound Temecula Parkway at Margarita Road, for the acquisition of
right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-24 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
This mitigation will improve AM and PM peak hour operations to an acceptable LOS D, reducing
the project impact at this intersection to a less than significant level.
Roadway Segment Operations
The roadway segment LOS results are summarized in Table 3.13-12 for weekday conditions
under the Cumulative (2025) without and with project scenarios. As shown in the table, all of the
study roadway segments would operate acceptably at LOS E or better, and impacts would be less
than significant.
TABLE 3.13-12
ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) – CUMULATIVE (2025) CONDITIONS
Roadway From To Classification Capacity
No
Project
ADT
Plus
Project
ADT1 LOS2
1. Rancho California Diaz Road Old Town Front Principal Arterial 54,000 15,880 19,793 E or Better
2. Vincent Moraga Rancho California Ridge Park Dr Major Arterial 36,000 1,288 10,584 E or Better
3. Western Bypass A Street Pujol Street Major Arterial 36,000 N/A3 13,023 E or Better
4. Western Bypass Pujol Street Old Town Front Major Arterial 36,000 3,122 22,996 E or Better
5. Temecula Pkwy La Paz Road Wabash Lane Urban Arterial 72,200 68,670 72,133 E or Better
6. Temecula Pkwy Pechanga Margarita Principal Arterial 54,000 46,340 48,931 E or Better
7. Diaz Rd Rancho California Via Montezuma Major Arterial 36,000 14,510 17,414 E or Better
8. Rancho California I-15 Ynez Road Urban Arterial 72,200 65,554 67,852 E or Better
9. Diaz Rd Via Montezuma Winchester Rd Major Arterial 36,000 17,985 20,889 E or Better
10. Winchester Diaz Road Jefferson Ave Major Arterial 36,000 24,120 25,275 E or Better
11. Winchester I-15 Ynez Road Urban Arterial 72,200 67,450 68,604 E or Better
1. ADT = Average Daily Traffic volume.
2. Capacities (maximum ADT) represents LOS E thresholds.
3. Segment 3 of the Western Bypass to be constructed under Plus Project Conditions only.
SOURCES: City of Temecula General Plan, 2005. Fehr & Peers, 2015
General Plan Build Out (2035) Traffic Conditions
General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions are defined as traffic conditions that are forecast to
occur based upon the City of Temecula’s General Plan year 2035 build out assumptions. The
Riverside County Travel Analysis Model (RIVTAM) was used to evaluate growth within the City
of Temecula and the region. RIVTAM utilizes inputs such as land use, travel behavior, and
roadway network characteristics (number of lanes, speed, etc.) to estimate traffic demand on area
roadways. The model is calibrated specifically to evaluate conditions in Riverside County and
meets state and federal guidelines for model calibration.
Planned Roadway Improvements
General Plan Build Out (2035) Conditions assumed the following future improvements within the
Specific Plan area and surrounding roadway network:
• Removing existing southbound I-15 freeway ramps at Temecula Parkway and
reconfiguring the intersection of Old Town Front Street/Temecula Parkway to
accommodate a southbound loop off-ramp and southbound on-ramp for I-15. The
improved intersection will have the following lane configurations: one left, one through,
one through-right shared, and one channelized free right turn lane in the northbound
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-25 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
direction; one left, one through, and one through-right shared in the southbound direction,
one left, one through, and one through-right shared in the eastbound direction; and two
lefts, two through lanes, and one right turn lane in the westbound direction. This
alternative also assumes Temecula Parkway to provide four lanes in each direction
between I-15 and Pechanga Parkway. Caltrans projects a completion date between 2025
and 2035.
• A roadway extension of Avenida De Missiones from Via Rio Temecula to Loma Linda
Road at Via Del Coronado, which is modeled as a two-lane undivided Collector. This
extension is designated in the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element and is
estimated to be completed by 2035.
• The addition of the Eastern Bypass. The Eastern Bypass will run from Winchester Road
and run along the southern boundary of the City via Butterfield Stage Road looping west
towards the I-15 where the construction of ramps is proposed. The SCAG 2012-2035
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) identifies a
completion date of 2030.
• The addition of French Valley Parkway, which will connect Date Street, over I-15, to
Cherry Street at Jefferson Avenue as a six lane, divided Principal Arterial.
• The extension of Temecula Parkway/Western Bypass Corridor from the intersection at
Old Town Front Street/Western Bypass to Vincent Moraga Drive/Diaz Road/Date Street.
This extension is designated in the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element as
a four-lane divided Major Arterial and is estimated to be completed by 2035.
• The extension of Overland Drive from Commerce Center Drive to Diaz Road to connect
with Avenida Alvarado. Overland Drive is modeled as a four-lane, undivided Secondary
Arterial between Ynez Road and Diaz Road; and Avenida Alvarado is modeled as a two-
lane, undivided Collector. The SCAG 2012-2035 (RTP/SCS) identifies a completion date
of 2018.
• The extension of Murrieta Hot Springs Road, as a six-lane, divided Arterial, from
Jefferson Avenue to Adams Avenue, connecting with Hawthorn Street. This extension is
designated in the City of Murrieta General Plan Circulation Element and is estimated to
be completed by 2035.
• The extension of Diaz Road from Rancho California Road to Cherry Street. The
extension is currently designated as a four lane divided major arterial and is estimated to
be completed by 2035.
Intersection Operations Analysis
Level of Service calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their
operations under General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions without and with project traffic for
the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Signal timing plans were optimized using engineering
judgment as well as the Synchro 8 software to reflect the likelihood that, in the future, existing
timings will be changed to accommodate substantially different traffic volumes and conditions.
The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 3.13-13, which indicates that the
majority of the study intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service according to their
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-26 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
designated LOS standard. However, under General Plan Build Out (2035) plus Project
Conditions, the project would exacerbate unacceptable intersections operations at four of the
intersections operating unacceptably under General Plan Build Out (2035) No Project Conditions,
which is considered a significant impact at those four intersections, as described below.
Development of the Specific Plan would cause the General Plan Build Out (2035) delay to
increase the AM and PM peak hour delay at Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway
(Intersection #14) by more than the 2.0-second threshold of significance, within unacceptable
LOS E and F conditions, respectively. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-
TRA-10 would improve AM and PM peak hour operations to an acceptable LOS D, reducing the
project impact at this intersection to a less than significant level.
Impact TRA-11: Development of the Specific Plan will cause the General Plan Build Out (2035)
level of service at Ynez Road and Rancho California Road (Intersection #5) to degrade during the
AM peak hour. The project will cause the average delay to increase by more than the 2.0-second
threshold of significance at an unacceptable LOS of E.
The addition of an exclusive eastbound right turn lane as identified under Cumulative Plus Project
conditions and the construction of one additional northbound left turn lane would improve
intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D. This mitigation will require widening of the
roadway however all four quadrants of this intersection are developed and there is limited right-
of-way surrounding the intersection. The additional northbound left turn lane improvement would
encroach into the adjacent pond/park on the southeast quadrant and would be infeasible to
construct. Given the right-of-way constraints at this location, there is no feasible mitigation.
Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Significance Determination: Significant and unavoidable
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-27 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
TABLE 3.13-13
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – GENERAL PLAN BUILD OUT (2035) CONDITIONS
Intersection
Traffic
Control1
General Plan Build Out (2035)
without Project
General Plan Build Out (2035)
with Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Vincent Moraga/Diaz &
Rancho California Signal 36.0 D 56.3 E 26.3 C 45.2 D
2. Jefferson / Old Town
Front St. &
Rancho California
Signal 24.7 C 50.2 D 26.7 C 53.2 D
3. I-15 Southbound &
Rancho California Signal 36.8 D 41.2 D 37.0 D 54.8 D
4. I-15 Northbound &
Rancho California Signal 10.2 B 25.7 C 10.5 B 26.9 C
5. Ynez Road &
Rancho California Signal 51.7 D 70.3 E 57.0 E 67.1 E
6. Vincent Moraga &
Ridge Park SSSC 22.4 C 155.7 F 179.1 F >2002 F
7. A Street &
Western Bypass3 Signal 6.5 A 4.3 A 42.7 D 30.3 C
8. Project Road &
Western Bypass3 Signal 11.0 B 17.9 B 30.0 C 14.8 B
9. Old Town Front/I-15
SB & Temecula Pkwy Signal 26.3 C 42.1 D 50.2 D 54.1 D
10. I-15 Northbound &
Temecula Pkwy Signal 19.6 B 25.5 C 27.2 C 33.0 C
11. La Paz Road &
Temecula Pkwy Signal 28.2 C 23.8 C 33.7 C 25.5 C
12. Pechanga Pkwy &
Temecula Pkwy Signal 18.6 B 14.9 B 19.3 B 14.8 B
13. Pechanga Pkwy &
Rainbow Canyon Signal 4.9 A 11.3 B 5.0 A 11.1 B
14. Margarita Road &
Temecula Parkway Signal 68.4 E 93.6 F 76.2 E 101.6 F
15. Pujol Street &
First Street SSSC 17.5 C >2002 F 22.1 C >2002 F
16. Old Town Front &
First/Santiago Signal 17.7 B 23.8 C 18.0 B 25.1 C
17. Ynez Road &
Santiago Road Signal 25.5 C 41.8 D 25.9 C 42.4 D
18. Business Park &
Rancho California Signal 15.3 B 31.9 C 15.6 B 32.7 C
19. Diaz Road &
Rancho Way Signal 23.0 C 20.8 C 24.9 C 23.0 C
20. Diaz Road &
Winchester Road Signal 20.7 C 37.5 D 21.5 C 40.1 D
21. Jefferson Avenue &
Winchester Road Signal 43.9 D 48.5 D 45.4 D 48.4 D
22. I-15 Southbound &
Winchester Road Signal 13.8 B 19.6 B 13.6 B 17.6 B
23. I-15 Northbound &
Winchester Road Signal 11.3 B 18.4 A 11.3 B 9.4 A
24. Ynez Road &
Winchester Road Signal 40.4 D 50.5 D 41.2 D 52.0 D
1. SSSC = Side-Street Stop-Controlled
2. Delay in excess of 200 seconds indicates overflow conditions
3. Intersections that do not currently exist, but would be created when the project constructs the Western Bypass.
4. Intersections operating below acceptable standards are noted in bold; shaded-bold signifies significant impact.
SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2015
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-28 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
Impact TRA-12: Development of the Specific Plan will cause the General Plan Build Out (2035)
level of service for the eastbound Ridge Park Drive approach at unsignalized Vincent Moraga
Drive and Ridge Park Drive (Intersection #6) to degrade from an acceptable LOS C to an
unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour, and to increase the PM peak-hour delay by more
than the 2.0-second threshold of significance, within unacceptable LOS F conditions.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-12: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3,
the project proponent/developer shall contribute 43 percent of the cost to construct improvements
at the west Ridge Park Drive leg to allow for right-in / right-out turn movements only at the
intersection of Vincent Moraga Drive and Ridge Park Drive, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. This improvement would prohibit vehicles from making northbound left and
westbound left turning movements at the intersection.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Impact TRA-13: Development of the Specific Plan will cause the General Plan Build Out (2035)
level of service for the westbound First Street approach at unsignalized Pujol Street and First
Street (Intersection #15) to degrade from an acceptable LOS D or better to an unacceptable
LOS F during the PM peak hour.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-13: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3,
the project proponent/developer shall contribute 17 percent of the cost to install traffic signals at
the intersection of Pujol Street and First Street.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
The intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant under AM and PM peak hour
conditions. This mitigation will improve PM peak-hour operations to an acceptable LOS C,
reducing the project impact at this intersection to a less than significant level.
Roadway Segment Operations
The roadway segment LOS results are summarized in Table 3.13-14 for weekday conditions
under the General Plan Buildout (2035) without and with project scenarios. As shown in the
table, all of the study roadway segments would operate acceptably at LOS E or better, except the
following:
• Temecula Parkway between La Paz Road and Wabash Lane.
Development of the Specific Plan will exacerbate an unacceptable LOS F condition on Temecula
Parkway between La Paz Road and Wabash Lane under General Plan Build Out (2035)
conditions.
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-29 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
This roadway segment analysis assumed Temecula Parkway to be constructed to its General Plan
build out condition as an 8-lane urban arterial. Even as an 8-lane urban arterial the roadway
would operate at a LOS F under General Plan (2035) conditions, both without and with the
addition of Project traffic. Additional widening of Temecula Parkway is infeasible due to limited
right-of-way.
Although the ratio of volume to capacity methodology can effectively identify potential capacity
issues, roadway segment operations are typically defined by the operations of signalized
intersections when ADT exceeds LOS D thresholds. This standard guideline is best described in
the roadway/arterial LOS methodology contained in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual
(Transportation Research Board, 2010). Intersections #11 (La Paz Road and Temecula Parkway)
and #12 (Pechanga Parkway and Rainbow Canyon Road) are forecast to operate at acceptable
LOS under General Plan Buildout (2035) Plus Project conditions. The acceptable operating
conditions indicate that the roadway segment capacity would be sufficient to maintain acceptable
roadway operations without adding additional lanes on Temecula Parkway. Based on the
intersection LOS along the corridor, the Project would result in a less than significant impact at
the roadway segment of Temecula Parkway between La Paz Road and Wabash Lane.
TABLE 3.13-14
ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) – GENERAL PLAN BUILD OUT (2035) CONDITIONS
Roadway From To Classification Capacity
No
Project
ADT
Plus
Project
ADT1 LOS2
1. Rancho
California
Diaz Road Old Town Front Principal Arterial 54,000 17,150 21,063 E or Better
2. Vincent
Moraga
Rancho California Ridge Park Dr Major Arterial 36,000 20,006 27,550 E or Better
3. Western
Bypass
A Street Pujol Street Major Arterial 36,000 16,239 22,142 E or Better
4. Western
Bypass
Pujol Street Old Town Front Major Arterial 36,000 19,115 29,431 E or Better
5. Temecula
Pkwy
La Paz Road Wabash Lane Urban Arterial 72,200 76,517 79,980 F
6. Temecula
Pkwy
Pechanga Margarita Principal Arterial 54,000 51,320 53,821 E or Better
7. Diaz Rd Rancho California Via Montezuma Major Arterial 36,000 27,460 30,364 E or Better
8. Rancho
California
I-15 Ynez Road Urban Arterial 72,200 69,519 71,824 E or Better
9. Diaz Rd Via Montezuma Winchester Rd Major Arterial 36,000 19,211 22,155 E or Better
10. Winchester Diaz Road Jefferson Ave Major Arterial 36,000 26,190 27,345 E or Better
11. Winchester I-15 Ynez Road Urban Arterial 72,200 70,100 71,254 E or Better
1. ADT = Average Daily Traffic volume.
2. Capacities (maximum ADT) represent LOS E thresholds.
3. Roadway segments operating below acceptable standards are noted in bold; shaded-bold signifies significant impact.
SOURCES: City of Temecula General Plan, 2005. Fehr & Peers, 2015
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-30 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
Project Construction Traffic
Impact TRA-14: The proposed project may conflict with applicable plans and congestion
management programs by resulting in temporary but prolonged adverse effects on intersection
LOS during project construction.
Construction of the proposed project would generate a variety of truck and employee trips during
site grading and construction of the proposed Specific Plan. Since the magnitude of these trips
during peak hours would be less than that of the proposed project, absolute impacts (in terms of
delay and queuing) when compared to project operations would not be significant. However,
construction staging and lane closures could cause adverse effects if not carefully planned. Thus,
the proposed project could potentially cause a temporary but prolonged impact due to lane
closures, need for temporary signals, traffic hazards to bikes/pedestrians, damage to roadbed, or
truck traffic on roadways not designated as truck routes. For these reasons, impacts during
construction are considered potentially significant.
Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-14: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or any permit
that authorizes construction activities within the Specific Plan area, or at offsite locations for
improvements associated with the Specific Plan, the project applicant(s) shall prepare a
Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) for review and approval by the City of Temecula as part
of the permit application. The Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) shall include measures to
minimize the construction traffic volumes entering the roadway system (including local roads)
during AM and PM peak hours. At a minimum, the Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) shall
include the following implementation measures:
Construction truck routes shall be prepared to designate principal haul routes for trucks
delivering materials to and from the construction site.
Should a temporary road and/or lane closure be necessary during construction, the project
applicant shall provide traffic control activities and personnel, as necessary, to minimize
traffic impacts. This may include detour signage, cones, construction area signage,
flagmen, and other measures as required for safe traffic handling in the construction zone.
The project applicant shall keep a minimum of one lane in each direction free from
encumbrances at all times on perimeter roads accessing the project site. In the event a full
road closure is required, the contractor shall coordinate with the City of Temecula and
other affected jurisdictions (i.e., Caltrans, and/or County of Riverside) to designate
proper detour routes and signage to appropriate proper access routes.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
Conformance with Congestion Management Program
The passage of Proposition 111 in June 1990 established a process for each metropolitan county
in California, including Riverside County, to prepare a Congestion Management Plan (CMP). The
CMP, which was prepared by the RCTC in consultation with the County and the cities in
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-31 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
Riverside County, is an effort to align land use, transportation, and air quality management
efforts, to promote reasonable growth management programs that effectively use statewide
transportation funds, while ensuring that new development pays its fair share of needed
transportation improvements.
The focus of the CMP is the development of an Enhanced Traffic Monitoring System in which
real-time traffic count data can be accessed by RCTC to evaluate the condition of the Congestion
Management System (CMS) as well as meet other monitoring requirements at the State and
federal levels. Per the adopted level of service target of LOS E, when a CMS segment falls to
LOS F, a deficiency plan is required. Preparation of a deficiency plan is the responsibility of the
local agency where the deficiency is located. Other agencies identified as contributors to the
deficiency will also be required to coordinate with the development of the plan. The plan must
contain mitigation measures, including Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies
and transit alternatives, and a schedule of mitigating the deficiency. To ensure that the CMS is
appropriately monitored to reduce the occurrence of CMP deficiencies, it is the responsibility of
local agencies, when reviewing and approving development proposals, to consider the traffic
impacts on the CMS.
The only CMP facility within the traffic study area is I-15. There are no CMP arterials or
roadway segments within the project boundary.
Altair Specific Plan 3.13-32 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
The purpose of this section is to analyze the effects the project would have on utilities. The
analysis identifies and evaluates key utilities within the City of Temecula and provides a
determination of the impacts that could occur from the development of the project.
3.14.1 Environmental Setting
Water Service
Water Supplier
The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) currently provides water for urban and
agricultural uses in the City of Temecula. The RCWD’s service area encompasses approximately
155 square miles and includes the City of Temecula, portions of the City of Murrieta, and
unincorporated areas of southwestern Riverside County. The RCWD currently has 40,000 service
connections with 940 miles of water mains, 36 storage reservoirs, one surface reservoir
(Vail Lake), 47 groundwater wells (44 active wells), and provides water to approximately
134,000 people (RCWD, 2015a).
RCWD water consists of local groundwater (33 percent), imported water (56 percent) and
recycled water (11 percent). Groundwater supply is derived from wells that tap into the Murrieta-
Temecula Groundwater Basin and from Vail Lake excess runoff released periodically for
percolation into the groundwater basin. Imported water consists of State Water Project (SWP) and
Colorado River water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan)
delivered through the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and Western Municipal Water
District (WMWD). Highly treated wastewater (recycled water) is obtained from the Santa Rosa
Water Reclamation Facility (SRWRF) and the Temecula Valley Water Reclamation Facility
(TVRWRF). Well water and imported water are utilized for residential, commercial, landscape
irrigation, and agricultural uses. Recycled water is used to irrigate golf courses and larger
landscaped areas (RCWD, 2011). Table 3.14-1 summarizes RCWD’s current and projected water
supplies.
Water Demand
In 2013, the approximate amount of total potable water demand in the RCWD service area was
68,000 acre-feet (AF) (RCWD, 2015b). Table 3.14-2 illustrates the average past and planned
potable and nonpotable RCWD water demands by land use. Water demands within the area are
expected to increase by almost 28,000 AF by 2041. According to RCWD estimates, the single-
family residential sub-group currently does and will continue to account for the largest proportion
of these demands (RCWD, 2015b); second highest demand would be agricultural uses. Several
planning measures and programs have been implemented to ensure a reliable water supply in the
future and to address unforeseen potential shortages caused by drought or emergency situations.
On March 12, 2015, RCWD declared a Stage 4a Water Supply Warning, which requires
mandatory reductions in outdoor irrigation and water use within its service area. This included
mandatory water use efficiency requirements (RCWD, 2015b). RCWD’s 2007 Regional
Altair Specific Plan 3.14-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
Integrated Water Resources Plan was prepared to assist RCWD in developing a long-term water
supply strategy that can meet water demands from now until 2050 (RCWD, 2015b).
TABLE 3.14-1
RCWD EXISTING AND PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES (ACRE-FEET)
Water Supply Sources 2015 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041
Imported Water (MWD)
Treated 43,859 45,727 52, 082 56,445 60,833 65,288 69,776
Untreated1 12,700 13,500 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000
Untreated2 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
Local Groundwater Pumping 24,120 24,120 24,120 24,120 24,120 24,120 24,120
Recycled Water3 9,111 9,201 9,514 9,604 9,604 9,604 9,604
Vail Lake Release4 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
Total Supplies 93,970 96,548 112,716 117,169 121,557 126,012 130,500
1 Used for groundwater recharge. 2 Used for flows to the Santa Margarita River under settlement agreement with Camp Pendleton. 3 Includes total capacity for the SRWRF (3,160 AFY in 2010, 3,440 AFY in 2015 and 4,000 AFY in 2020 and beyond) and total under agreement with EMWD
from the TVRWRF (5,604 AFY or 5 MGD). As discussed in Section 4.3.3, RCWD is maximizing recycled water use based on current system capacity and
access to the supply. RCWD is continuing work to increase capacity and supply access. 4 Vail Lake releases to the Valle de los Caballos spreading basins for groundwater recharge.
SOURCE: RCWD, 2015b.
As mentioned previously, imported water in RCWD is sourced from Metropolitan. Despite
Metropolitan’s imported water supplies from the Colorado River and SWP being strained by
drought and environmental restrictions, Metropolitan has evaluated the dependability of its
supplies and has concluded that the combination of imported water and expanding local resource
programs would ensure its service area‘s demands would be met in the future. Metropolitan
adopted its Water Surplus and Drought Management (WSDM) Plan in 1998 that manages
resources and programs to maximize utilization of wet year supplies and minimizes adverse
impacts of water shortages to retail customers (RCWD, 2011).
Historically, groundwater has supplied between 25 to 40 percent of the District’s total water
supply and imported water has supplied between 60 to 70 percent. Wastewater is considered a
reliable and drought-resistant water source and, if recycled, will reduce the RCWD’s reliance on
potable water supplies. Recycled water has provided less than five percent of water supplied in
the past; however, current and planned improvements will increase the use of recycled water.
Steps being taken include implementing a Recycled Water Site Retrofit Program, installing a
microfiltration/reverse osmosis facility to add 3,586 AFY of recycled water for groundwater
recharge, and continuing negotiations with Eastern Municipal Water District for additional
recycled water supplies (RCWD, 2015b).
The District sold approximately 4,370 AFY of recycled water in 2010, through approximately
177 recycled water connections. Potential recycled water user categories that RCWD supports
include landscape irrigation, industrial reuse, agricultural irrigation, and groundwater recharge.
Currently, only imported water is used for groundwater recharge; recycled water for groundwater
Altair Specific Plan 3.14-2 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
recharge is currently under discussion with area stakeholders and regulatory agencies and will be
included in supply and demand projections once a commitment to the water supply is achieved
(RCWD, 2015b).
Metropolitan’s Seawater Desalination Program is considering five desalination projects by
member agencies that (if constructed) could produce about 166,000 AFY. This additional source
of water supply would provide greater water reliability for Southern California residents,
including residents in the RCWD’s water service area (RCWD, 2015b).
Water transfers and exchanges are a water management concept that helps to alleviate water
shortages in the region and Santa Margarita Watershed. RCWD is currently developing an
agreement for the installation of two emergency interconnections with EMWD to be operated
during periods of system failure. Water is also provided by EMWD to RCWD on an annual basis
for the wheeling of water to some of EMWD’s water customers (RCWD, 2015b).
TABLE 3.14-2
EXISTING AND PROJECTED AVERAGE WATER DEMANDS IN THE RCWD (AFY)1
Year 2015 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041
Single-Family Residential 35,672 36,629 40,479 43,600 46,667 48,484 48,964
Multi-Family Residential 2,306 2,618 3,708 4,364 5,167 5,593 5,824
Commercial, Institutional,
Industrial
3,765 3,841 4,071 4,230 4,395 4,459 4,474
Landscape/Golf Courses 6,153 6,302 6,919 7,447 7,979 8,274 8,518
Agricultural 19,207 19,471 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Other2 677 694 762 820 878 906 917
Potable Demand 67,780 69,556 75,939 80,461 85,088 87,716 88,697
Recycled & Non-
Domestic Demand 3
4,475 4,502 4,800 4,897 4,897 4,897 4,897
Sale of Water to Others 856 865 881 881 881 881 881
Groundwater Recharge
with Imported Water
12,700 13,500 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000
Santa Margarita River
Discharge
4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
Vail Lake Releases 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
Unaccounted-for Water 3,278 3,671 3,904 4,133 4,374 4,594 4,815
TOTAL WATER USE 96,089 99,094 115,524 120,372 125,240 128,088 129,290
Wastewater
Wastewater facilities for the City of Temecula are provided by Eastern Municipal Water District
(EMWD) and RCWD. The EMWD has four service areas and operates five Regional Water
Reclamation Facilities (RWRFs): Hemet-San Jacinto, Moreno Valley, Temecula Valley, Sun
City, and Perris Valley. The Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility is located
within the central commercial area of Temecula.
Altair Specific Plan 3.14-3 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
A portion of the City (primarily the Westside Business Centre area – west of Interstate 15) is
within RCWD’s wastewater service area. Wastewater flows within this area are treated at
RCWD’s Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility. The project area would be served by Santa
Rosa Water Reclamation Plant. The Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Plant was constructed in
1989 and has the capacity to treat five million gallons of wastewater per day. The plant collects
flow from areas within portions of RCWD’s service area, WMWD, and a portion of Elsinore
Valley Water District. The plant uses a biological treatment process followed by chemical
clarification, filtration and disinfection to prepare the water for reuse. Laboratory tests are
conducted daily to ensure that the water meets the State’s standards for reclaimed water.
RCWD’s reclaimed water customer’s use virtually all of the treated water In 2011, more than one
billion gallons of water were treated and reused (RCWD, 2015b).
Table 3.14-3 illustrates RCWD’s wastewater generation (average daily flow) by land use
classifications.
TABLE 3.14-3
RCWD’S WASTEWATER GENERATION BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
Residential
EDUs/ Unita
GPD/ Capita Typical Unit
Single-Family Residence 1.00 Parcel 250
Condominium 0.90 # of Units 225
Apartment 0.85 # of Units 213
Commercial/Industrial 1.65b 1,000 square feet 413
Institutional 0.20c 1,000 square feet 50
Other 1.00 1,000 square feet for first
1,000 square feet; 0.6 EDU for
each 1,000 square feet thereafter
250;150
a For calculation of actual flow, the Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) per unit is used. One EDU equals 250
gallons per day.
b The Sewer System Facility Requirements and Design Guidelines identify a wide range of commercial and
industrial activities with varying levels of wastewater generation (average daily flow). The category used in
this table is Shopping Center since it is a higher wastewater generation (average daily flow) than the other
types of commercial and industrial activities listed, resulting in a more conservative estimate of wastewater
generation (average daily flow) but within a reasonable range of what would be anticipated for this Project.
The commercial and industrial activities wastewater generation (average daily flow) range from 0.07 to 14.0
with the majority of activities falling under 1.0 EDU. c Institutional uses include schools and churches and water use varies depending on the type of facilities (e.g.,
schools with showers or no showers). Schools with cafeteria and showers use 0.10 EDU per student.
SOURCE: RCWD, 2014.
Storm Drains
The project site is situated at the base of the Santa Rosa foothills on the westerly side of the
Temecula Valley. Storm water runoff from these foothills flows easterly across the project site
and directly or indirectly into Murrieta Creek. Storm runoff is conveyed over the natural ground
surface as sheet flow or in ravines towards the east (Chang Consultants, 2015). The runoff is
collected by a series of existing storm drain facilities near the easterly property line (Chang
Altair Specific Plan 3.14-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
Consultants, 2015). The facilities convey the site runoff easterly into the nearby Murrieta Creek
(Chang Consultants, 2015).
Solid Waste
The City of Temecula contracts with CR&R Waste and Recycling Services for solid waste
collection and disposal services. Household waste is transported to a processing center in Stanton,
and commercial/industrial waste is transported to the Perris Transfer Station/Materials Recovery
Facility (TS/MRF) (located at 1706 Goetz Road) (City of Temecula, 2005). At TS/MRFs, the
solid waste is unloaded from collection vehicles and loaded onto larger long-distance transport
vehicles for shipment to landfills or other treatment or disposal facilities (USEPA, 2012). The
City of Temecula’s solid waste is hauled to both the El Sobrante and Badlands Landfills in
Riverside County (City of Temecula, 2005). The closest landfill to the project area is the El
Sobrante Landfill, located east of I-15 and Temescal Canyon Road at 10910 Dawson Canyon
Road, 27 miles from the project site. As of 2009, the year for which the most recent information
is available, the remaining capacity of this landfill was 145,530,000 tons with an estimated cease
operation date of 2045. The daily disposal rate is 16,054 tons/day (CalRecycle, 2009a). The
Badlands Landfill, located at 31125 Ironwood Avenue in Moreno Valley, is approximately 31
miles northeast from the project site. As of 2010, the year for which the most recent information
is available, the remaining capacity of this landfill was 14,730,025 cubic yards with an estimated
cease operation date of 2024. The daily disposal rate is 4,000 tons/day (CalRecycle, 2009b).
The City provides curbside recycling services and green waste services. Recyclable materials are
collected and transported to the Perris TS/MRF for processing. Garden materials are hauled to a
separate facility for composting, and the remaining waste is hauled to the El Sobrante and
Badlands Landfills (City of Temecula, 2005). The TS/MRF and the El Sobrante Landfill are open
to the public for personal delivery; both accept electronic waste (e-waste) and appliances.
3.14.2 Regulatory Framework
California Administrative Code
The California Administrative Code (CAC) establishes efficiency standards for reducing water
usage in new water fixtures. Title 24 CAC, Section 25352, addresses pipe insulation
requirements, which reduce the amount of hot water used before reaching equipment and fixtures.
Title 20 CAC, Section 1604, provides efficiency standards for water fixtures including lavatory
faucets, showerheads, and sink faucets.
California Urban Water Management Planning Act
Section 10610 of the California Water Code establishes the Urban Water Management Planning
Act. The Act states that every urban water service provider that serves 3,000 or more customers
or supplies over 3,000 AF of water annually should prepare an Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP) every 5 years. The goal of an UWMP is to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in
water service sufficient to meet the needs of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years.
Altair Specific Plan 3.14-5 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
State Executive Order B-29-15
On April 1, 2015, the State issued Executive Order B-29-15 in response to severe drought
conditions. The Order stated that the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) shall
impose restrictions to achieve a statewide 25 percent reduction in potable urban water usage
through February 28, 2016. These restrictions will require water suppliers to California's cities
and towns to reduce usage as compared to the amount used in 2013. Strategies provided to
achieve this include pricing incentives, water efficiency measures, use restrictions and
enforcement against waste. The State ordered the Water Board to require that those areas with
high per capita use achieve proportionally greater reductions than those with low use (State of
California, 2015).
The SWRCB announced their final urban water conservation tiers on July 15, 2015. There are
nine separate tiers; each tier has a conservation standard ranging from a 4 percent decrease to a
36 percent decrease in water usage. RCWD is within the ninth tier, and therefore must meet a
conservation standard of 36 percent (SWRCB, 2015).
Section 15155 of the CEQA Guidelines Water Supply Assessment
Section 15155 of the CEQA Guidelines was updated on July 27, 2007 to include the requirement
to develop a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) per Senate Bill (SB) 610.
A water supply assessment is required if:
• The project would result in the construction of more than 500 residential units and/or
require a water demand equivalent to a 500 dwelling unit project.
• The project would include a commercial component that would employ more than 1,000
persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
• The project would include a hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms.
• The proposed residential development would account for an increase of 10 percent or
more in the number of the public water system’s existing service connections.
A WSA has been prepared for this project and can be found in Appendix J. The WSA reflects the
recently announced Executive Order B-29-15, as well as the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California’s (Metropolitan) current Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP).
State Water Resources Control Board Statewide General Waste Discharge
Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems
The Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements) for Sanitary Sewer Systems (SWRCB
Order No 2006-0003-DWQ) applies to sanitary sewer systems that are greater than one mile long
and collect or convey untreated or partially treated wastewater to a publicly owned treatment
facility. The goal of Order No. 2006-0003 is to provide a consistent statewide approach for
reducing Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs), accidental releases of untreated or partially treated
wastewater from sanitary sewer systems, by requiring that:
1. In the event of an SSO, all feasible steps must be taken to control the released volume
and prevent untreated wastewater from entering storm drains, creeks, etc.
Altair Specific Plan 3.14-6 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
2. If an SSO occurs, it must be reported to the SWRCB using an online reporting system
developed by the SWRCB.
3. All publicly owned collection system agencies with more than one mile of sewer pipe in
the State must develop a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), which must be
updated every 5 years.
The RCWD Board of Directors adopted RCWD’s first SSMP in March 2008. RCWD updated
and adopted the SSMP in February 2013.
Regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit
In May of 2013, the SDRWQCB Regional Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, or Fifth
Term Permit (Order No. R9-2013-0001; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) No. CAS0109266) was adopted and uniformly regulates all three counties within the
San Diego Region to maximize efficiency. The Regional MS4 Permit focuses less on completing
specific actions and more on reaching goals and desired outcomes towards the improvement of
water quality. Riverside County Copermittees will become subject to the order following the
expiration of the current MS4 Permit (Order No. R9-2010-0016) on November 10, 2015. The
Regional MS4 Permit requires a minimum set of BMPs for all development projects (regardless
of project type or size), during the planning process (i.e., prior to project approval and issuance of
local permits), including unpaved roads and flood management projects. The Regional MS4
Permit also requires certain Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs)
for all development projects, including conservation of natural areas and minimization of soil
compaction (California Water Boards, 2015). In addition, the Regional MS4 Permit includes
additional specific requirements for Priority Development Projects. Refer to Section 3.8.2,
Regulatory Framework, for additional details regarding MS4 permit requirements.
Rancho California Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan
The RCWD’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan was adopted in June of 2008 in accordance with
California Water Code Section 10632, which states that water agencies must develop a
contingency plan in the event of a drought, water supply reductions, failure of a water distribution
system, or regulatory decisions reducing water supplies. The contingency plan must demonstrate
the ability of an agency to meet demands under a supply shortage of up to 50 percent. RCWD’s
defines five stages that correspond with various water use reductions depending on the severity of
the water shortage (RCWD, 2015d).
On February 18, 2015, the WMWD Board of Directors adopted an updated Water Shortage
Contingency Plan in order to better coordinate with the 2011 water budget rate program, and now
includes five shortage stages. Effective June 1, 2015, RCWD moved to Stage 4a, which is defined
as an Extreme Water Supply Warning. This requires residential and landscape tier 2 water
budgets to be reduced by 30 percent and agricultural and commercial customers tier 1 budgets to
be reduced by 10 percent. RCWD is asking all customers to reduce outdoor water usage by 50
percent, prohibits the washing of personal vehicles at home and is continuing to suspend rolling
water budgets. Further, RCWD will not approve any variances or adjustments for filling
Altair Specific Plan 3.14-7 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
swimming pools, establishing or expanding landscape area, leaks not repaired within 48 hours,
and existing outdoor water budgets (RCWD, 2015e).
City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance
The City of Temecula adopted the Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge
Controls Ordinance (TMC Title 8.28) with the purpose and intent of protecting the water quality
of city watercourses, water bodies, groundwater, and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and
consistent with the federal CWA to ensure the future health, safety, and general welfare of the
citizens of the city by:
• Regulating non-stormwater urban runoff to the storm drain system
• Reducing pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable
• Establish requirements for development projects for permanent water quality control
measures
• Establish requirements to reduce pollutant discharges from construction sites
• Establish requirements to reduce pollutants in runoff from existing development
• Prohibiting illicit connections and illegal discharges to the storm drain system
New development and modifications to existing development is required to be designed to control
pollutants in stormwater and urban runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that
would impair subsequent or competing uses of the receiving waters. The City Engineer approves
the BMPs that would be implemented to prevent deterioration and approves the manner of
implementation. The ordinance requires a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for all new
development projects that meet the specified categories listed in the City of Temecula MS4
permit and modifications to existing development projects as defined in the MS4 permit.
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939)
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) redefined solid waste
management in terms of both objectives and planning responsibilities for local jurisdictions and
the State. The Act was adopted in an effort to reduce the volume and toxicity of solid waste that is
land filled and incinerated by requiring local governments to prepare and implement plans to
improve the management of waste resources. AB 939 required each of the cities and
unincorporated portions of the counties to divert a minimum of 25 percent of the solid waste sent
to landfills by 1995, and 50 percent by the year 2000. To attain goals for reductions in disposal,
AB 939 established a planning hierarchy utilizing new integrated solid waste management
practices. These practices include source reduction, recycling and composting, and
environmentally safe landfill disposal and transformation. On October 6, 2011, Governor Brown
signed AB 341, establishing a state policy goal that no less than 75 percent of solid waste
generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020. AB 341 also requires all
businesses generating four cubic yards or more of waste on a weekly basis, and multifamily
properties with five or more units to recycle.
Altair Specific Plan 3.14-8 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
Other state statutes pertaining to solid waste include compliance with the California Solid Waste
Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 (AB 1327), which requires adequate areas for collecting and
loading recyclable materials within a project site.
Temecula Municipal Code: Title 8, Chapter 8.20
Chapter 8.20 of Title 8 of the Temecula Municipal Code discusses various topics pertaining to
waste management in the City of Temecula, including integrated waste management and
collection details, fees and licenses, unlawful dumping, cleanup responsibility and violations.
City of Temecula General Plan
The City of Temecula General Plan establishes goals and policies related to utilities for areas
within the city. The following General Plan goals and policies, within the Growth
Management/Public Facilities Element, are relevant to the Project:
Goal 6 A water and wastewater infrastructure system that supports development in the
planning area.
Policy 6.1 Require landowners to demonstrate that an available water supply and
sewer treatment capacity exists or will be provided to serve proposed
development, prior to issuance of building permits.
Policy 6.2 Require landowners, prior to issuance of building permits, to
demonstrate that adequate wastewater capacity exists to serve proposed
development.
Goal 8 A solid waste management system providing safe and efficient collection,
transportation, recovery and disposal of waste.
Policy 8.1 Coordinate with the County of Riverside to provide and expand solid
waste collection, storage, transportation, recovery, and disposal services
to meet the needs of the City.
3.14.3 Impact Assessment
Thresholds of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines impacts related to utilities issues may be
considered potentially significant if the proposed project would:
• Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board;
• Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects;
• Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or new or expanded entitlements are needed;
Altair Specific Plan 3.14-9 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
• Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects;
• Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments;
• Not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs; or
• Not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Cumulative impacts from the proposed project are detailed in Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts.
Impacts
Compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board
The project would introduce residential and commercial development into the area, which would
increase the amount of wastewater produced within the area. Wastewater generated by the project
would be treated at the Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Plant, operated by RCWD. RCWD has
been issued its own NPDES Permit issued by the SDRWQCB for operation of the Santa Rosa
Water Reclamation Plant. Wastewater treatment requirements for the facility are based on all
applicable state and federal regulations and policies, including the NPDES Permit, and include
limitations on effluent discharge and receiving water. In general, effluent discharge requirements
include specifications for adequate disinfection treatment and limitations on radioactivity,
pollutant concentrations, sediments, pH, temperature, and toxicity. Receiving water requirements
include limitations related to temperature, sediments, pH, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform and
other pollutant concentrations, water clarity and color, turbidity, and toxicity.
The residential and commercial land uses proposed by the project would generally not discharge
wastewater that contains harmful levels of toxins that are regulated by the RWQCB (such as large
quantities of pesticides, herbicides, oil, grease, and other chemicals that are more typical in
agricultural and industrial uses) and all effluent would comply with the wastewater treatment
standards of the RWQCB. Furthermore, discussed in the Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Expansion and Capacity Impact below, wastewater generated by the project would not exceed the
existing capacity Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Plant. Therefore, the project would result in less
than significant impacts related to the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Wastewater Treatment Facilities Expansion and Capacity
The project would generate new land uses where there would have otherwise been no
development and would, therefore, result in an increased generation of wastewater flows from the
project site. The type of housing that would occur on the project site would be mixed, ranging
from medium to high density. RCWD developed wastewater flow projections for the service area
at buildout using an average daily wastewater flow for each type of land use in Table 3.14-3
above (RCWD, April 2014). As outlined in Table 3.14-4, at the target development scenario for
Altair Specific Plan 3.14-10 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
residential and commercial uses, the project is anticipated to generate a total estimated
wastewater flow of approximately 487,336 gallons per day (gpd). This flow represents an
increase over existing conditions.
TABLE 3.14-4
ESTIMATED FUTURE WASTEWATER FLOWS
Village
Commercial
(sf)
Project Flows
(gpd)
Residential
(du)
Project Flows
(gpd)
Institutional
(ac)
Project Flows
(gpd)
A - - 280 70,000 - -
B - - 220 55,000 - -
C 7,000 2,891 665 166,250 - -
D 15,000 6,195 160 40,000 - -
E - - 115 28,750 - -
F - - 180 45,000 - -
G - - 130 32,500 - -
South Parcel - - - - 551 22,500
Elementary School - - - - 7.12 18,250
Total 22,000 9,086 1,750 437,500 62.1 40,750
1 The South Parcel could be developed as an educational facility that may accommodate up to 5,000 students or an office/research and development
campus and a maximum of 450,000 building square feet. 2 It is anticipated that the school would accommodate 600 to 730 students. 3 Based on a use of schools with cafeteria and showers with wastewater generation of 0.10 EDU or 25 gallons per student.
SOURCE: RCWD, 2014.
Project generated wastewater flows would be transported via a proposed network of onsite and
offsite gravity pipes and interconnections with existing offsite lift stations via force mains and
gravity pipes, to the nearby Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Plant operated by RCWD.
The proposed offsite sanitary sewer system is ultimately connected to the existing Diaz Lift
Station adjacent to Diaz Road northerly of the project site and operated by EMWD. To
accommodate the project and additional offsite tributary areas, a 27-inch gravity pipe would be
extended from the Diaz Lift Station southerly in the existing rights-of-way of Diaz Road and
Vincent Moraga to the project site. A smaller 10-inch gravity pipe would be extended southerly
onsite in the Western Bypass to Altair Vista. The existing offsite 8-inch gravity wastewater lines
in Ridge Park and Rancho California would be reconstructed to connect to the proposed 27-inch
gravity pipe in the Western Bypass/Vincent Moraga. Wastewater from the southern end of the
project site would be transported across the planned Murrieta Creek/Western Bypass bridge (part
of the Temecula Parkway extension) via a 10-inch gravity pipe to the existing Front Street Lift
Station. The central portion of the project would connect to the existing Pujol Lift Station with
the offsite construction of a 12-inch gravity pipe extended easterly within the existing First Street
right-of-way. The project developer would be responsible for any required upgrades to the
existing Pujol lift station. As part of the gravity connection to the Pujol Lift Station facility, the
existing 12-inch effluent force main would be disconnected from the existing regional 18-inch
and 20-inch force mains located onsite and within existing easements parallel to the eastern
Altair Specific Plan 3.14-11 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
project boundary and cross through the parking lot of the adjacent residential apartment complex
at Sixth and Pujol and continue to Vincent Moraga. The project would provide a new 12-inch
force main to extend from First Street to the proposed 27-inch gravity pipe in the Western
Bypass/Vincent Moraga, within the existing easements. Since portions of this sanitary sewer
system would be sized to accommodate offsite wastewater flows from additional tributary offsite
properties, EMWD would financially participate in the incremental cost of upsizing any facilities
over the project demands.
As described, all wastewater produced by the project would be treated by the Santa Rosa Water
Reclamation Plant. The Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Plant has a current inflow of 3 million
gallons per day (MGD), with a 5 MGD treatment capacity (RCWD, 2013). Therefore, Santa Rosa
Water Reclamation Plant has an excess treatment capacity of approximately 2 MGD and would
have sufficient capacity to process the additional average wastewater flow of 487,336 gpd that
would be generated by the project at build out. Therefore, implementation of the project would
not result in impacts to the Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Plant. In addition, each project-
specific development within in the Specific Plan would be required to pay a sewer service charge
to RCWD to maintain and upgrade its system. Therefore, the project would not result in the
construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Implementation of Mitigation
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Stormwater Drainage Facilities
The project would involve commercial development and the introduction of residential uses into
the area. Proposed development within Altair would provide the necessary connections,
extensions, and upgrades as required to serve Altair. As part of the Altair Specific Plan,
associated public utility plans have been developed to identify these anticipated facilities.
The project proposes an onsite storm drainage system to collect and transfer storm flows through
the site as required by the City of Temecula. This system would include isolated storm drain
facilities to convey offsite and open space runoff that is not required to be treated for water
quality purposes onsite. This dual system will minimize the potential comingling of runoff from
the developed and non-developed areas of the project. This secondary system would collect and
carry storm flows from the natural open spaces west of the proposed Western Bypass, through the
project site, and directly into Murrieta Creek. The other storm drain system would collect and
treat surface runoff from the proposed development, before exiting the site. The onsite drainage
system would be designed and sized to convey a 100-year storm event. Flows from the open
space would be collected in ten inlet structures. The onsite catch basins and piping system would
collect flows from the developed portion of the project site and treat these flows in a series of
basins, swales and bioretention trenches. There are seven main outlets for the onsite network of
storm drains, Village A is tributary to the existing 60-inch storm drain in Ridge Park Drive,
Village B drains directly into the existing concrete lined channel adjacent to the easterly project
boundary, and the majority of Village C is tributary to the existing inlet and 48-inch pipe aligned
within Sixth Street. The remaining portion of Village C is tributary to the existing concrete
channels adjacent to the easterly project boundary and the existing 42-inch storm drain in First
Altair Specific Plan 3.14-12 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
Street. Village D and E areas are tributary to the existing concrete channels adjacent to the
easterly project boundary and the existing 48-inch storm drain. Village F would drain to the
proposed concrete channels of Tract Map 36568, as approved by the City of Temecula. Village G
and the South Parcel would both convey storm flows directly into Murrieta Creek.
The construction of the project and future individual development within the Specific Plan would
be required to comply with the development planning requirements of the SDRWQCB MS4
permit and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance. These include implementation of non-
structural, structural, source control and treatment control BMPs during the planning process
prior to project approval for development projects, which can include infiltration basin, detention
basin, vegetated swale, media filter, pervious concrete, storm drain stenciling or signage,
protection of material and trash storage areas from rainfall, and vector avoidance strategies. Each
future development project would 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 would ensure that the
project implements specific drainage features in order to meet the City’s MS4 Permit and
Stormwater Ordinance requirements. As a part of the WQMP the project would be required to
incorporate and maintain low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) into
the project design, which include measures to reduce increases in runoff through
hydromodification and infiltration protection. Therefore, impacts to the environment from the
construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Water and Water Supply
The main source of domestic water would be from the Metropolitan Water District’s two San
Diego Aqueduct pipelines that traverse the southern end of the project site. At the south end, the
project would make two tie-ins into the existing 30-inch transmission main within the proposed
right-of-way of “C” Street and “B” Street S. This system would provide domestic and fire service
to Village G and the South Parcel. The central portion of the project would connect to the existing
21-inch transmission main in the Pujol Street right-of-way at two locations. The southerly
location would extend a 12-inch main northwesterly in the Western Bypass to the park area
between Village F and Village E. At this location the 12-inch main would traverse the project
northerly within the Altair Vista easement. The second connection would be with the existing 21-
inch main in Pujol Street at First Street. This 12-inch connection would be brought onsite within
the Levant Trail easement to connect to the line in Altair Vista. To complete the looped domestic
and fire service system Villages A and B would provide the northerly connection to the existing
12-inch main in Ridge Park Drive. This connection would extend a 12-inch main southerly within
the Western Bypass to the intersection with Altair Vista. Anticipated offsite water improvements
would be limited to the 12-inch connections within the existing Pujol right-of-way at the southern
end of the Western Bypass and First Street, in the central portion of the site adjacent to Village C.
The third offsite connection would occur where the proposed Western Bypass intersects with
Ridge Park Drive. This would also be a 12-inch connection to the existing 12-inch domestic water
line.
Altair Specific Plan 3.14-13 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
In accordance with the requirements of Section 15155 of the CEQA Guidelines, updated per SB
610, a water supply assessment is required for the Project, as it would result in the construction of
more than 500 residential units and would include a commercial component with more than
250,000 square feet of floor space. A WSA has been prepared for this project and can be found in
Appendix J. On April 1, 2015, the State issued Executive Order B-29-15 in response to severe
drought conditions, which imposes restrictions to achieve a statewide 25 percent reduction in
potable urban water usage through February 28, 2016. RCWD is expected to reduce its water use
by 36 percent. On April 14, 2015, Metropolitan announced a 15 percent reduction in wholesale
deliveries to its 26 member public agencies, as part of the current WSAP. The WSA reflects
recently announced Executive Order B-29-15, as well as the Metropolitan’s current WSAP.
Effective June 1, 2015, RCWD moved to Stage 4a, which is defined as an Extreme Water Supply
Warning, in accordance with its Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which states that residential
and landscape tier 2 water budgets must be reduced by 30 percent, agricultural and commercial
customers tier 1 budgets must be reduced by 10 percent, and all customers to reduce outdoor
water usage by 50 percent. However, water use reduction is expected to be achieved through a
variety of methods, including water conservation, public awareness and technology efficiency,
implemented by RCWD. The project would comply with all required RCWD water usage
reduction measures throughout its lifetime. In 2007, the RCWD Board of Directors adopted
Resolution No. 2007-10-5 establishing the Mandatory Recycled and Raw Water Use Policy
(Policy). The Policy criteria states, “Recycled, raw or non-potable water shall be used whenever
its use is economically justified, financially and technically feasible, and consistent with legal
requirements, preservation of public health, safety and welfare, and the environment.” The Policy
also establishes Mandatory Use of recycled or raw water, when the criteria are met, for
agricultural irrigation; construction use; all landscape, park, schoolyard and golf course irrigation;
landscape and/or aesthetic impoundments, and wildlife habitat. The project would provide
reclaimed water to serve the project’s irrigation needs from existing recycled water facilities and
is consistent with the Policy.
Table 3.14-5 illustrates RCWD’s projected potable water supplies and demands by five-year
increments, included the project, as determined by the WSA, in a normal water year. While SB
610 requires a 20-year planning period, the WSA projected to 2041, which represents a 25-year
planning period from 2016. This is consistent with RCWD’s 2010 UWMP, which is the most
recent UWMP.
As shown in Table 3.14-5, the buildout of the project will increase RCWD’s potable water
demand by the year 2043. The water demand analysis prepared for the Altair Specific Plan by
RCWD shows the build-out of the project would increase RCWD’s potable and recycled water
demand by approximately 446 AFY and 99 AFY, respectively. The water supply projections are
anticipated to increase through year 2041 despite drought and environmental restrictions; this is
mainly due to efficiencies in water allocation management as well as use of increased recycled
water supply. Table 3.14-5 demonstrates that projected supplies exceed demand through the year
2041, while factoring in the projected demand required for the project. These projections consider
land use, water development programs and projects, and water conservation. The available
supplies and water demands for RCWD’s water service area were analyzed to assess RCWD’s
Altair Specific Plan 3.14-14 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
ability to satisfy demands during three hydrologic scenarios: a normal water year, single dry
water year, and multiple-dry water years (RWCD, 2015b). The WSA presented the supply-
demand balance for each of the hydrologic scenarios for the 25-year planning period 2016 to
2041. It is expected that RCWD will be able to meet 100 percent of its dry year demand under
every scenario (RWCD, 2015b).
Further, analyses of normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year scenarios in the WSA prepared for
the proposed project also demonstrate RCWD’s ability to satisfy demand during the 25-year
planning period in all hydrologic conditions, even under reduced imported water supply
conditions (RWCD, 2015b). If conditions during the three years following 2015 are equal to the
driest three-year historic sequence for RCWD’s water supply, RCWD would have to take
measures to meet water demand within its service area. Most likely RCWD will rely on
Metropolitan for imported water while maximizing groundwater production. Table 3.14-6 shows
the July 2015 imported supplies from Metropolitan with a 15 percent reduction in all three years.
Table 3.14-6 demonstrates that projected supplies exceed demand through the year 2041, while
factoring in drought conditions.
Collectively, the information included in the WSA identifies a sufficient and reliable water supply
for RCWD, now and into the future, including a sufficient water supply for the project (RWCD,
2015b). Therefore, impacts related to water supply entitlements would be less than significant.
TABLE 3.14-5
PROJECTED POTABLE WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND NORMAL WATER YEAR (AF)
Water Supply/Demands 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041
SUPPLIES
Treated 40,122 49,464 53,827 58,190 62,595 67,083
Untreated – groundwater
recharge/recovery 12,512 18,300 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000
Untreated – SMR discharges 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
Local Groundwater 26,500 24,120 24,120 24,120 24,120 24,120
Total Potable Supplies 89,415 103,152 107,598 111,919 116,408 120,897
Recycled (EMWD/RCWD)1 9,156 9,604 9,604 9,604 9,604 9,604
DEMAND
District2 70,299 74,334 78,569 82,684 86,959 91,324
Altair Specific Plan 224 713 621 526 473 452
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 0 244 608 1,151 1,479 1,616
Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan 0 636 720 720 720 720
Total Potable Demands 70,523 75,927 80,518 85,081 89,631 94,112
Recycled (District) 9,156 9,604 9,604 9,604 9,604 9,604
Recycled (Project) 0 99 99 99 99 99
Recycled Temecula Creek Inn
Specific Plan 0 <2> <2> <2> <2> <2>
SUPPLY/DEMAND DIFFERENCE 18,892 27,225 27,080 26,838 26,777 26,785
1 Recycled water supply includes SRWRF 2010 capacity of 3,160 AF, increased by 2880 AF in 2015 and another 560 AF in 2020; current
EMWD agreement for TVWRF water is for up to 5,000 AFY.
2 The rate of potable demand increase from 2018 to 2043 is projected to be consistent with the rate of service area population increase over the
same period. Potable demand includes water conveyed outside the RCWD service area, but does not include unaccounted-for water.
SOURCE: RCWD, 2015.
Altair Specific Plan 3.14-15 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
TABLE 3.14-6
TOTAL ESTIMATED RCWD MINIMUM WATER SUPPLY FOR NEXT THREE YEARS BASED ON
DRIEST 3-YEAR HISTORY
Water Supply/Demands 2016 2017 2018
SUPPLIES
Imported Treated 40,626 41,346 42,066
Untreated 11,475 12,750 14,450
Local Groundwater 23,638 23,155 22,673
Total Potable Supplies 75,738 77,251 79,189
Recycled (EMWD/RCWD)1 9,156 9,268 9,380
DEMAND
Potable 70,523 71,684 72,931
Recycled 4,540 4,600 4,597
Total Demands 75,063 76,284 77,528
SUPPLY/DEMAND DIFFERENCE 9,831 10,235 11,041
SOURCE: RCWD, 2015b.
1) Altair Specific Plan is anticipated to not create a demand until 2016.
2) Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan is anticipated to not create a demand until 2018.
3) Temecula Creek Inn Strategic Plan is anticipated to not create a demand until 2015.
4) Imported water assumed to include a 15 percent reduction of normal year supplies during
Years 1, 2 and 3 of multiple dry year period; groundwater supplies are estimated to be 98%,
96% and 94% of normal during Years 1, 2 and 3 of multiple dry year period; recycled water
supply equals demand.
5) Potable and recycled water dry year demands for years 2016, 2017 and 2018 are based
on applying multiple dry year factors of 100%.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Solid Waste Disposal
Construction
Construction of the project has the potential to generate solid waste, including cardboard, metals,
plastics, concrete and other building materials. Construction for some development would also
involve earthwork, which can produce waste pavement scraps and soil piles. As stated in Chapter 2,
Project Description, the project would result in up to 22,000 commercial square feet, 1,750 new
residential units, a civic center (up to 450,000 square feet) and an elementary school. The average
estimate of overall construction waste from new residential development is 4.39 pounds per square
foot and 4.34 pounds per square foot from new non-residential (including commercial)
development (USEPA, 2003). The Specific Plan identifies 1,750 residential units (at maximum
density). For construction waste generation estimate purposes, it is assumed the average residential
unit would be approximately 1,300 square feet. This could result in approximately 4,994 tons of
solid waste from construction of new residential development (Table 3.14-7). The Specific Plan
identifies 472,000 square feet of commercial land uses for both the civic center and other
commercial uses. Using the waste generation estimate for non-residential construction activities, the
project would generate approximately 1,025 tons of solid waste from new commercial development
construction (civic center and commercial uses) (Table 3.14-7).
Altair Specific Plan 3.14-16 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
TABLE 3.14-7
SOLID WASTE GENERATION ESTIMATES FOR COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION
Development
New Development
(square feet)
Total Solid Waste
Generation1
(pounds)
Total Solid Waste
Generation
(tons)
Total Solid Waste
Generation
(cubic yards)
New Development
Residential Units 2,275,000 9,987,250 4,994 16,629
Commercial 22,000 95,480 48 159
Civic Center 450,000 1,953,000 977 3,252
TOTAL 2,746,000 12,031,390 6,019 20,040
1 Waste Generation Rates = 4.39 lb/sq ft for residential new development and;
4.34 lb/sq ft for non-residential new development; (USEPA, 2003).
Solid waste generated during construction activities would be recycled to the maximum extent
practicable and all remaining waste would be disposed of at the El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill
located at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road, east of Interstate 15 in the Gavilan Hills. Because no
demolition is required, construction waste requiring disposal is anticipated to be minimal after
recycling is implemented. As of 2009, the year for which the most recent information is available,
the remaining capacity of this landfill was 145,530,000 tons with an estimated cease operation
date of 2045 (CalRecycle, 2009).
Solid waste disposed of during construction activities for the new residential and commercial
development would represent 0.004 percent of the remaining capacity (in tons). Considering the
small percentage of the total remaining capacity that project solid waste would use, the fact that
waste would be generated and disposed of over a period of 10 years, and that the landfill has
enough remaining capacity to stay open until 2045, the existing landfill would have adequate
capacity to accept all project construction waste. Impacts relating to solid waste as a result of
project construction would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Operation
The introduction of residential and commercial development into the area would result in
increased generation of solid waste. As shown in Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Climate Change, there would be an estimated residential and employee service population
increase of 5,080 residents and employees in the project area as a result of the Project; 4,603
residents and 477 employees. According to California’s 2014 per capita disposal rate, the average
California resident produces 4.5 pounds per day.1 The 2014 per employee disposal rate was 10.6
pounds per day (CalRecycle, 2015). The project would be expected to generate approximately
20,714 pounds of solid waste per day from residents and approximately 5,056 pounds of solid
waste per day from non-residential uses upon full buildout, for a total of 25,770 pounds (12 tons)
of solid waste per day. The daily disposal rate is 16,054 tons/day (CalRecycle, 2009). Solid waste
1 Per SB 1016, the per capita rate takes into account per resident and per employee disposal rates.
Altair Specific Plan 3.14-17 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.14 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
disposed of during operation activities for the new residential and commercial development
would represent 0.07 percent of the daily disposal rate (in tons). The existing capacity of the El
Sobrante Sanitary Landfill would be sufficient to accommodate solid waste generation from
project implementation.
The City of Temecula is required to maintain a 50 percent diversion rate as mandated by the State
via the California Integrated Waste Management Act for all solid waste. The project is subject to
this diversion rate for solid waste generated by the project. As such, the solid waste generated by
the project would place a minimal burden on the City’s required diversion rate. The increase
would not require additional landfill capacity. Since the landfill would have sufficient permitted
capacity (through 2045), the project is not anticipated to cause an adverse impact to either solid
waste collection service or the landfill disposal system. Therefore, impacts relating to solid waste
production during project operation would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 3.14-18 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
CHAPTER 4
Cumulative Impacts
4.1 Introduction
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR address cumulative impacts of a project
when the project’s incremental effect would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively
considerable” means that “the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects as defined in Section 15130” (Section 15065(c)). A cumulative
effect is not deemed considerable if the effect would be essentially the same, regardless of whether the
proposed project is implemented or not.
Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines states that “cumulative impacts can result from individually
minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” A cumulative impact is
not considered significant if the impact can be mitigated to below the level of significance through
mitigation, including providing improvements and/or contributing funds through fee-payment
programs. The EIR must examine “reasonable options for mitigating or avoiding any significant
cumulative effects of a proposed project” (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15130(a)(3) and 15130(b)(5)).
According to Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of cumulative effects “... need
not provide as great a detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project alone. The
discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.”
4.2 Cumulative Projects
This analysis considers the impacts of the project in combination with the potential environmental
effects of other projects in the general area. “Other projects,” also referred to as “cumulative
projects,” include recently completed projects, projects currently under construction, and future
projects currently in development. The potential for projects to have a cumulative impact depends
on both geographic location as well as project schedule.
Altair Specific Plan 4-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4. Cumulative Impacts
4.2.1 Geographic Scope
The project area is located in the western portion of the City of Temecula. The potential for
specific project-generated impacts to contribute to a significant cumulative impact would occur if
the impacts are located within the same generalized geographic area. This geographic area varies
depending upon the resource area being evaluated (water quality, noise, etc.) and the geographic
extent of the potential impact. For example, the geographic area associated with construction
noise impacts would be limited to areas directly affected by construction noise associated with the
proposed project in conjunction with the identified cumulative projects. In contrast, the
geographic area that could be affected by the proposed project and cumulative construction-
related air emissions would include the entire air basin. Construction impacts associated with
increased noise, dust, erosion, and access limitations tend to be localized and could be
exacerbated if other development or improvement projects occur within proximal locations to the
proposed project area.
The cumulative project area identified for traffic impacts was determined by the City of
Temecula, and the cumulative projects listed in Table 4-1.
4.2.2 Project Timing
In addition to the geographic scope, cumulative impacts are determined by the timing of the other
projects relative to the proposed project. As noted above, projects considered in this analysis
include those that have recently been completed, are currently under construction, or are in the
planning stages. Schedule is particularly relevant to the consideration of cumulative construction-
related impacts, since construction impacts tend to be relatively short-term. However, for future
projects, construction schedules are often broadly estimated and can be subject to change.
Although the timing of the future projects is likely to fluctuate due to schedule changes or other
unknown factors, this analysis assumes these individual projects would be developed for
implementation through the course of the current planning horizon and could be implemented
concurrently with construction of the proposed project. The proposed project is anticipated to be
developed in phases and reach full buildout in 10 years.
4.2.3 Type of Projects Considered
Table 4-1 lists current and proposed projects that could potentially contribute to cumulative
impacts within the project area. Also, General Plan Build Out assumptions for cumulative traffic
analysis can be found in Section 3.13.3 of the Transportation and Traffic Section of this EIR.
Locations of cumulative projects listed in Table 4-1 are shown in Figure 4-1.
Altair Specific Plan 4-2 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
##
Y
n
e
z
R
d
BC
§¨¦15
UV79
PA14-0188
PA14-0175
PA10-0213
PA14-0009
PA13-0155
PA14-2707
PA08-0118
PA14-0155
PA13-0166
PA14-0107 PA11-0261 PA14-2796
LR10-0014
A
PA14-0058
SOURCE: National Hydrology Dataset, Riverside County GIS, ESRI Imagery Altair Specific Plan EIR Research Design. 140106Figure 4-1Cumulative Proj ects
RiversideSan Diego
0 1
Miles
#Cumulative Proj ect
Altair Specifi c Pl an
Cities
4. Cumulative Impacts
TABLE 4-1
PLANNED AND APPROVED PROJECTS IN THE PROJECT AREA
Map Key
Code Type of Development Description
PA 14-0058 Hotel A Development Plan to construct a three-story 54-room Comfort Suites
Hotel within the Old Town Specific Plan area. The hotel will total
31,270 square feet and will be located at 41841 Moreno Road.
Amenities will include an indoor swimming pool, fitness room, and
business center.
PA 14-2707 Commercial A Development Plan application to allow for the construction of three
commercial buildings totaling 13,248 square feet. The structures will
consist of a gas station, a retail structure, a drive-thru restaurant
structure, and an approximately 115,000 square foot residential care
facility.
PA 14-0155 Restaurant A Development Plan to allow for the construction of a 11,722-square-
foot Gaitan's Mexican Café restaurant on a 2.61-acre vacant lot and a
Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Type 47 ABC license (on-sale
general beer/wine/distilled spirits).
PA 14-0188 Commercial A Major Modification to add 6,657 square feet to an existing two-story
retail/office commercial structure located at 28475 Old Town Front
Street.
PA 14-2796 Commercial Development Plan Application and a Conditional Use Permit
Application for an approximately 10,000-square-foot single-story
commercial building in a CC zone. The approximate 10,000-square-
foot building would be used for tire retail and repair.
PA 14-0175 Commercial/Auto Service Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to allow for American
Tire Depot to construct a 7,450-square-foot building for tire sales and
service.
LR 10-0014 Commercial and
Residential Mixed Use
The project involves developing a specific plan for an approximately
560-acre area that is intended to facilitate in-fill development, spark
public and private reinvestment, act as a guide for the overall future
revitalization of the area, and ensure the strategic execution of future
infrastructure improvements. The anticipated build out of the specific
plan area, which is anticipated to occur over a 30 year timeframe,
would allow for the construction of approximately 1.7 million square
feet of new commercial development and approximately 3,726 new
residential dwelling units, for a combined anticipated build-out totaling
approximately 7,244,224 square feet.
PA 10-0213 Residential A Tentative Tract Map application to create 7 residential lots from 4 lots
with lot size ranging from 2.66 acres to 3.62 net acres on vacant
property.
PA 11-0216
PA 14-0107
Office A Development Plan application for the construction of three office
buildings totaling 37,926 square feet.
PA 13-0166 Medical A Major Modification application to revise a previously approved 6,000
square foot restaurant (that has not been constructed) to a 12,545-
square-foot surgery facility.
PA 14-0009 Institutional Rancho Baptist Major Modification: A Major Modification application for
Rancho Baptist Church to allow for a 2,074-square-foot sanctuary
expansion, an expansion to the existing classroom structure including a
cafe, two vehicle security gates, and two modular classrooms located
at 29775 Santiago Road.
PA 13-0155 Residential A Development Plan to construct a 140-unit attached residential
project, including two-story townhomes and three-story walk-up flats,
also with a pool and clubhouse for project residents, located on
approximately 7 acres at the southernmost point of Pujol Street.
Altair Specific Plan 4-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4. Cumulative Impacts
TABLE 4-1
PLANNED AND APPROVED PROJECTS IN THE PROJECT AREA
Map Key
Code Type of Development Description
PA 08-0118 Mixed Use A Specific Plan to expand Temecula Creek Inn into a master-planned
18-hole golf course resort and community on 305 acres located 44501
Rainbow Canyon Road. The Specific Plan proposes four Planning
Areas: Planning Area 1 includes an expansion of the existing hotel by
99 rooms from 128 to 227 guest rooms (active adult option on 126
units) and the addition of a spa and banquet facilities totaling 153,837
square feet. Planning Areas 2-4 include a maximum 409 single-family
and multi-family residential units ranging in size from 1,600 to 4,300
square feet.
A Commercial Expansion of the existing Pechanga Resort, which would involve a new
two-tower hotel wing with 550 rooms; a 40,000-square-foot events
center with capacity of up to 3,000 seats, 27,000-square-foot indoor
pre-function area, 19,000-square-foot outdoor plaza, and a 40,000-
square-foot green roof space; a 23,000-square-foot detached spa and
fitness center; a 12,750-square-foot events lawn; a wastewater
treatment plant; and an onsite warehouse.
B Transportation Interstate 15/State Route 79 South interchange improvement project by
the City of Temecula to improve access to Interstate 15 from State
Route 79 South. Project includes right-of-way acquisition, design and
construction of an improved interchange system.
C Transportation Western Bypass bridge over Murrieta Creek. A City of Temecula
project to design and construct a bridge across Murrieta Creek as part
of the future Western Bypass that would serve to relieve traffic
congestion in the area of Old Town Temecula.
4.3 Description of Cumulative Effects
Aesthetics
Of the projects listed on Table 4-1 and shown in Figure 4-1, only a few fall within the viewshed
of the proposed project, including a hotel and commercial use in Old Town, as well as a 140-unit
residential project near the southern end of Pujol Road. As discussed in Section 3.1, Aesthetics,
the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic
resources within a designated State scenic highway, and degradation of the visual character and
quality of the project area.
Among the cumulative projects within the viewshed of the proposed project, the 140-unit
residential project would likely be the most visually prominent and would be occurring on
undeveloped land. However, it would be built on flat land adjacent to existing urban uses and
would not be located on any hillsides. In addition, like future development proposals that would
occur in the City, any cumulative developments in the project vicinity would be subject to the
City’s Design Guidelines and would be required to undergo a development review process to
ensure that the proposals meet the design standards. Temecula’s City-wide Design Guidelines
provide site planning, architectural design, and landscape design criteria for commercial,
industrial, and residential development. The guidelines also establish criteria for unique design
characteristics found within specialized development types, such as specific commercial and
Altair Specific Plan 4-5 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4. Cumulative Impacts
public uses. The design standards and criteria contained within the guidelines are the primary tool
for implementing the policies contained within the Community Design Element. Therefore,
cumulative impacts related to these criteria would be less than significant.
The proposed project could result in impacts related to light and glare. The future development
proposals in the vicinity of the project would also introduce new sources of light and glare in the
area; and the project, in combination with these projects, could make a considerable contribution
to light and glare. However, related projects would be required to adhere to the provisions of the
Riverside County’s Light Pollution Ordinance (No. 655), which reduce nighttime light pollution
in the vicinity of the Palomar Observatory, and implement measures similar to those required of
the project. As such, cumulative impacts from the project and related projects would be less than
significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Air Quality
The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is considered the
cumulative study area for air quality. Because the SCAB is currently classified as a state
nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, cumulative development consisting of the project
and cumulative projects could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation. Based on South Coast Air Quality Management District’s
(SCAQMD) cumulative air quality impact methodology, SCAQMD recommends that if an
individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and
PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts,
then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for
which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard. As shown in Table 3.2-6, the project’s construction emissions would not exceed
SCAQMD’s daily thresholds during construction. Thus, because the proposed project’s
construction-period impact would be less than significant, the proposed project would not result
in a significant cumulative impact, when considered with other past, present and reasonably
foreseeable projects.
Operational emissions associated with the proposed project, as shown in Tables 3.2-7 and 3.2-8,
would exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance for ROG, NOx and CO. Even though
the proposed project would be consistent with SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan, the
proposed project could conflict with SCAQMD’s air quality planning efforts for nonattainment
pollutants and would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in nonattainment
pollutants during operations, particularly ozone precursors ROG and NOx. Therefore, the
project’s contribution to cumulative impacts associated with operational emissions would be
cumulatively considerable.
Significance Determination: Significant and unavoidable related to operational emissions
Altair Specific Plan 4-6 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4. Cumulative Impacts
Biological Resources
For Biological Resources, the geographic scope for the cumulative analysis is the area within the
same watershed (i.e. bioregion). In general, the geographic area includes the City of Temecula
and Murrieta, and projects within an approximately five-mile radius around the project site,
within the same watershed, similar landscape position and within the Western Riverside County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
The project and the other cumulative projects fall within the jurisdiction of the MSCHP. The
MSHCP involves the assembly and management of a 500,000-acre Conservation Area for the
conservation of natural habitats and their constituent wildlife populations. The MSHCP permits
development of lands and take of species “in exchange for the assembly and management of a
coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area” (Riverside County, 2004). The Implementing
Agreement authorized the "take of 146 species covered by the MSHCP (termed “covered
species”), including state and federally listed species, as well as other identified sensitive
species." The “take” authorization includes impacts to the habitats of the covered species. The
MSHCP requires any new development to pay fees to support the financing for the MSHCP, to be
applied toward acquisition and management of Conservation Area land. The fees are intended to
meet mitigation requirements for the California Environmental Quality Act, the federal
Endangered Species Act, and the California Endangered Species Act.
The effects of the proposed project, in combination with other cumulative projects in the
geographic scope, could combine to cause or contribute to significant cumulative effects to
biological resources. In particular, identified cumulative projects that are located within or near
wildlife corridors and along riparian/riverine areas, such as LR10-0014 (Uptown Jefferson
Specific Plan) and PA-08-0118 (Temecula Creek Inn), could have significant effects on special
status species, sensitive vegetation communities, and wildlife movement associated with
Proposed Constrained Linkages 13 and 14. It should be noted that cumulative projects would be
required to adhere to and be consistent with the goals and objectives established in the MSHCP.
As described in Section 3.3, Biological Resources of this EIR, the project would have potentially
significant impacts to special status wildlife species, sensitive vegetation communities and
wildlife corridors. Mitigation measures have been identified for the project that would reduce
impacts by avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating for any impacts in accordance with the MSHCP
(Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1a through MM-BIO-1c, MM-BIO-2a, MM-BIO-2b, MM-BOI-
3, MM-BIO-4, MM-BIO-5a, MM-BI-5b, MM-BIO-6, MM-BIO -7, and MM-BIO-8a through
MM-BIO -8c). Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than
significant level and result in the project being consistent with the MSHCP. Consistency with the
MSHCP would provide assurance that the project would be in compliance with the provisions of
the federal Endangered Species Act, the California Endangered Species Act, and the National
Community Conservation Program Act; and would adequately provide for the conservation and
protection of the Covered Species Adequately Conserved and their habitats in the MSHCP Plan
Area, as provided for in the Implementing Agreement. Therefore, when considered in addition to
the anticipated impacts of other projects in the cumulative scenario, the project’s incremental
contribution to impacts to biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable.
Altair Specific Plan 4-7 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4. Cumulative Impacts
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Cultural Resources
The geographic scope for cumulative impacts to cultural resources includes the western portion of
the city of Temecula. This geographic scope of analysis is appropriate because the archaeological,
historic-period built resources and tribal resources within these areas are expected to be similar
because of their proximity and shared historic and prehistoric context. In addition, similar
environments, landforms, and hydrology would result in similar land-use—and thus, similar site
types. The geographic scope for cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would be all
areas in the western portion of the City of Temecula underlain by the same geologic units, which
would yield fossils representative of a similar time period and geographic range. Cumulative
impacts to cultural resources in this area could occur if the projects and cumulative projects had
or would have impacts on cultural resources that, when considered together, would be
cumulatively significant.
The project vicinity contains a significant archaeological and historical record that, in many
cases, has not been well documented or recorded. Thus, there is the potential for ongoing and
future development projects in the vicinity to disturb known or unknown cultural resources,
including archaeological sites, historic-period built resources, and resources of traditional and
cultural significance to Native American tribes.
Three of the cumulative projects are within the Origin Landscape Traditional Cultural Property
(TCP). The majority of the Origin Landscape TCP is located within the Santa Margarita
Ecological Reserve, which is protected from significant development; therefore most of the
Origin Landscape TCP would not be impacted by past, present, or future development. The three
cumulative projects within the Origin Landscape TCP would be expected to have similar impacts
on the TCP, and would likely incorporate similar mitigation measures as the proposed project.
The proposed project includes several mitigation measures that reduce potential impacts to the
TCP to less than significant, at the project level. With implementation of these mitigation
measures, the project’s contribution to a cumulative impact would less than cumulatively
considerable.
Excavation activities associated with the project and cumulative projects could contribute to the
progressive loss of fossil remains, as-yet unrecorded fossil sites, associated geological and
geographic data, and fossil bearing strata. The project would have a less than significant impact to
paleontological resources with incorporation of mitigation measures (MM-CUL-2a and MM-
CUL-2b). With the implementation of these measures, the projects contribution to cumulative
impacts on paleontological resources would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3 would mitigate the project’s
potential to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and
the project’s contribution to a cumulative impact to human remains would less than cumulatively
considerable.
Altair Specific Plan 4-8 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4. Cumulative Impacts
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
The project area is located in a seismically active area and future project development could
expose additional people and structures to potentially adverse effects associated with earthquakes,
including seismic groundshaking and seismic-related ground failure. However, site-specific
geotechnical studies required by the City would determine how future development projects could
be designed to minimize exposure of people to these impacts. Therefore, future development
would be constructed to more current standards, which could potentially provide greater
protection than standards that applied to older structures within the region.
The impact of the risks associated with exposure to potential geological and soils hazards is
generally localized because of the dependence on site-specific conditions and would not affect the
immediate vicinity surrounding the project area. Future development related to the project and
other cumulative projects would be constructed in accordance with the most recent version of the
California Building Code seismic safety requirements and recommendations contained in the
project-specific geotechnical reports. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with exposure to
geological and soils hazards resulting from construction and operation of the project, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would be less than
significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
As discussed in Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, CEQA considers a
project’s impacts related to GHG emissions to be inherently cumulative. Therefore, the discussion
in Section 3.6 comprises the cumulative impact analysis related to global warming and climate
change. As concluded in that section, overall, the project’s total net annual GHG emissions after
the incorporation of MM-AQ-1a through MM-AQ-1e would be approximately 24,953 MTCO2e
per year which would exceed the SCAQMD considered bright-line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e
per year maximum project emissions. This would result in a significant impact. Implementation
of additional mitigation measure MM-GHG-1 would likely result in GHG emissions still
exceeding the bright-line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e.
Significance Determination: Significant and unavoidable
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The cumulative geographic context for hazardous materials includes the project area and all areas
within the city, as well as roadways used to transport hazardous materials. Potential cumulative
impacts would occur if the project, in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable
development projects such as residential and commercial land uses, would result in significant
impacts to human health and safety.
Altair Specific Plan 4-9 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4. Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project has the potential to
release hazardous substances and materials; however, with adherence to existing regulatory
requirements, the project would result in less than significant impacts relating to hazards and
hazardous materials. Typically, hazards and hazardous material impacts occur in a local or site-
specific context rather than in a cumulative context (because of the regulatory structure that
minimizes releases to isolated incidents). Implementation of regulatory requirements of the
DTSC, RWQCB, Caltrans, and RCDEH would similarly address site-specific hazards and
emergency access and operation for all other projects within the cumulative scenario. Compliance
with regulatory requirements also includes measures for the safe transport, storage, use, and
disposal of hazardous materials and wastes for the protection of human health and the
environment. As such, other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future development projects
that would occur in the surrounding region, in combination with the proposed project, would not
significantly increase human health or safety risks. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be
considered less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Hydrology and Water Quality
The geographic scope for cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality includes the
Murrieta Hydrologic Area and the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin. As described previously,
the project site is generally pervious open space. Storm water runoff from the westerly foothills
flows easterly across the project site and directly or indirectly into Murrieta Creek. Murrieta
Creek water quality is impaired by metals/metalloids, nutrients, pesticides and toxicity. The
project would include an onsite storm drainage system to collect and transfer storm flows through
the site. This system would include isolated storm drain facilities to convey offsite and open
space runoff that is not required to be treated for water quality purposes onsite. The other storm
drain system would collect and treat surface runoff from the proposed development, before
exiting the site.
Cumulative projects are also within the Murrieta Hydrologic Area, and would have the potential
to contribute to cumulative hydrologic and water quality impacts in the project area. These
projects generally consist of residential, commercial, office, medical and some industrial and
institutional developments. These projects have the potential to introduce new or exacerbate
existing pollutant generation associated with residential, commercial and industrial uses that
could wash into or pollute surface water quality. These projects could also contribute to increased
runoff due to increases in impervious surfaces. However, all reasonably foreseeable future
projects in the Murrieta Hydrologic Area would be required to implement non-structural,
structural, source control and treatment control BMPs, similar to the proposed project. These
drainage requirements were developed to reduce the cumulative impacts to water quality, and to
ensure that the incremental effects of individual projects do not cause a substantial cumulative
impact related to hydrology and water quality. For example, during operation, the cumulative
projects would be required to maintain water quality through development and implementation of
BMPs pursuant to the SDRWQCB MS4 Permit and City Stormwater Ordinance requirements,
which would reduce potential impacts of each related project.
Altair Specific Plan 4-10 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4. Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would include compliance with all required laws,
permits, and plans, including the MS4 Permit, WQMP, and Construction General Permit
requirements, all of which have been designed to reduce impacts associated with water quality,
erosion, flooding, and drainage. As described, the proposed Project would result in an overall
increase in impervious surfaces. However, all stormwater would be filtered and infiltrated to
protect surface water quality and groundwater quality to the maximum extent practicable. The
proposed drainage system would mimic the existing water quality and hydrology conditions of
the Project area. Thus, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would not combine to be
cumulatively considerable with adherence to applicable laws, permits, and plans. Cumulative
impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant.
Land Use and Planning
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to land use, as discussed in
Section 3.9. Potential land use impacts, such as potential impacts related to consistency with
plans and policies that are intended to avoid environmental effects, would be project-specific and
require evaluation on a case-by-case basis. This is also true with regard to land use compatibility
impacts, which are generally a function of the relationship between the interactive effects of a
specific development site and those of its immediate environment. Therefore, cumulative impacts
to land use would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Noise and Vibration
Cumulative noise assessment considers development of the project in combination with ambient
growth and other development projects within the vicinity of the proposed project. As noise is a
localized phenomenon, and drastically reduces in magnitude as distance from the source
increases, only projects and ambient growth in the nearby area could combine with the proposed
project to result in cumulative noise impacts.
Development of the project in combination with other projects in the cumulative scenario would
result in an increase in construction-related and traffic-related noise in the city. However, each of
the cumulative projects would be subject to Section 9.20.040 of the City Municipal Code, which
establishes the allowable interior and exterior noise standards for various types of land uses in the
city. In addition, Section 9.20.070 (Exceptions) of the City Municipal Code allows for
construction-related exceptions from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the Code
to be requested from the City Manager. Furthermore, the construction activities associated with
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would also be subject to Section 9.20.060(D) of
the City Municipal Code, which establishes the permitted hours for construction.
Construction noise is localized in nature and decreases substantially with distance. Consequently,
in order to achieve a substantial cumulative increase in construction noise levels, more than one
Altair Specific Plan 4-11 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4. Cumulative Impacts
source emitting high levels of construction noise would need to be in close proximity to the
proposed project. The nearest anticipated project to the project site is the proposed townhomes
development (#PA 13-0155), which is located adjacent to the southern portion of the project site
in the vicinity of Pujol Street. Due to this distance, a substantial increase in the ambient noise
levels of the existing single- and multi-family residential uses located along and adjacent to Pujol
Street would occur should construction of this cumulative project occur at the same time as the
proposed project. As such, the cumulative noise impact related to a substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise levels at these existing noise-sensitive land uses would be
potentially significant. During construction of the proposed project, implementation of Mitigation
Measures MM-NOI-1a and MM-NOI-1b would reduce construction noise levels for nearby
offsite residents to the maximum extent feasible. However, due to the proximity of the proposed
project to these existing offsite sensitive uses, it is anticipated that these offsite land uses would
still experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during the
project’s construction activities. Therefore, the project’s contribution to this construction-related
noise impact would be considerable, and the cumulative impact would be significant.
Cumulative development in the City may result in the exposure of people to or the generation of
excessive groundborne vibration. As mentioned above, the nearest related project to the proposed
project is the proposed townhouse development located adjacent to the project site. Due to this
distance, the proposed project and this cumulative project are in close enough proximity to each
other such that vibration levels generated during construction could potentially affect the same
sensitive receptors should construction occur simultaneously. The nearest sensitive receptors that
would be affected by the concurrent construction are the existing single- and multi-family
residential uses located along and adjacent to Pujol Street near the southern portion of the project
area. The cumulative impact would be potentially significant. However, with implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-2a and MM-NOI-2b by the proposed project, which requires
specific buffer distances between construction equipment and sensitive receptors, impacts from
construction-related groundborne vibration on these nearest offsite sensitive uses would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level.1 Thus, with implementation of these mitigation measures,
the project would not contribute considerably to cumulative vibration impacts, even if concurrent
construction occurs for the project and the related project. As such, cumulative impacts associated
with groundborne vibration from construction activities would be less than significant.
Cumulative mobile source noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on
local roadways due to the proposed project and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
projects within the study area. Therefore, cumulative traffic-generated noise impacts have been
assessed based on the contribution of the proposed project to the future year 2025 cumulative
traffic volumes on the roadway segments in the project vicinity. The noise levels associated with
existing traffic volumes and cumulative traffic volumes with the proposed project (i.e., future
cumulative traffic volumes) are identified in Table 4-2.
1 It should be noted that while implementation Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-2a and MM-NOI-2b may not be able
to reduce groundborne vibration levels to a less-than-significant level for the future sensitive uses that would be
gradually developed within the project area due to the project’s allowance for compact residential development,
these mitigation measures would be able to be effectively implemented with regards to existing sensitive uses that
are located offsite.
Altair Specific Plan 4-12 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4. Cumulative Impacts
TABLE 4-2
CUMULATIVE ROADWAY NOISE IMPACTS
Roadway Segment
Existing Land Uses
Located along Roadway
Segmentb
Noise Levels in dBA Ldna
Existing
Project
Traffic
Volumes
Future
Without
Traffic
Volumes
Future With
Project
Traffic
Volumes Increase
Significance
Thresholdb Significant?
Project
Contribution to
Cumulative
Increase
Rancho California Road from Diaz
Road to Old Town Front Street
Commercial 67.5 73.1 68.8 1.3 5.0 No (4.3)
Rancho California Road from 1-15
to Ynez Road
Hotels/Commercial 74.0 74.6 74.8 0.8 5.0 No 0.2
Vincent Moraga Drive from Rancho
California Road to Ridge Park Drive
Commercial 53.7 65.2 64.0 10.3 5.0 Yes (1.2)
Western Bypass, between A Street
and Pujol Street
N/A N/Ac N/Ac 69.7d N/A N/A N/A N/A
Western Bypass, between Pujol
Street and Old Town Front Street
N/A N/Ac N/Ac 72.2d N/A N/A N/A N/A
Temecula Parkway from La Paz
Road to Wabash Lane
Residential/Church 72.2 72.3 72.6 0.4 5.0 No 0.3
Temecula Parkway from Pechanga
Parkway to Margarita Road
Residential/Commercial 68.4 68.9 69.1 0.7 5.0 No 0.2
Diaz Road from Rancho California
Road to Via Montezuma Road
Church/Commercial 68.9 71.6 72.4 3.5 5.0 No 0.8
Diaz Road from Via Montezuma
Road to Winchester Road
Commercial 71.5 73.1 73.8 2.3 5.0 No 0.7
Winchester Road from Diaz Road to
Jefferson Avenue
Commercial 72.6 72.1 72.3 (0.3) 5.0 No 0.2
Winchester Road from I-15 to Ynez
Road
Commercial 73.7 73.8 73.9 0.2 5.0 No 0.1
a Values represent noise levels from the centerline of each roadway to the approximate receptor property line.
b Along roadway segments that have multiple land uses, the lower noise level standard amongst the multiple land uses was used to provide a conservative analysis.
c No roadway noise levels would occur as the Western Bypass would only be developed with implementation of the proposed project.
d As the Western Bypass does not currently exist, the noise level presented for the “Future With Project” scenario is at 50 feet from the centerline of this future roadway. Calculations were prepared by ESA; data and results are
provided in Appendix G.
TRAFFIC INFORMATION SOURCE: Fehr and Peers, 2015.
Altair Specific Plan 4-13 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4. Cumulative Impacts
As shown, cumulative development along with the proposed project would increase local noise
levels by a maximum of 10.3 dBA Ldn at the segment of Vincent Moraga Drive from Rancho
California Road to Ridge Park Drive. Although this segment would experience an increase in
traffic noise levels greater than 5 dBA, impacts would be less than significant because the
resultant noise level along this roadway segment would still fall within the “conditionally
acceptable” noise level range for commercial uses according to the land use/noise compatibility
matrix in the General Plan Noise Element (refer to Table 3.10-6). All of the remaining roadway
segments analyzed would not exceed their significant thresholds; therefore, the cumulative impact
associated with mobile source noise would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction noise
Population and Housing
Project development in combination with cumulative projects within the City would result in a
cumulative increase in population. Based on the residential development projects identified in
Table 4-1, cumulative development (including the proposed project) in the City would result in
the addition of 6,986 new residential units, which would increase the population by
approximately and 23,000 residents. Adding this potential population to the existing 2014
population would result in a maximum total population of approximately 129,000 residents upon
buildout of all residential projects listed in Table 4-1. The proposed project would represent
approximately 20 percent of the population increase that would be generated under cumulative
conditions. This would exceed the projected 2035 population by Southern California Council of
Governments (SCAG) by approximately 10,400 residents. However, growth would be within the
population anticipated by the City’s General Plan projected development capacity of 166,250
residents, as discussed in Section 3.11, Population and Housing. Impacts related to thresholds
established by resource agencies that rely on SCAG population projections, such as SCAQMD,
are analyzed in the appropriate sections of this Draft EIR. However, given that this growth has
been anticipated by the City, the proposed project would not considerably contribute to
population and housing impacts, and the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Public Services
The proposed project, in combination with the projects listed on Table 4-1, would increase the
demand on the City’s public service providers, including police and fire protection, emergency
services, schools, parks, libraries, and hospitals.
Fire Protection and Emergency Services
The project in combination with other cumulative projects would result in a cumulative effect on
fire protection and emergency service. Cumulative projects could require new or expanded fire
/life safety facilities to meet the increased demand generated by these projects. The fire
department would evaluate these projects on an individual basis to determine appropriate
Altair Specific Plan 4-14 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4. Cumulative Impacts
mitigation measures that would address potential impacts associated with new demand. In
addition, the project and cumulative projects would be required to participate in the City’s
Development Impact Fee Program which charges impact fees on new development to provide for
future fire facilities. With the fair share payment of impact fees, the project would have a less
than cumulatively considerable impact on fire/life safety services.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Police Protection
The project in combination with other cumulative projects would result in a cumulative effect on
police protection. Cumulative projects could require new or expanded police facilities to meet the
increased demand generated by these projects. The police department would evaluate these
projects on an individual basis to determine appropriate mitigation measures that would address
potential impacts associated with new demand. In addition, the project and cumulative projects
would be required to participate in the City’s Development Impact Fee Program which charges
impact fees on new development to provide for future police facilities. With the fair share
payment of impact fees, the project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact on
police protection.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Schools
The geographic area in which cumulative effects to schools could occur would be the Temecula
Valley Unified School District (TVUSD), which serves the project site and surrounding area. As
discussed in Section 3.12, the project would generate 1,971 students. While the schools serving
the project area currently have sufficient capacity to handle additional numbers of students
generated by the project, a new elementary school would be constructed as part of the project.
The proposed project, and any future developments included in the cumulative scenario would be
subject to development fees under AB 2926 to accommodate increases in capacity. Given the
existing capacity at the schools in the project area, the construction of an elementary school as a
part of the project, and the project’s fair share contribution toward future school facilities, the
project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Parks
The project would provide approximately 44 acres of recreation and open space for its residents
and visitors. The project in combination with other cumulative projects would result in a
cumulative effect on park facilities. Cumulative projects could require new or expanded park
facilities in order to meet the increased demand generated by these projects. The City would
evaluate these projects on an individual basis to determine appropriate mitigation measures that
would address potential impacts associated with new demand. In addition, the project and
cumulative projects would be required to participate in the City’s Development Impact Fee
Altair Specific Plan 4-15 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4. Cumulative Impacts
Program which charges impact fees on new development to provide for future park land. With the
fair share payment of impact fees, the project would have a less than cumulatively considerable
impact on parks.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Libraries
The geographic area in which cumulative effects to libraries could occur would be the Temecula
Public Library service area, which serves the project site and surrounding area. Although the
project and cumulative projects would increase the demand for library services, the City’s
General Plan accounts for this growth in the forecasted population of 166,250 at the buildout of
the Temecula Planning Area (See Section 3.11, Population and Housing). The project and
cumulative projects would be required to participate in the City’s Development Impact Fee
Program which charges impact fees on new development to provide for public facilities, such as
libraries. With the fair share payment of impact fees, the project would have a less than
cumulatively considerable impact on libraries.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Hospitals
The project and cumulative projects would increase the population in the area which would
increase the demand for healthcare services. As stated in Section 3.12, the Temecula Valley
Hospital Building was designed for future expansion to help accommodate the area’s continued
growth, and the hospital’s 37-acre campus can accommodate additional expansion as community
needs grow, including needs related to cumulative development (Universal Health Services,
2015). In addition, other hospitals and medical centers in within the project area (such as the
Temecula Regional Hospital) would be able to serve the project and cumulative projects.
Therefore, the cumulative impacts to hospital facilities would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Transportation and Traffic
The transportation and circulation analysis for the project as presented in Section 3.13,
Transportation and Traffic, inherently analyzes the cumulative scenario in its analysis of project-
related traffic impacts because it must take into consideration future conditions in order to
analyze the Project’s full contribution to future traffic scenarios. The analysis uses a blended
approach that includes a list-of-projects approach (Table 4-1) and a plan-based approach (General
Plan).
Development of the Specific Plan would cause the General Plan Build Out (2035) level of service
at Ynez Road and Rancho California Road (Intersection #5) to degrade from an unacceptable
LOS E during the AM peak hour, and would cause the average delay to increase by more than the
2.0-second threshold of significance.
Altair Specific Plan 4-16 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4. Cumulative Impacts
The addition of an exclusive eastbound right turn lane as identified under Cumulative Plus Project
conditions and the construction of one additional northbound left turn lane would improve
intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D. This mitigation would require widening of the
roadway; however all four quadrants of this intersection are developed and there is limited right-
of-way surrounding the intersection. The additional northbound left turn lane improvement
would encroach into the adjacent pond/park on the southeast quadrant and would be infeasible to
construct. Given the right-of-way constraints at this location, there is no feasible mitigation.
Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Significance Determination: Significant and unavoidable
Utilities
Water
The geographic scope for cumulative impacts on water resources is the Murrieta-Temecula
Groundwater Basin. Rancho California Water District (RCWD) water consists of local
groundwater (33 percent), imported water (56 percent) and recycled water (11 percent). In 2013,
the approximate amount of total potable water demand in the RCWD service area was 68,000 AF
(RCWD, 2015). Water demands within the area are expected to increase by almost 28,000 AF by
2041. Despite the fact that RCWD declared a Stage 4a Water Supply Warning in March 2015,
RCWD projects an adequate long-term water supply strategy that will meet water demands until
2050 (RCWD, 2015).
The projects in the cumulative scenario, in addition to other various projects throughout
jurisdictions which overly the groundwater basin, potentially contribute to cumulative
environmental impacts. These projects have the potential to increase the demand for water from
the groundwater basin. Given the multi-year drought conditions and overall water shortages in
California, cumulative impacts to water supply would be potentially significant. However, water
providers in the Murrieta-Temecula Groundwater Basin, such as RCWD, are required to prepare
plans to ensure adequate water supplies exist for future growth.
As described in the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the project, RCWD has adequate
water supplies to meet demands of the project in addition to the anticipated demands of the entire
service area through 2041 in normal year, single-dry-year, and multiple-dry-year conditions. As
shown in Table 4-3, the water demand analysis prepared for the Altair Specific Plan by RCWD
shows the build-out of the project would increase RCWD’s potable and recycled water demand
by approximately 452 AFY and 99 AFY, respectively by the year 2041. The water supply
projections are anticipated to increase through year 2041 despite drought and environmental
restrictions; this is mainly due to efficiencies in water allocation management as well as use of
increased recycled water supply. Table 4-3 demonstrates that projected supplies exceed demand
through the year 2041, while factoring in the projected demand required for the project and other
cumulative projects, including projects developed under the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and
Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan. These projections consider land use, water development
programs and projects, and water conservation. The available supplies and water demands for
Altair Specific Plan 4-17 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4. Cumulative Impacts
RCWD’s water service area were analyzed to assess RCWD’s ability to satisfy demands during
three hydrologic scenarios: a normal water year, single dry water year, and multiple-dry water
years (RWCD, 2015b). The WSA presented the supply-demand balance for each of the
hydrologic scenarios for the 25-year planning period 2016 to 2041. It is expected that RCWD will
be able to meet 100 percent of its dry year demand under every scenario (RWCD, 2015b). As a
result, the project would not considerably contribute to cumulative water demand, and the
cumulative impact would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
TABLE 4-3
PROJECTED POTABLE WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND NORMAL WATER YEAR (AF)
Water Supply/Demands 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041
SUPPLIES
Treated 40,122 49,464 53,827 58,190 62,595 67,083
Untreated – groundwater
recharge/recovery 12,512 18,300 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000
Untreated – SMR discharges 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
Local Groundwater 26,500 24,120 24,120 24,120 24,120 24,120
Total Potable Supplies 89,415 103,152 107,598 111,919 116,408 120,897
Recycled (EMWD/RCWD)1 9,156 9,604 9,604 9,604 9,604 9,604
DEMAND
District2 70,299 74,334 78,569 82,684 86,959 91,324
Altair Specific Plan 224 713 621 526 473 452
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 0 244 608 1,151 1,479 1,616
Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan 0 636 720 720 720 720
Total Potable Demands 70,523 75,927 80,518 85,081 89,631 94,112
Recycled (District) 9,156 9,604 9,604 9,604 9,604 9,604
Recycled (Project) 0 99 99 99 99 99
Recycled Temecula Creek Inn
Specific Plan 0 <2> <2> <2> <2> <2>
SUPPLY/DEMAND DIFFERENCE 18,892 27,225 27,080 26,838 26,777 26,785
1 Recycled water supply includes SRWRF 2010 capacity of 3,160 AF, increased by 2880 AF in 2015 and another 560 AF in 2020; current
EMWD agreement for TVWRF water is for up to 5,000 AFY.
2 The rate of potable demand increase from 2018 to 2043 is projected to be consistent with the rate of service area population increase over the
same period. Potable demand includes water conveyed outside the RCWD service area, but does not include unaccounted-for water.
SOURCE: RCWD, 2015.
Wastewater
Buildout of the project and cumulative projects would add demand for wastewater services within
the service area of the RCWD. The Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Plant has an excess treatment
capacity of approximately 2 million gallons per day (MGD), and would have sufficient capacity
to process the additional average wastewater flow of 431,086 gallons per day that would be
Altair Specific Plan 4-18 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4. Cumulative Impacts
generated by buildout of the project. Assuming per-capita wastewater generation would be
similar for cumulative projects as it is for the proposed project, 2 MGD of excess treatment
capacity would accommodate cumulative projects. In addition, cumulative projects are
geographically spread out and would not all utilize the same sewer lines or treatment facilities,
such as the larger related projects, Pechanga Resort Expansion and Temecula Creek Inn, being
serviced by the Eastern Municipal Water District wastewater facilities. Additional future
development projects would be required to verify that existing capacity exists to convey and treat
the wastewater generated by the new development. Therefore, cumulative impacts to wastewater
facilities would be less than significant.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Stormwater Drainage
The geographic scope for cumulative impacts on stormwater drainage includes the Murrieta
Hydrologic Area. As described previously, the project site is generally pervious open space.
Storm water runoff from the westerly foothills flows easterly across the project site and directly
or indirectly into Murrieta Creek.
The project would result in an increase in impervious surface on the project site through the
provision of the buildings and streets. An increase in impervious areas would increase the volume
and rate of stormwater flows from the project site. As a result, the project would increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff and would add additional flow to the existing stormwater drainage
facilities. However, the project would filter runoff to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the
maximum extent practicable, as required by the MS4 Permit and WQMP requirements for the
project. This would also reduce the rate and volume of discharge from the site during a storm
event. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the
stormwater drainage systems.
Cumulative projects would be required to implement similar measures as the proposed project
when obtaining the relevant permits, including compliance with the MS4 Permit and Model
WQMP requirements. Thus, the incremental effects of individual projects under the cumulative
scenario would not cause a substantial cumulative impact as related to drainage systems.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Solid Waste
Development associated with buildout of the project and cumulative projects would impact solid
waste collection and disposal services. Temecula, along with cities in the surrounding area, would
continue to use common landfill resources, thereby reducing the capacity of local landfills
including the El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill, which accepts waste from the project area. Although
the project would not significantly impact existing landfill capacity (see Section 3.14, Utilities),
the increase in solid waste generation from implementation of the project and cumulative projects
together could significantly impact the finite resources associated with solid waste disposal. The
project would result in an increased generation of 25,770 pounds (12 tons) of solid waste per day
compared to existing conditions in the project area. Waste generated by the project area would be
Altair Specific Plan 4-19 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
4. Cumulative Impacts
hauled to the El Sobrante landfill, which accepts a maximum of 16,054 tons per day. The project
would result in an increase of less than 0.07 percent of the maximum permitted waste per day.
Cumulative projects are similar in nature and would require similar amounts of waste disposal.
Because the landfill is operating with capacity until 2045, there is sufficient capacity to support
the project and cumulative projects. In addition, individual development projects and related
projects would be required to meet recycling objectives, reducing the amount of solid waste
requiring disposal at landfills.
All development projects would be required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste. Pursuant to the California Integrated Waste Management Act of
1989 (AB 939), every city and county in the state is required to divert 50 percent of solid waste
generated in its jurisdiction away from landfills. Implementation of source reduction measures
would continue to divert solid waste away from landfills. The contribution of the project to
cumulative impacts associated with landfill capacity would be less than cumulatively
considerable.
Significance Determination: Less than significant
Altair Specific Plan 4-20 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
CHAPTER 5
Alternatives
5.1 Introduction
According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a project that could
feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, and would avoid or substantially lessen the
project’s significant environmental effects. This alternatives analysis summarizes the alternatives
screening process conducted to identify feasible alternatives that meet project objectives. As
required by CEQA, this analysis first considers which alternatives can meet most of the basic
project objectives, and then to what extent those remaining alternatives can avoid or reduce the
environmental impacts associated with the project. Information used to select an
“environmentally superior alternative,” is also provided in this chapter.
5.1.1 CEQA Requirements
Section 15126.6(f) of the CEQA Guidelines provides direction on the required alternatives
analysis:
The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that
requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.
The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only
the ones that the Lead Agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives
of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a
manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making.
The alternatives may include a different type of project, modification of the project, or suitable
alternative project sites. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project.
Rather, the alternatives must be limited to ones that meet the project objectives, are feasible, and
would avoid or substantially lessen at least one of the significant environmental effects of the
project. “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and
technological factors. Section 15126.6(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR:
…must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on
the environment, the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or
its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects
of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the
project objectives, or could be more costly.
Altair Specific Plan 5-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
5. Alternatives
Section 15126.6(d) of the CEQA Guidelines provides further guidance on the extent of
alternatives analysis required:
The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful
evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. A matrix displaying the
major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may be used
to summarize the comparison. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects
in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects
of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the
project as proposed.
The EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives and the
information the Lead Agency relied on when making the selection. It also should identify any
alternatives considered but rejected as infeasible by the Lead Agency during the scoping process
and briefly explain the reasons for the exclusion. Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed
consideration in the EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do
not avoid any significant environmental effects.
Section 15126.6(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines also requires that the No Project Alternative must
be addressed in this analysis. The purpose of evaluating the No Project Alternative is to allow
decision-makers to compare the potential consequences of the project with the consequences that
would occur without implementation of the project.
Finally, an EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project
Alternative may be the environmentally superior alternative to the project based on the
minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, the No Project
Alternative must also achieve the project objectives in order to be selected as the environmentally
superior alternative. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(e)(2)) require that if the environmentally
superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall identify an environmentally
superior alternative among other alternatives.
Project Objectives
As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the following objectives have
been established for the project and will aid decision makers in the review of the project and
associated environmental impacts:
• Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of
Temecula General Plan. (A General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element is
needed to achieve these goals and policies.)
• Balance the need for local infrastructure improvement and demand for new housing in
and around Old Town while minimizing physical and visual impacts to the hillside
escarpment, wildlife movement, and conservation areas.
• Develop a high-quality residential component on the project site that focuses on
providing diverse housing types and a wide range of densities that would serve a variety
of age groups and household sizes, support the commercial enterprises of Old Town
Altair Specific Plan 5-2 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
5. Alternatives
Temecula, help to fulfill the city’s regional housing needs, and foster a unique
community identity where each neighborhood is unique, vibrant, diverse, and inclusive.
• Create a project that reduces dependency on the automobile and encourages the use of an
extensive multi-use trail system that would link neighborhood villages and community-
wide uses within the project and to Old Town Temecula.
• Provide for limited/incidental neighborhood-oriented commercial uses to serve the needs
of the project’s residents, such as coffee shop, ice cream store, or small restaurants.
• Promote design that minimizes water usage by using a relatively drought-tolerant
landscape palette, clustered development, and attractive community spaces rather than
traditional water-intensive private lawns.
• Provide water quality management facilities that are incorporated within the landscape
features and designed to create settings that mimic the natural hillside attributes.
• Establish an efficient, interconnected multi-modal transportation network that includes a
Western Bypass Corridor and vehicular, transit/trolley, and pedestrian/bikeway
circulation systems that would improve center-of-city traffic conditions.
• Provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a park in the center of
the project, plazas, trails, a play field, and an elementary school accommodating 600–730
students, which further diversify and contribute to the Old Town’s amenities.
• Provide for a civic site of adequate size that accommodates up to 450,000 building square
feet for an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public,
and be integrated into the overall project design in a way that maximizes compatibility
with other proposed land uses within the Specific Plan, and provides a strong visual
connection and close access to Interstate 15.
5.1.2 Review of Significant Environmental Impacts
Based on the CEQA Guidelines, several factors need to be considered in determining the range of
alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR and the level of analytical detail that should be provided for
each alternative. These factors include: (1) the nature of the significant impacts of the proposed
project; (2) the ability of alternatives to avoid or lessen the significant impacts associated with the
project; (3) the ability of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the project; and (4) the
feasibility of the alternatives.
The alternatives examined in this chapter would lessen at least some of the significant impacts
associated with implementation of the project, while meeting many of the project objectives. As
the Lead Agency, the City of Temecula will decide whether to proceed with the project or
whether to accept or reject any of the alternatives identified in this chapter. As required by the
CEQA Guidelines, if the City ultimately rejects an alternative, the rationale for the rejection will
be presented in the findings that are required to be made before the City certifies the EIR and
takes action on the project.
Altair Specific Plan 5-3 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
5. Alternatives
The proposed project has the potential to have significant adverse effects on:
• Air Quality (project and cumulative level)
• Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions (cumulative level)
• Noise and Vibration (project and cumulative level)
• Transportation and Traffic (project and cumulative level)
Even with the mitigation measures described in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and
Mitigation Measures of this Draft EIR, impacts in these issue areas would be significant and
unavoidable.
5.1.3 Alternatives Not Evaluated in This EIR
An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The Lead
Agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are potentially feasible and,
therefore, merit in-depth consideration, and which are clearly infeasible. Alternatives that are
remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be
considered (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(f)(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 (as briefly
discussed below). 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 creating a complementary residential component to
the Old Town Specific Plan area through development of a pedestrian-oriented community within
walking or cycling distance of Old Town, and developing the Western Bypass. The objectives of
this project rely on proximity to Old Town for providing a residential community within walking
distance and for development of the Western Bypass, which is intended to alleviate traffic
congestion that currently exists within Old Town. Therefore, it would not be feasible to consider
other site locations for this project.
5.2 Project Alternatives
Three alternative scenarios, representing a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, were
selected for detailed analysis. The goal for evaluating these alternatives is to identify ways to
avoid or lessen the significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the project,
while attaining most of the project objectives.
The following sections provide a general description of each alternative, its ability to meet the
project objectives, and a qualitative discussion of its comparative environmental impacts. As
provided in Section 15126.6(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the significant effects of these
alternatives are identified in less detail than the analysis of the project in Chapter 3 of this Draft
EIR.
Altair Specific Plan 5-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
5. Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Alternative
This alternative is analyzed within this 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.” This alternative represents a “no build” scenario in which no future
development would occur.
The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that the Altair Specific Plan would not be
adopted and implemented. Instead, the planning area would be left in its current undeveloped and
mostly undisturbed state.
Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative
Under this alternative, the project site would be developed with the approved Westside Villages
Specific Plan (SP-8), per the existing zoning designation. The Westside Villages Specific Plan
would involve development of a 154.1-acre area, which is a smaller area than the project site for
the proposed project and would not include the 55-acre South Parcel that is located roughly to the
south of Camino Estribo. Under this alternative, the project site would be bisected by the Western
Bypass and divided into five separate planning areas (A through E) that each have a separate land
use; however, it would not be developed with the “villages” concept that is proposed under the
project. Planning Area A is located in the center of the project site, closest to Old Town. This area
would allow for a “Wild West,” open-air arena and a hotel. Planning Area B, which is located at
the intersection of First Street and the Western Bypass, and is designated for neighborhood
commercial uses, would allow for local-serving retail uses, such as a small market or drug store.
Planning Area C, which is located in the southern portion of the project site, would allow for
high -density residential uses. The Mixed Use designation of Planning Area D, which is located in
the northern section of the Specific Plan area, is intended to act as a transitional area between the
special event uses of the Specific Plan and the existing office and business park uses located to
the north of the Specific Plan area. As such, Planning Area D would allow for service
commercial, office, and light industrial uses. Planning Area E, which would be west of the
Western Bypass would be designated for 80 gross acres of open space and would remain
undeveloped. The project would also provide for pedestrian connectivity between the various
planning areas and Old Town.
Table 5-1 outlines the land uses and amount of development for each planning area under this
alternative. Although this alternative would allow for more commercial development (120,000
square feet versus the maximum 22,000 square feet proposed as part of the project), overall, it
would represent a reduced project alternative to the proposed project due to the significantly
fewer residential units that would be developed, and the absence of the civic use and elementary
school.
Altair Specific Plan 5-5 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
5. Alternatives
TABLE 5-1
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE 2 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Planning
Area
Land Use
Designation Gross Acres Net Acres Floor Space
Dwelling Units
Low High
A Special Event
Commercial
47.7 44.2 50,000
B Neighborhood
Commercial
5.4 4.4 45,000
C High Density
Residential
18.1 15.1 196 302
D Mixed Use 2.8 1.7 20,000
E Open Space 80.1 69.3
Total 154.1 134.7 120,000 196 302
SOURCE: Westside Specific Plan, 1995.
Alternative 3: Relocate Civic Use Alternative
Under this alternative, the proposed project would maintain most of the project elements
including the eight residential villages with the proposed residential densities, a small amount of
neighborhood-serving commercial uses, the educational/institutional use, and the extension of the
Western Bypass along the proposed alignment. However, under this alternative, the proposed
educational/institutional use (e.g., college) would be relocated from the South Parcel to the area
of the proposed elementary school site (Village C); and the elementary school eliminated from
the project. The intent of this alternative is to reduce potential impacts to biological and cultural
resources; namely, for biological resources, the restricted wildlife corridor widths associated with
Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13; and, for cultural resources, the National-
register-listed Origin Landscape Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) and an archaeological site
located on the South Parcel.
Table 5-2 provides a summary of each alternative’s ability to meet the project objectives.
Altair Specific Plan 5-6 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
5. Alternatives
TABLE 5-2
ABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Project Objectives
Alt. 1: No
Project/No
Development
Alt. 2: No Project/
Existing Specific Plan
Alternative
Alt. 3: Relocate Civic
Use Alternative
Plan and implement a project that is consistent with
the goals and policies of the City of Temecula
General Plan. (A General Plan Amendment to the
Circulation Element is needed to achieve these
goals and policies.)
No Yes Yes
Balance the need for local infrastructure
improvement and demand for new housing in and
around Old Town while minimizing physical and
visual impacts to the hillside escarpment, wildlife
corridors, and conservation areas.
No Yes Yes
Develop a high-quality residential component on
the project site which focuses on providing diverse
housing types and a wide range of densities that
would serve a variety of age groups and household
sizes, support the commercial enterprises of Old
Town Temecula, help to fulfill the city’s regional
housing needs, and foster a unique community
identity where each neighborhood is unique,
vibrant, diverse, and inclusive.
No No Yes
Create a project that reduces dependency on the
automobile and encourages the use of an
extensive multi-use trail system that would link
neighborhood villages and community-wide uses
within the project and to Old Town Temecula.
No Yes Yes
Provide for limited/incidental neighborhood-oriented
commercial uses to serve the needs of the project’s
residents, such as coffee shop, ice cream store, or
small restaurants.
No Yes Yes
Promote design that minimizes water usage by
using a relatively drought-tolerant landscape
palette, clustered development, and attractive
community spaces rather than traditional water-
intensive private lawns.
No Yes Yes
Provide water quality management facilities that
are incorporated within the landscape features and
designed to create settings that mimic the natural
hillside attributes
No No Yes
Establish an efficient, interconnected multi-modal
transportation network that includes a Western
Bypass Corridor and vehicular, transit/trolley, and
pedestrian/bikeway circulation systems that would
improve center-of-city traffic conditions.
No Yes Yes
Provide public amenities close to Old Town
Temecula that include a park in the center of the
project, plazas, trails, a play field, and an
elementary school accommodating 600–730
students, which further diversify and contribute to
the Old Town’s amenities.
No No No
Provide for a civic site of adequate size that
accommodates up to 450,000 building square feet
for an educational, institutional, or other business
use for the benefit of the public, and be integrated
into the overall project design in a way that
maximizes compatibility with other proposed land
uses within the Specific Plan, and provides a strong
visual connection and close access to Interstate 15.
No No No
Altair Specific Plan 5-7 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
5. Alternatives
5.3 Impact Analysis
The following is a comparison of environmental impacts associated with each alternative to those
identified for the proposed project.
Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Alternative
Aesthetics
With mitigation, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to aesthetics
(see Section 3.1). Under Alternative 1, the project site would remain undeveloped, retaining its
current visual character; therefore, no views of the site would be altered and no new sources of
light and glare would be created. This alternative would have fewer impacts on aesthetics
compared to the project.
Air Quality
The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality due to
operations (see Section 3.2). Under Alternative 1, there would be no construction-related
emissions (from construction activities, vehicles and equipment), and no operational emissions
(associated with increased traffic and consumer usage) as is associated with the proposed project.
As a result, this alternative would have fewer impacts on air quality compared to the project.
Biological Resources
The project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 181 acres of upland habitat and
approximately 1.2 acres of riparian/riverine habitat (see Section 3.3). With mitigation, the
proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on wildlife corridors. Under
Alternative 1, there would be no development and, as such, no impact on sensitive upland or
riparian/riverine habitats, or special status plant and wildlife species. This alternative would not
result in wildlife corridor impacts as the area would remain in its existing, undeveloped state.
Overall, Alternative 1 would have fewer impacts on biological resources compared to the project.
Cultural Resources
Construction of the proposed project would include soil excavation which has the potential to
encounter historical and paleontological resources. With mitigation, the proposed project’s impact
on these resources is less than significant (see Section 3.4). Under Alternative 1, no grading
activities would occur that could unearth historical resources or disturb paleontological resources.
Therefore, the potential to encounter these resources is less compared to the proposed project.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to exposure to geologic
resources (see Section 3.5). Under Alternative 1, the site would not be developed and the
potential effects associated with geology and soils, such soil erosion during construction, would
not occur. This alternative would have fewer impacts to geology, soils and seismicity compared
to the project.
Altair Specific Plan 5-8 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
5. Alternatives
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
With mitigation, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to
GHG emissions (see Section 3.6). Under Alternative 1, the project site would not be developed
and increased GHG emissions would not occur. Therefore, this alternative would result in fewer
effects related to global warming and climate change than the project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to hazards and hazardous
materials (see Section 3.7). Under Alternative 1, construction-related hazardous materials would
not be brought to the site, nor would hazardous materials such as landscaping sprays or household
cleaning products. Therefore, this alternative would result in fewer impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials compared to the project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
With mitigation, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to hydrology
and water quality (see Section 3.8). Under Alternative 1, there would be no increase of
impervious surfaces and no change to the natural drainage patterns of the site. No improvements
would be required for water quality treatment. This alternative would result in fewer hydrology
and water quality impacts compared to the proposed project.
Land Use and Planning
The proposed project would be consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan by providing a
complementary residential land use to the Old Town commercial district. Also, the project is
consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan that aim to conserve natural resources and
those that consider development compatibility. Upon adoption of the General Plan Amendment,
the project would be in conformance with the General Plan. In addition, with implementation of
mitigation measures that address urban/wildlands interface, noise, and conservation of land in
Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of this EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with goals and
objectives of the MSHCP. Under Alternative 1, no development would occur and the onsite open
space would remain in its current state. As such, this alternative would not change existing land
use or have an effect on land use plans and policies related to the project site. This alternative
would result in fewer effects on adopted land use plans and policies compared to the project.
Noise and Vibration
The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts from temporary
construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the project area which
could potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in
ambient noise levels and vibration (see Section 3.10). Under Alternative 1, there would be no
change to existing ambient noise levels or introduction of a new source of noise, or an increase in
vibration. The significant construction noise and vibration under the proposed project would not
occur. This alternative would result in fewer impacts from noise and vibration compared to the
project.
Altair Specific Plan 5-9 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
5. Alternatives
Population and Housing
The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to population and housing (see
Section 3.11). Under Alternative 1, no new housing and no increase in population would occur.
Therefore, Alternative 1 would have fewer impacts to population and housing compared to the
project.
Public Services
The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts on public services (see Section
3.12). Alternative 1 would not result in any additional population at the project site, and,
therefore, would not result in an increased demand on existing fire protection, police protection,
public schools, libraries, or hospitals. Under Alternative 1, no impacts on public services would
occur. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have fewer impacts to public services compared to the
project.
Transportation and Traffic
With mitigation, the proposed project would result a less-than-significant impact on traffic (see
Section 3.13), except under the cumulative scenario. The proposed project would result in a
significant cumulative impact on traffic due the unfeasibility of widening Temecula Parkway
between La Paz Road and Wabash Lane. Under Alternative 1, no additional traffic would be
generated by uses on the project site and this alternative would result in no impacts related to
traffic and circulation. Thus, Alternative 1 would result in fewer impacts when compared to the
proposed project.
Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
The proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact on utilities and water supply
(see Section 3.14). Under Alternative 1, the project site would not be developed and no increase
demand for water, wastewater, or solid waste services would occur. Thus, under Alternative 1,
impacts to utilities and service systems would not occur. As a result, this alternative would have
fewer impacts to utilities and water supply compared to the project.
Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative
Aesthetics
With mitigation, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to aesthetics
(see Section 3.1). Under Alternative 2, a 120,000-square-foot entertainment and tourist retail
shopping area would be developed as compared to the maximum 22,000 square feet of
neighborhood commercial under the proposed project. This entertainment area would include
retail commercial buildings, an open-air, tented arena, and a hotel. Development standards allow
a maximum building height of 150 feet (approximately five stories). This “Old Town
Entertainment Center” would be located near the center of the project site overlooking Old Town.
High density multi-family residential with active and passive open space would be located at the
southeastern portion of the project, and mixed-use (commercial, office, business park) located at
the northeastern portion of the project site. While Alternative 2 would have less building square
Altair Specific Plan 5-10 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
5. Alternatives
footage than the proposed project, the height and mass of individual buildings could have similar
visual impact on the landscape. Overall, aesthetic impacts of Alternative 2 would be similar to the
proposed project.
Air Quality
The proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on air quality from
operations that result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone
precursors which exceed applicable thresholds (see Section 3.2). According to the traffic study
prepared for the project, development of the project would result in a net increase of 19,232
vehicle trips per day. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a conservative estimate of
7,446 vehicle trips per day. This reduction in vehicle trips and related mobile-source emissions
would result in Alternative 2 having fewer impacts to air quality than the project.
Biological Resources
The project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 181 acres of upland habitat and
approximately 1.2 acres of riparian/riverine habitat (see Section 3.3). With mitigation, the
proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on adjacent wildlife corridors. Under
Alternative 2, the 55-acre South Parcel would not be developed as it would not be part of the
project site. This would reduce impacts to wildlife corridors that occur under the proposed
project, in particular Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13. However, Alternative 2
maintains the original alignment for the Western Bypass. This alignment is located further west
of the new alignment under the proposed project and would result in impacts to an additional 55
acres of sensitive habitat and greater reduction in corridor width along Proposed Linkage 10
compared to the project. As such, Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to biological
resources compared to the project.
Cultural Resources
Construction of the proposed project would include soil excavation which has the potential to
encounter historical and paleontological resources. With mitigation, the proposed project’s impact
on these resources is less than significant (see Section 3.4). Under Alternative 2, the 55-acre
South Parcel at the south end of the proposed project would not be developed. This would result
in the avoidance of a TCP and potential cultural resources that could be encounter during soil
excavation. As such, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts to cultural resource compared to the
project.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to exposure to geologic
resources (see Section 3.5). Alternative 2 would have 1,449 fewer residential dwelling units at
maximum buildout, and, therefore, would expose less people and structures to potential adverse
effects of seismic groundshaking. However, development under Alternative 2 would be subject to
the same building codes and regulations as the proposed project, which requires structural design
that can accommodate ground accelerations expected from known active faults. As a result,
Alternative 2 would have similar exposure to geologic hazards as the project.
Altair Specific Plan 5-11 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
5. Alternatives
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
With mitigation, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to
GHG emissions (see Section 3.6). Alternative 2, at buildout, would have an estimated 11,786
vehicular trips per day less than the proposed project. As a result, Alternative 2 would have fewer
GHG emissions compared to the project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to hazards and hazardous
materials (see Section 3.7). Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be required to
follow applicable regulations and guidelines regarding storage and handling of hazardous waste.
As such, Alternative 2 would have similar impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials
compared to the project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
With mitigation, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to hydrology
and water quality (see Section 3.8). Alternative 2 would have higher intensity commercial
development (120,000 square feet versus 22,000 square feet) but lower intensity residential
development (302 dwelling units versus 1,750 dwelling units) than the project. Overall, it would
represent a reduced project alternative to the proposed project due to the significantly fewer
residential units that would be developed, and the absence of the civic use and elementary school.
The reduced alternative would have less impervious surface than the proposed project. As such,
Alternative 2 would have fewer effects on hydrology and water quality compared to the project.
Land Use and Planning
The proposed project would be consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan by providing a
complementary residential land use to the Old Town commercial district. Also, the project is
consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan that aim to conserve natural resources and
those that consider development compatibility. The project would require a General Plan
Amendment which would modify the City’s existing General Plan Land Use Policy Map and
sections in the Land Use and Circulation Elements to accommodate the proposed residential
villages, institutional/civic uses, and the Western Bypass alignment. Upon adoption of the
General Plan Amendment, the project would be in conformance with the General Plan. In
addition, with implementation of mitigation measures that address urban/wildlands interface,
noise, and conservation of land in Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of this EIR, the proposed project would
be consistent with goals and policies of the MSHCP. It is expected that development under
Alternative 2 would be required to adhere to similar measures. Alternative 2 would result in a
greater buffer between urban development and an area where three streams converge (Murrieta
Creek, Temecula Creek, and Santa Margarita River) south of the project site. This would result in
a greater degree of consistency with MSHCP goals and policies associated with wildlife
corridors. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts to land use and planning compared
to the project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to land use and planning
compared to the project.
Altair Specific Plan 5-12 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
5. Alternatives
Noise and Vibration
The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts from temporary
construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the project area which
could potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in
ambient noise levels and vibration (see Section 3.10). Under Alternative 2, it is assumed that
construction phasing would occur not unlike the proposed project and individual lots within the
project site would be developed over the course of 10 years. As such, Alternative 2 would have
similar effects on nearby receptors during construction compared to the project.
Population and Housing
The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to population and housing.
Using an average household size of 2.63 persons per household, the proposed project could
generate a new population of between 2,288 and 4,603 people (see Section 3.11). Using the same
persons per household ratio, Alternative 2 is estimated to generate a new population of between
515 and 794 people. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts on population and
housing compared to the project.
Public Services
The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts on public services (see Section
3.12). As noted above, Alternative 2 would generate considerably less population than the
project. As a result, there would be less demand for public services such as fire and police
protection, parks and libraries; and Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts on public services
compared to the project.
Transportation and Traffic
With mitigation, the proposed project would result a less-than-significant impact on traffic,
except under the cumulative scenario (see Section 3.13). The project would result in a significant
cumulative impact on traffic due the unfeasibility of widening Temecula Parkway between La
Paz Road and Wabash Lane. The project would result in a net increase of 19,232 vehicle trips per
day. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a conservative estimate of 7,446 vehicle
trips per day. The reduction in daily vehicle trips under Alternative 2 may avoid the significant
cumulative impact along Temecula Parkway that would result from implementation of the
proposed project; and, overall, would have reduced traffic impacts when compared to the project.
As such, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts to traffic compared to the project.
Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
The proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact on utilities and water supply
(see Section 3.14). As noted earlier, Alternative 2 would generate considerably less population
than the project. As a result, there would be less demand on utilities such, as solid waste, and
water supply. Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts to utilities and water supply compared to
the project.
Altair Specific Plan 5-13 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
5. Alternatives
Alternative 3: Relocate Civic Use Alternative
Aesthetics
With mitigation, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to aesthetics
(see Section 3.1). Under Alternative 3, the civic use would be relocated from the 55-acre South
Parcel to the elementary site, and the elementary school eliminated from the development. The
introduction of an educational/institutional use with up to 450,000 square feet of building area
would result in an increase in building height and mass compared with an elementary school.
However, considering that residential structures up to five stories would occur at the perimeter of
the civic use, the visual character of Alternative 3 as viewed from nearby public roadways would
be similar to the project (see Figures 3.1-1 through 3.1-8). As such, Alternative 3 would have
similar impacts on aesthetics as the project.
Air Quality
The proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on air quality from
operations that result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone
precursors which exceed applicable thresholds (see Section 3.2). The primary source of
operations emissions is from vehicle trips and related mobile-source emissions. Under Alternative
3, daily vehicle trips would be reduced by an estimated 791 trips. This minor reduction in trips
would be not result in a significant reduce in mobile-source emissions. As a result, Alternative 3
would have similar impacts to air quality compared to the project.
Biological Resources
The project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 181 acres of upland habitat and
approximately 1.2 acres of riparian/riverine habitat (see Section 3.3). With mitigation, the
proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on adjacent wildlife corridors. Under
Alternative 3, the 55-acre South Parcel would not be developed and the site would be conserved
as open space. This would provide greater wildlife corridor width at the southern end of the
project where Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 converge, thereby
reducing any potential effects on wildlife movement in this vicinity. As a result, Alternative 3
would have fewer impacts to biological resources compared to the project.
Cultural Resources
Construction of the proposed project would include soil excavation which has the potential to
encounter historical and paleontological resources. With mitigation, the proposed project’s impact
on these resources is less than significant (see Section 3.4). Under Alternative 3, the 55-acre
South Parcel would not be developed. This would result in the avoidance of a TCP and potential
cultural resources that could be encounter during soil excavation. As such, Alternative 3 would
have fewer impacts to cultural resource compared to the project.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to exposure to geologic
resources (see Section 3.5). Alternative 3 would have a reduced development footprint with the
Altair Specific Plan 5-14 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
5. Alternatives
elimination of the elementary school compared with the project; and, therefore, would expose less
people and structures to potential adverse effects of seismic groundshaking. However,
development under Alternative 3 would be subject to the same building codes and regulations as
the proposed project, which requires structural design that can accommodate ground accelerations
expected from known active faults. As a result, Alternative 3 would have similar exposure to
geologic hazards as the project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
With mitigation, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to
GHG emissions (see Section 3.6). Alternative 3, at buildout, would have an estimated 791
vehicular trips per day less than the proposed project. The resulting reduction in GHG emissions
when compared with the project would be negligible. As a result, Alternative 3 would have
similar impacts compared to the project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to hazards and hazardous
materials (see Section 3.7). Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would be required to
follow applicable regulations and guidelines regarding storage and handling of hazardous waste.
As such, Alternative 2 would have similar impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials
compared to the project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
With mitigation, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to hydrology
and water quality (see Section 3.8). Alternative 3 would eliminate the elementary school and
leave the 55-acre South Parcel in its existing, undeveloped condition; resulting in less impervious
surface compared to the project. As such, Alternative 3 would have fewer effects on hydrology
and water quality compared to the project.
Land Use and Planning
The proposed project would be consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan by providing a
complementary residential land use to the Old Town commercial district. Also, the project is
consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan that aim to conserve natural resources and
those that consider development compatibility. The project would require a General Plan
Amendment, which would modify the City’s existing General Plan Land Use Policy Map and
sections in the Land Use and Circulation Elements to accommodate the proposed residential
villages, institutional/civic uses, and the Western Bypass alignment. Upon adoption of the
General Plan Amendment, the project would be in conformance with the General Plan. In
addition, with implementation of mitigation measures that address urban/wildlands interface,
noise, and conservation of land in Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of this EIR, the proposed project would
be consistent with goals and objectives of the MSHCP. It is expected that Alternative 3 would
also involve a General Plan Amendment and be required to adhere to similar mitigation measures.
Alternative 3 would have similar land uses (except for the elimination of the elementary school)
compared to the project but under a reduced density scenario that would provide a greater buffer
Altair Specific Plan 5-15 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
5. Alternatives
between urban development and an area where three streams converge (Murrieta Creek,
Temecula Creek, and Santa Margarita River) at the southern end of the project site. This would
result in a greater degree of consistency with MSHCP goals and policies associated with wildlife
corridors and conserved lands. However, relocating the civic use to the proposed elementary
school site would introduce a higher intensity land use that would be less compatible with the
planned residential uses for that area, and would have an adverse effect on the internal street
system as described under the heading Transportation and Traffic, below. Therefore, Alternative
3 would have similar impacts to land use and planning compared to the project.
Noise and Vibration
The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts from temporary
construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the project area which
could potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in
ambient noise levels and vibration (see Section 3.10). Under Alternative 3, it is assumed that
construction phasing would be similar to the proposed project and individual lots within the
project site would be developed over the course of 10 years. As such, Alternative 3 would have
similar effects on nearby receptors during construction compared to the project.
Population and Housing
The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to population and housing.
Using an average household size of 2.63 persons per household, the proposed project could
generate a new population of between 2,288 and 4,603 people (see Section 3.11). Alternative 3
would allow the same range of dwelling units as the project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have
similar impacts on population and housing as the project.
Public Services
The proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts on public services (see Section
3.12). As noted above, Alternative 3 would generate similar population as the project but would
not have an elementary school and associate recreation/open space. As such, there would be a
greater demand for public services such as public parks and open space, but fewer demands
police and fire protection. Overall, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts on public services
compared to the project.
Transportation and Traffic
With mitigation, the proposed project would result a less-than-significant impact on traffic,
except under the cumulative scenario (see Section 3.13). The project would result in a significant
cumulative impact on traffic due the unfeasibility of widening Temecula Parkway between La
Paz Road and Wabash Lane. The project would result in a net increase of 19,232 vehicle trips per
day. Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in 791 less vehicle trips per day than the
project. This would be a negligible decrease in vehicle trips compared to the project. However,
relocating the educational/institutional use to the elementary school site would shift additional
trips to the north end of the project site and throughout the site’s internal network, likely having
an adverse impact on the internal street network as planned, requiring additional improvements to
Altair Specific Plan 5-16 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
5. Alternatives
intersections along Rancho California Road and the Western Bypass; specifically at Rancho
California Road and the Western Bypass, Vincent Moraga Drive and Park Ridge Drive, and A
Street and the Western Bypass. As such, Alternative 3 would have similar or greater impacts to
traffic compared to the project.
Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
The proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact on utilities and water supply
(see Section 3.14). Alternative 3 would eliminate the elementary school resulting in less demand
on utilities such, as solid waste, and water supply compared to the project. As such, Alternative 3
would have fewer impacts on utilities and water supply.
5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project/No Development
Alternative (Alternative 1) would be environmentally superior to the proposed project based on
the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, the No Project/No
Development Alternative does not meet any of the project objectives. In addition, CEQA
Guidelines (Section 15126.6(c)) require that, if the environmentally superior alternative is the No
Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the
other alternatives.
A summary comparison of the potential impacts associated with the alternatives and the proposed
project is provided in Table 5-3. Based on this comparison, Alternative 2 (No Project/Existing
Specific Plan Alternative) is the environmentally superior alternative by reducing or avoiding
significant environmental effects. However, Alternative 2 would fail to meet these project
objectives: provide diverse housing types and a wide range of densities that would serve a variety
of age groups and household sizes; provide water quality management facilities that are
incorporated within the landscape features and designed to create settings that mimic the natural
hillside; provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a central park, plazas,
trails, a play field, and elementary school; and provide for a civic site of adequate size to
accommodate an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public.
Altair Specific Plan 5-17 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
5. Alternatives
TABLE 5-3
IMPACT SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECTA
Potential Project Impacts
Alt. 1: No
Project/No
Development
Alternative
Alt. 2: No
Project/Existing
Specific Plan
Alternative
Alt.3: Relocate
Civic Use
Alternative
Aesthetics Reduced Similar Similar
Air Quality Reduced Reduced Similar
Biological Resources Reduced Similar Reduced
Cultural Resources Reduced Reduced Reduced
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Reduced Similar Similar
GHG Emissions/Climate Change Reduced Reduced Similar
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Reduced Reduced Reduced
Hydrology and Water Quality Reduced Reduced Reduced
Land Use Reduced Reduced Similar
Noise and Vibration Reduced Similar Similar
Population and Housing Reduced Reduced Similar
Public Services Reduced Reduced Similar
Transportation and Traffic Reduced Reduced Similar
Utilities and Water Supply Reduced Reduced Reduced
a Definitions:
• Increased = impacts of alternative greater than proposed project’s impacts
• Similar = impacts of alternative similar to proposed project’s impacts
• Reduced = impacts of alternative less than proposed project’s impacts
Altair Specific Plan 5-18 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
CHAPTER 6
Other CEQA Considerations
This chapter presents the evaluation of other types of environmental impacts required by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that are not covered within the other chapters of
this Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Other CEQA considerations include environmental
effects that were found not to be significant, growth-inducing impacts, significant irreversible
environmental changes that would be caused by the project, and significant and unavoidable
adverse impacts.
6.1 Growth -Inducing Impacts
Pursuant to Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must address whether a project
will directly or indirectly foster growth. Section 15126.2(d) reads as follows:
[An EIR shall] discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or
population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly,
in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove
obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant, might,
for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in population may
further tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities
that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the characteristic of some
projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect
the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in
any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
A project’s potential to induce growth does not automatically mean that it will result in growth.
The potential for growth is affected by local government regulations including land use plans,
land use policies and zoning ordinances. Growth occurs through capital investment in new
economic opportunities from both public and private entities. The nature of the resulting growth
(i.e., the location, size and type of the development) is also typically the result of numerous
factors including local government planning, availability of public services, natural resources, the
economic conditions as well as local political and environmental concerns. Consequently, these
factors can have an important role in determining the extent of a project’s potential growth-
inducing impacts.
Typically, the growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it
stimulates human population growth or a population concentration above what is assumed in
local and regional land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning authorities.
Altair Specific Plan 6-1 ESA / 211247
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
6. Other CEQA Considerations
Significant growth potential could also occur if the project provides infrastructure or service
capacity to accommodate growth levels beyond those permitted by local or regional plans and
policies.
As discussed below, this analysis evaluates whether the project would directly or indirectly
induce economic, population, or housing growth in the surrounding environment.
Direct Growth-Inducing Impacts in the Surrounding Environment
A project would directly induce growth if it would remove barriers to population growth such as a
change to a jurisdiction’s General Plan and zoning code, which allows new residential
development to occur. The approval of the project would result in amendments to the General
Plan and to the zoning code to allow for the proposed residential and mixed-use development.
The project is anticipated to increase the City of Temecula’s population by approximately 4,603
residents, which is within Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG’s) growth
projections for the region.
The project would provide minimal commercial retail spaces to serve project residents. The
construction of these spaces as part of the project would not cause direct population growth as the
workforce already exists in the region. In addition, the project is served by the existing
infrastructure in the existing urban setting; and any infrastructure upgrades would be to only
accommodate the project.
At buildout, the project boundaries would contain up to 1,750 new residential dwelling units. The
residential units provided by the project would be expected to result in direct population growth.
Growth inducement potential can be measured through evaluating consistency with regional
growth projections. SCAG policies concerning regional growth-inducement are included as part
of Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning, and Section 3.11, Population and Housing, in this Draft
EIR. As described in those sections, the growth anticipated by SCAG’s projections for regional
growth in the project area can accommodate the increases in population and housing anticipated
over the project’s buildout period. This growth would result in the potential for environmental
effects (specifically to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and
soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality,
land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation and traffic,
and utilities and water supply assessment), as noted in this EIR. However, these potential impacts
can be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of the mitigation measures
recommended in this Draft EIR, except for temporary construction noise (project and cumulative
levels), operational emissions for reactive organic gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), and
carbon monoxides (CO) (project and cumulative levels), and transportation (project and
cumulative levels).
Indirect Growth-Inducing Impacts in the Surrounding Environment
A project would indirectly induce growth if it would increase the capacity of infrastructure in an
area in which the public service currently meets demand. Examples would be increasing the
capacity of local utilities or roadway improvements beyond that needed to meet existing demand.
Altair Specific Plan 6-2 ESA / 211247
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
6. Other CEQA Considerations
The project proposes to provide amendments to the General Plan and zoning code, which
modifies the City’s existing land use and could potentially increase the City’s infrastructure to
service the project. However, development of land use and infrastructure that are proposed by the
project would not be considered as resulting in significant indirect growth-inducing effects as the
project does not include roadway or infrastructure improvements beyond that needed to meet the
demand of the project, but instead focuses on meeting the project’s demands and increasing
alternative mobility opportunities. The project could potentially induce indirect population
growth through the creation of jobs and increased residential opportunities. However, this growth
would occur incrementally over the buildout horizon and is consistent with SCAG projections for
regional growth. As noted, the project would result in minimal job creation that would be
adequately met by the existing population. The project would, therefore, not result in substantial
indirect growth inducement.
6.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
Section 21100(b)(2)(B) of the CEQA Statutes and Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines
require that an EIR analyze the extent to which the proposed project’s primary and secondary
effects would impact the environment and commit nonrenewable resources to uses that future
generations would not be able to reverse. “Significant irreversible environmental changes”
include the use of nonrenewable natural resources during the initial and continued phases of the
project, should this use result in the unavailability of these resources in the future. Primary
impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts generally commit future generations to similar uses.
Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with projects.
Irretrievable commitments of these resources are required to be evaluated in an EIR to ensure that
such consumption is justified (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c)).
Approval of the project would cause irreversible environmental changes consisting of the
following:
• Commitment of land that will be physically altered to create residential and commercial
uses, roadways, and other site amenities. The relatively small commitment of land to
these uses is considered less than significant when compared to other development in a
local and regional context, and the surrounding urban built environment. Residential
development that could occur on the site under current zoning could potentially increase.
However, this would be insignificant when compared to other residential development in
the surrounding urban built environment.
• Alteration of the human environment as a consequence of the development process. The
project, which represents a commitment of land to mixed use including residential,
commercial, retail, office, employment, recreation, and arts related uses, changes the
primarily commercial and light industrial uses previously approved on the project site.
Upon the adoption of the General Plan Amendment, the project uses would be in
conformance with the land use designations for the project site.
• Increased requirements of public services and utilities for the project, which represents a
permanent commitment of these resources. Service providers have indicated adequate
supply of water to service the project and the ability to provide fire protection, police
Altair Specific Plan 6-3 ESA / 211247
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
6. Other CEQA Considerations
protection, emergency medical service, and solid waste services. Wastewater facilities
would require some increase in capacity to accommodate the project at buildout. (See
Sections 3.12, Public Services, and 3.14, Utilities.)
• Use of various nonrenewable natural resources for project construction and operations,
such as diesel, gasoline, or oil for construction equipment and natural gas or other fossil
fuels used to provide power and heating sources to the proposed residential, commercial,
and institutional uses. The energy consumed in developing and maintaining the site may
be considered a permanent investment. The project would not use nonrenewable fossil
fuels at a greater rate than other typical specific plan projects in the area. If this project
were not to occur, similar resources would likely be used to develop the project site per
the site’s existing zoning. The project would not increase the overall rate of use of any
nonrenewable natural resource or result in the substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
resource. In addition, the project incorporates measures that promote energy conservation
and reduce consumption of fossil fuels such as, onsite renewable energy and/or increased
energy efficiency building standards (Section 3.2, Air Quality), and site design and other
measures that would reduce vehicle miles traveled (i.e. pedestrian trails, bikeways,
compact residential development within walking distance of Old Town, trolley service
between Altair and Old Town).
• Use of various renewable natural resources, such as water, lumber, and soil, for potential
construction and operations. The project is a relatively minor consumer of these supplies
when compared to other local and regional users. The project’s use of reclaimed water for
landscaping would also reduce demand for potable water. The project would not increase
the overall rate of use of any renewable natural resource or result in the substantial
depletion of any renewable resource.
6.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b), an EIR must describe any significant
impacts that cannot be avoided, including those impacts that can be mitigated but not reduced to a
less than significant level. Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR describes the potential environmental
impacts of the project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce impacts, where feasible.
As discussed in this Draft EIR, implementation of the project would result in significant impacts
to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous
materials, land use and planning, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise
and vibration, and transportation and traffic. However, most of these impacts would be mitigated
to below a level of significance with implementation of mitigation measures identified in this
EIR.
The significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level and, therefore, are
considered significant, unavoidable impacts are related to temporary construction noise (project
and cumulative levels), operational emissions for ROG, NOx, and CO (project and cumulative
levels), greenhouse gas emissions (cumulative), and transportation and traffic (project and
cumulative levels). These unavoidable adverse impacts would require a Statement of Overriding
Consideration by the City.
Altair Specific Plan 6-4 ESA / 211247
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
6. Other CEQA Considerations
6.4 Environmental Effects Found Not to Be Significant
The Initial Study prepared for the project to focus the scope of the Draft EIR is provided in
Appendix A. Issues that were scoped out and that are not addressed in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR
are addressed below.
Agriculture and Forest Resources
The project site does not contain existing agricultural uses nor does it contain any Forest Land,
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The project would not
result in the conversion of any land zoned for agricultural uses or land that is under a Williamson
Act contract.
Mineral Resources
The project site does not contain significant mineral resources nor is it located within a locally
important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has given the city of Temecula a
classification of MRZ-3a. MRZ-3 areas contain sedimentary deposits that have the potential for
supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crusted stone for aggregate. However, these areas are
not considered to contain mineral resources of significant economic value. The project would not
result in the loss of any known mineral resources or the loss of an available, locally important
mineral resource recovery site.
Altair Specific Plan 6-5 ESA / 211247
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
CHAPTER 7
Acronyms, References, and Preparers
7.1 Acronyms Used in This Report
AAMP South Coast Air Quality Management Plan
AB Assembly Bill
ACI American Concrete Institute
ACM asbestos-containing material
ADI area of direct impact
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ATCM Airborne Toxics Control Measure
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BAU “business as usual”
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAC California Administrative Code
CAT Climate Action Team
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Altair Specific Plan 7-1 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
CalOSHA California Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
CARB California Air Resources Board
CASSA Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCAT California Climate Action Team
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC California Fire Code
CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 Methane
CHP California Highway Patrol
CHAPIS Community Health Air Pollution Information System
CIP Capital Improvements Project
City City of Temecula
Cl Chlorine
CMP Congestion Management Program
CMS Congestion Management System
CNDDB California Natural Diversity
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPPA California Native Plant Protection Act
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2/yr Tons of Carbon Dioxide per year
CO2E Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
Altair Specific Plan 7-2 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
CTR California Toxics rule
CUP Conditional Use Permit
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CWA Clean Water Act
DBESP Determination of Biologically Significant or Preservation
dB Decibels
dBA A-Weighted Decibels
DEH Department of Environmental Health
DHS California Department of Health Services
DIF Developer Impact Fees
DNL 24-hour Day and Night A-weighted Noise Exposure Level
DPM diesel particulate matter
DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR Department of Water Resources
EIC Eastern Information Center
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMWD Eastern Municipal Water District
EPO Environmental Protection and Oversight Division
EPZ Emergency Planning Zone
ESA Environmentally Sensitive Areas
ESA Environmental Science Associates
ESA Endangered Species Act
F fluoride
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
FCAAA Federal Clean Air Act Amendments
Fed/OSHA U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
Altair Specific Plan 7-3 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
FIP Federal Implementation Plan
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GPD Gallons Per Day
GPM Gallons Per Minute
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GWP Global Warming Potential
H High Density
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant
HCM2000 Highway Capacity Manual
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
HDR High Density
HMMP Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
HOV High Occupancy Vehicle
HPD Historic Property Directory
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
HWMP Hazardous Waste Management Plan
Hz Hertz
I-15 Interstate 15
IBC International Building Code
ICU Intensive care unit
IPZ Ingestion Pathway Zone
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRP Integrated Resources Plan
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
JRMP City of Temecula Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan
KOP Key Observation Point
L50 median sound level
L90 noise level that is equaled or exceeded 90 percent of the specified time period
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Ldn ambient noise level without project
Altair Specific Plan 7-4 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
LDR Low Density
LDMF Local Development Mitigation fees
Leq Equivalent Sound Level
LF Linear Feet
LID Low Impact Development
LM Low Medium Density Residential
Lmax Instantaneous maximum noise level
LOS Level of Service
LST Localized Significance Thresholds
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
M Medium Density
M Richter magnitude
MAF Million acre-feet
MATES III Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study III
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCA Medieval Climatic Anomaly
MCAA The National Register-listed Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area
MCL Maximum contaminant level
MDR Medium Density
MGD million gallons per day
MG/L Milligrams per liter
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMT Million Metric Tons
MPH miles per hour
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MSCHP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
MSDS Materials Safety Data Sheet
MT metric tons
N2O nitrous oxide
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Statements
Altair Specific Plan 7-5 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Program (Act)
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NEPA National Environmental Protection Act
NEPSSA Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NHTSA National Highway Safety Administration
NOI Notice of Intent
NOP Notice of Preparation
NO Nitric Oxide
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
O3 Ozone
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OES Office of Emergency Services
OHP California Office of Historic Preservation
Ordinance 655 Palomar Lighting Ordinance
OPR California Office of Planning and Research
PPCB polychlorinated biphenyl
Pb Lead
PEA Preliminary Endangerment Assessment
PEZ Public Education Zone
PFCs Perflourocarbons
PM Particulate Matter
PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less
PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
QSD Qualified SWPPP Developer
QSP Qualified SWPPP Practitioner
RCA Regional Conservation Authority
Altair Specific Plan 7-6 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
RCFD Riverside County Fire Department
RCDEH Riverside County Department of Environmental Health
RCHCA Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency
RCIP Riverside County Integrated Plan
RCLS Riverside County Library System
RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCSD Riverside County Sheriff Department
RCTC Riverside County Transportation Committee
RCWD Rancho California Water District
RCFD Riverside County Fire Department
RGO Retail Gasoline Outlets
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RIVTAM Riverside Traffic Analysis Model
RMS Root Mean Square
ROC Reactive Organic Compounds
ROG reactive organic gases
ROW right-of-way
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAR IPCC’s 1996 Second Assessment Report
SB Senate Bill
SB Southbound
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCH State Clearinghouse
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
sf square feet
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Areas
Altair Specific Plan 7-7 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLF Sacred Land File
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SO3 sulfur trioxide
SO4 Sulfate
SONGS San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
SR-74 State Route 74
SR-79 State Route 79
SR-243 State Route 243
SRWF Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility
STP shovel test pits
SVP Society for Vertebrate Paleontology
SWMP Storm Water Management Plan
SWP State Water Project
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
Title 24 California Standards Code
TAC toxic air contaminant
TCP Traditional Cultural Property
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TMC Temecula Municipal Code
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads
TPY tons per year
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSF total square footage
TTM Tentative Tract Map
TUMF Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee
TVH Temecula Valley Hospital
Altair Specific Plan 7-8 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
TVRWRF Temecula Valley Water Reclamation Facility
TVUSD Temecula Valley Unified School District
UBC Uniform Building Code
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
UHS Universal Health Services
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Society
USAR Urban Search and Rescue
USPS U.S. Postal Service
UWIG Urban Wildland Interface Guidelines
V/C Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
VdB Decibel notation
VHDR Very High Density
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
WDR Waste Discharge Requirement
WQIP Water Quality Improvement Plan
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WMWD Western Municipal Water District
WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments
MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
VOCs volatile organic compound
Altair Specific Plan 7-9 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
7.2 References
Aesthetics
Caltrans, 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Riverside County. Updated
September 7, 2011. Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed March 12,
2015.
Air Quality
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2009. Revised Draft Options and
Justification Report California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance.
October.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2013a. Area Designation Maps/State and National.
Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm/. Accessed March 30, 2015.
CARB, 2013b. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Last revised: June 4, 2013. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2015.
CARB, 2009. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality – 2009 Edition. Available:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac09/almanac09.htm.
CARB, 2004. Proposed List of Measures to Reduce Particulate Matter – PM10 and PM2.5
(Implementation of Senate Bill 656, Sheer 2003). October 18, 2004.
City of Temecula, 2015. Temecula Municipal Code. Title 18.Construction, Grading and
Encroachments Chapter 18.06 Grading Permit, Applications and Requirements. Section
18.06.33 Dust Control and Prevention Plan. Updated May, 2015. Available at:
http://www.qcode.us/codes/temecula/.
City of Temecula, 2005. City of Temecula General Plan. Air Quality Element. Adopted in 1993,
updated 2005.
Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2015. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical
Report. April, 2015.
Fehr & Peers, 2015. Altair Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. April, 2015.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2013a, 2012, 2011a. Historical Data
By Year. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-
studies/historical-data-by-year. Accessed March 30, 2015.
SCAQMD, 2013b. Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. February, 2013.
SCAQMD, 2011b. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Available at
http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/handbook/signthres.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2015.
SCAQMD, 2009. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Appendix C – Mass Rate
LST Look-up Tables. Published 2003, revised October 21, 2009
Altair Specific Plan 7-10 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
SCAQMD, 2008. Mates III Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study. September, 2008. .Available
at:http://www3.aqmd.gov/webappl/matesiii/. Accessed April, 2015.
SCAQMD, 2007. Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. June, 2007.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2013. The Greenbook Nonattainment Areas for
Criteria Pollutants. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/index.html.
Accessed March 30, 2015.
Biological Resources
Altair Project 2015. Altair Acreage Consistency Analysis. May 7, 2015.
Cain, A. T. 1999. Bobcat use of Highway Crossing Structures and Habitat use near a Highway
Expansion in Southern Texas. Thesis paper submitted to the College of Graduate Studies,
Texas A&M University-Kingsville in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Science. December, 1999.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2015. California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB). Biogeographic Data Branch California Department of Fish and
Wildlife [commercial version Rarefind 5]. Accessed February 19, 2015.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Program. 2015. Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento,
CA. Available at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org . Accessed 20 January 2015.
City of Temecula, 2009. Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Western Bypass
Bridge Project (SCH# 2009061038). July, 2009.
Crooks, K. 1999. Mammalian Carnivores, Mesopredator Release, and Avifaunal Extinctions In A
Fragmented System. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California Santa Cruz.
Dickson, BG, JS Jenness, and P. Beier. 2004. Influence of Vegetation, Roads, and Topography
On Cougar Movement In Southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(1):264-
276.
Dickson, B. G., and P. Beier. 2002. Home-Range and Habitat Selection by Adult Cougars in
Southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management. 66:1235-1245.
Giessow, J., and P. Zedler. 1996. The Effects of Fire Frequency and Firebreaks on the
Abundance and Species Richness of Exotic Plant Species in Coastal Sage Scrub. California
Exotic Pest Plant Council. 1996 Symposium Proceedings. Berkeley, California.
Helix Environmental Planning Inc. (Helix), 2014a. Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)
Survey Report for the Altair Project in the City of Temecula, Riverside County,
California. August 14, 2014.
Helix, 2014b. Burrowing Owl Survey Report for the Altair Project in the City of Temecula,
Riverside County, California. September 3, 2014.
Altair Specific Plan 7-11 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
Helix, 2015a. Altair Project Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Report.
October 19, 2015.
Helix, 2015b. Altair Jurisdictional Delineation Report. April 2015.
Helix, 2015c. Linkage 10 Assessment for the Altair Project. Memo addressed to Robert Honer of
Ambient Communities from Barry Jones. September 10, 2015.
Helix, 2015d. Mountain Lion Corridor Assessment Update for the Altair and Western Bypass
Project (JPR 14-05-27-01). Memo addressed to Wade Hall of Ambient Communities from
Barry Jones. August 12, 2015.
Helix, 2015e. Mountain Lion Corridor Assessment Update for the Altair and Western Bypass
Project (JPR 14-05-27-01). Memo addressed to Wade Hall of Ambient Communities from
Barry Jones. September 1, 2015.
Helix, 2015f. Altair Project Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Report. July 27, 2015.
Helix, 2015g. Altair Project Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Report. December 2, 2015.
Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California. Non-Game Heritage Program. California Department of Fish and Game.
Sacramento, California.
Keeley, J.E., and C.J. Fotheringham. 2003. Impact of Past, Present, and Future Fire Regimes on
North American Mediterranean Shrublands. In: Fire and Climatic Change in Temperate
Ecosystems of the Western Americas, edited by T.T. Veblen, W.L. Baker, G. Montenegro,
and T.W. Swetnam. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Kertson, B.N.R.D. Spencer, J. M. Marzluff, J. Hepinstall-Cymerman, and C.E Grue. 2011.
Cougar Space Use and Movements in the Wildland-Urban Landscape of Western
Washington. Ecological Applications. 21(8): 2866-2881.
Kristan, W.B. III, A.J. Lynam, M.V. Price, and J.T. Rotenberry.2003. Alternative Causes of
Edge-Abundance Relationships in Birds And Small Mammals of California Coastal Sage
Scrub. Ecography 26:29-44.
Radtke, K.W.H. 1983. Living More Safely in the Chaparral-Urban Interface. USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experimental Station. General Technical
Report PSW-67.
Riverside County Environmental Programs Division (EPD). 2006. Burrowing Owl Survey
Instructions for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan Area. March 29, 2006.
South Coast Missing Linkages Project (SCML) 2004. SC Wildlands. Santa Ana Palomar Linkage
Study. May.
Suarez, A.V., D.T. Bolger, and T.J. Case. 1998. Effects of Fragmentation and Invasion on Native
Ant Communities in Coastal Southern California. Ecology 79:2041-2056.
Altair Specific Plan 7-12 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
Teresa, S. and B.C. Pace. 1998. Planning Sustainable Conservation Projects: Large and Small-
Scale Vernal Pool Preserves, Pages 255-262 in: C.W. Witham, E.T. Bauder, D. Belk, W.R.
Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff (Editors).Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal
Pool Ecosystems –Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society,
Sacramento, CA.
Torres, S.G., T.M. Mansfield, and J. Foley. 1996. Mountain lion depredation and human activity
in California: testing speculations. Abstract. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop. Organized
by the California Department of Fish and Game and the Southern California Chapter of
the Wildlife Society, San Diego, California, February 27 - March 1, 1996.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2015. GIS Critical Habitat and Species
Occurrence Data. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/gis/cfwogis.html. Accessed February 19, 2015.
Van Dyke, F.G., Brocke R.H, H.G. Shaw, B.B. Ackerman, T.P. Hemker, and F.G. Lindzey. 1986.
Reactions of Mountain Lions to Logging and Human Activity. Journal of Wildlife
Management 50:95-102
Vickers TW, Sanchez JN, Johnson CK, Morrison SA, Botta R, Smith T, et al. 2015. Survival and
Mortality of Pumas (Puma concolor) in a Fragmented, Urbanizing Landscape. PLoS ONE
10(7): e0131490. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131490
Vickers, Winston. 2014. Email from Dr. Winston Victor to Matt Peters entitled "RE: Map of the
Murrieta Creek Development Area", addressing Mountain Lion wildlife corridor impacts
from the Altair Project. November 6, 2014.
Western Riverside Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). 2014. Email correspondence from
Ms. Laurie Dobson providing comments on MSHCP Consistency Analysis. November 10,
2014.
RCA, 2004. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
2004. http://rctlma.org/Portals/0/mshcp/volume1/index.html. Accessed February 19, 2015.
Cultural Resources
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), 2009. Section 106 Archaeological Guidance.
Available at: http://www.achp.gov/archguide/. Accessed July 1, 2015.
Bean, Lowell John, and Florence C. Shipek, 1978. Luiseño in California, edited by Robert F.
Heizer, pp. 550-563. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant,
general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Blackburn, T., 1966. Site Record for CA-RIV-270, on file at the Eastern Information Center,
University of California, Riverside.
Bonner, W.H., 1988. Site Record Update for CA-RIV-2134, document on file at the Eastern
Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
Altair Specific Plan 7-13 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
Bowles, L.L., 1982a. Site Update for CA-RIV-50, on file at the Eastern Information Center,
University of California, Riverside.
Bowles, L.L., 1982b. Site Update for CA-RIV-270, on file at the Eastern Information Center,
University of California, Riverside.
Bowles, L.L., 1982c. Site Record for CA-RIV-2134, document on file at the Eastern Information
Center, University of California, Riverside.
Byrd, Brian F., and L. Mark Raab, 2007. Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New
Millennium. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by
Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp 215-227. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD.
Bibb, Leland E., 1972. The Location of the Indian Village of Temecula. Journal of San Diego
History 18(3). Available at: www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/91fall/temecula.htm.
Accessed June 20, 2012.
Brigandi, Phil, 2012. A Short History of Temecula, Temecula Valley Museum. Available at:
www.temeculahistoricalsociety.org/temeculahistory.html. Accessed June 18, 2012.
City of Temecula , 2011. The History of Temecula. Available at:
www.cityoftemecula.org/temecula/History. Accessed September 4, 2012.
Chartkoff,, Joe, Kerry Chartkoff, and Laurie Kona, 1965. Site Update for CA-RIV-50, on file at
the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
CHJ, Inc. 2003. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Lago Bellagio Senior Project, Parcel Map
No. 8856, Parcel Nos. 1 and 2, North Corner of Pala Road and Loma Linda Road,
Temecula, California. Job No. 03356-3. Prepared for Construction Resource Group, Inc.
On file, ESA, Los Angeles.
Cook, Sherburne F., 1978. Historical Demography, In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp.
91-98, Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Drover, Christopher E., and Diana G. Pinto, 1991. Data Recovery at Tonan Ranch CA-RIV-3410.
Prepared for Old Vail Partners and Presley Homes. On file, ESA, Los Angeles.
DuBois, Constance Goddard, 1908. The Religion of the Luiseño Indians of Southern California.
University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. 8:69-173.
Berkeley.
Ehringer, Candace, Michael Vader, and Christopher Lockwood, 2015. Altair Specific Plan EIR
Project, Temecula, Riverside County, California Archaeological Investigation Report,
prepared by Environmental Science Associates for the City of Temecula.
Elliott, Eric. 1999. Luiseño Dictionary. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Updated version, in author's possession.
Englehardt, Fr. ZephYRin, O.F.M., 1924. Mission San Luis Rey. James H. Berry, Co., San
Francisco.
Altair Specific Plan 7-14 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
Gallegos, Dennis, 2002. Southern California in Transition: Late Holocene Occupation of
Southern San Diego County, in Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies on the
California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp 27-40. Perspectives in
California Archaeology Vol. 6, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California,
Los Angeles, 2002.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2005. Tribal Consultation Guidelines, April 15,
2005, Available at: http://www.opr.ca.gov/SB182004.html. Accessed October 16, 2012.
Grenda, Donn, 1997. Continuity and Change: 8,500 Years of Lacustrine Adaptation on the
Shores of Lake Elsinore. Statistical Research Inc. (SRI) Technical Series 59, SRI, Tucson,
Arizona.
Helmich, Mary A., 2008. The Butterfield Overland Mail Company, California State Parks.
Available at:
http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/22491/files/the_butterfield_overland_mail_stagecoach_day
s.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2011.
Historicaerials.com, 2013. [Photo search for years 1938, 1947, 1967, 1978, 1996, and 2005].
Available at: http://www.historicaerials.com/. Accessed 2013.
Horne, Melinda C., and Dennis P. McDougall, 2003. Cultural Resources Study for the City of
Riverside General Plan 2025 Update Program EIR. Prepared for Cotton Bridges and
Associates Urban and Environmental Consultants, on behalf of the City of Riverside
Planning Department, Prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc.
Humbert, J. and S. Hammond, 1972. Site Record for CA-RIV-644, on file at the Eastern
Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
Jefferson, G. T., 1991a. A Catalogue of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part One,
Nonmarine Lower Vertebrate and Avian Taxa. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles
County Technical Reports 5:1-60.
Jefferson, G. T., 1991b. A Catalogue of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part Two,
Mammals. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Reports 7:1-129.
Jones, T. L., & Schwitalla, A., 2008. Archaeological Perspectives on the Effects of Medieval
Drought in Prehistoric California. Quaternary International 188:41–58.
Kennedy, George L. and Todd A. Wirths, 2013. Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation
Program (PRIMP), Ridge Park project, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California,
prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates on behalf of Ambient Communities.
King, Thomas, 1972a. Site Update for CA-RIV-365, on file at the Eastern Information Center,
University of California, Riverside.
King, Thomas, 1972b. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for Murrieta Creek
Archaeological Area, on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California,
Riverside.
Altair Specific Plan 7-15 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
Kroeber, A. L., 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletins, No. 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
Love, Bruce, 1994. Site Update for CA-RIV-2536, on file at the Eastern Information Center,
University of California, Riverside.
Lowell, Douglas L., 1985. The California Southern Railroad and the Growth of San Diego, Part
1. Journal of San Diego History 31(4). Available at: http://www.sandiegohistory.org/.
Accessed June 9, 2011.
Macarro, Mark, 2014. Luiseño Ancestral Origin Landscape National Register of Historic Places
Nomination Form, prepared by the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians. April 2012, revised
April 2014. Document on file at the California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento,
CA.
Masiel-Zamora, Myra R., 2013. Analysis of ‘Éxva Teméeku, A Luiseño Indian Village SiteNamed
Temeku, Located in Temecula, California. Document on file at San Diego State University.
Mason, Roger D., 1999. Results of Archaeological Test Programs at CA-RIV-1022, CA-RIV-
3331, and CA-RIV-3332H, Cottonwood Hills Project Area, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside
County, CA. Prepared by Chambers Group.
McCarthy, Daniel, 1988. Site Update for CA-RIV-365, on file at the Eastern Information Center,
University of California, Riverside.
McCown, B. E., 1955. Temeku: A Page from the History of the Luiseno Indians. Archaeological
Survey Association of Southern California Paper No. 3.
Moratto, Michael , 1984. California Archaeology. Coyote Press, Salinas, California.
Napton, Kyle, 1982. Site Update for CA-RIV-2536, on file at the Eastern Information Center,
University of California, Riverside.
Roberts, Helen H, 1933. Form in Primitive Music: An Analytical and Comparative Study of the
Melodic Form of Some Ancient Southern California Indian Songs. W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc, New York.
Schlanger, Sarah H., 1974. Excavations at Jefferson Avenue, prepared for the California
Department of Transportation by the University of California, Riverside, Archaeological
Research Unit, on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California,
Riverside.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and
Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Available at:
http://www.vertpaleo.org/Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.htm. Accessed July 1, 2015.
Sparkman, Philip Stedman, 1908. The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4).
Stropes, Tracy A., and Brian F. Smith, 2013. Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Ridge
Park Project, City of Temecula, California, prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates for
Ambient Communities.
Altair Specific Plan 7-16 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
Sutton, Mark, 2009. People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion into Southern
California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2/3):32-92, 2006, Printed
September 2009.
Tan, S.S., and M.P. Kennedy, 2000. Geologic map of the Temecula 7.5' quadrangle, San Diego
and Riverside Counties, California: A digital database. Preliminary Geologic Map,
1:24,000. Available at:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/rgm/Pages/preliminary_geologic_maps.aspx.
True, Delbert L., 1958. An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American
Antiquity, 23(3):225-263.
True, Delbert L., and Georgie Waugh, 1982. Proposed Settlements Shifts during San Luis Rey
Times: Northern San Diego County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin
Anthropology 4(1):34-54.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1995. National Register Bulletin: How to
Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Park Service, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2012. Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (As Amended and
Annotated), http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_0.htm. Accessed July 1,
2015.
Van Horn, Kurt, 1974. Tempting Temecula: The Making and Unmaking of a Southern
California Community. Journal of San Diego History 20(1), 1974. Available at:
http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/74winter/temecula.htm. Accessed June 18, 2012.
Warren, C.N, 1967. The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity,
32 (2): 168-185.
Woodward, Lisa, 2012. Letter Re: Pechanga Tribe’s Ethnography Concerning the Bella Linda
Project for Purpose of Assessment of Archaeological and Cultural Resources Impacts, July
13, 2012 (On file City of Temecula).
Geology, Soils and Seismicity
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2002. California Geological Survey (CGS), How
Earthquakes Are Measured, CGS Note 32, Available at
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/information/publications/cgs_notes/note_32/note_32.pdf,
2002.
CGS. 2015. Regional Geologic Hazards and Mapping Program, Alquist-Priolo Available at:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/main.aspx. Accessed July 20, 2015.
Hart, 2007. Hart, E.W., Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, Department of
Conservation, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, Available at:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sp/Sp42.pdf, 1990, interim revision 2007.
Altair Specific Plan 7-17 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
LGC Geo-Environmental, Incorporated (LGC), 2014. Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed
Altair Specific Plan, May 20, 2014.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008. United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WG02), Fact Sheet 2008-3027,
Forecasting California’s Earthquakes – What Can We Expect in the Next 30 Years?
Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3027/fs2008-3027.pdf, 2008.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2014a. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-
2012 — by Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_00-12_2014-
03-24.pdf .
CARB, 2014b. Proposed First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the
Framework. February.
CARB, 2010. Proposed SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Targets: Documentation of the Resulting
Emission Reductions based on MPO Data, August 9, 2010.
CARB, 2009a. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality – 2009 Edition. Available
at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac09/almanac09.htm.
CARB, 2009b. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change, published December
2008, amended version included errata and Board requested modifications posted May 11,
2009. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf.
CARB, 2007. Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In
California Recommended For Board Consideration.
City of Temecula, 2010. City of Temecula’s Sustainability Plan. June, 2010.
City of Temecula,2005. City of Temecula General Plan. Air Quality Element. Adopted 1993,
updated 2005.
Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2015. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical
Report. April, 2015.
Fehr & Peers, 2015. Altair Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. April, 2015.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2001. Climate Change 2001: Working
Group I: The Scientific Basis. Last revised 2001. Available at:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc%5Ftar/wg1/032.htm#f5.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2009. Greenhouse Gas CEQA
Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #14. November 19. Accessed
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ghg-
significance-thresholds March 30, 2015.
Altair Specific Plan 7-18 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
SCAQMD, 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Significance Threshold. October, 2008.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2015. Envirostor Database search. Available
at: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/. Accessed February 9, 2015.
LGC Geo-Environmental Incorporated, 2013. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, February
1, 2013.
Phase One, Incorporated, 2012. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Warmington Residential
California, April 2012.
Riverside County, 2015. GIS Data. Available at: http://gis.rivcoit.org/GISData.aspx. Accessed
March 15, 2015.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2015. Geotracker Database search. Available
at:http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Temecula%2C
+CA.Accessed February 9, 2015.
Southern California Edison, 2013 Southern California Edison, Key Facts on Decommissioning of
Nuclear Generating Station, 2013.
Hydrology and Water Quality
California Association of Stormwater Quality (CASQA), 2009. California Stormwater BMP
Handbook, New Development and Redevelopment, January 2009.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Hydrologic Region South Coast, Temecula
Valley Groundwater Basin, in California’s Ground Water. DWR Bulletin 118, 1975 [2004].
Chang Consultants, 2015. Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Prepared for the
Altair Project, May 9, 2015.
Chang Consultants, 2015. Preliminary Drainage Study prepared for the Altair Project, May 11,
2015.
City of Murrieta, City of Murrieta General Plan, Public Safety Element, July 19, 2011.
City of Temecula. 1993. City of Temecula General Plan, Public Safety Element. Accessed at
http://www.cityoftemecula.org/NR/rdonlyres/C37451F4-CE58-40FE-8A92-
16D510A285E5/0/PublicSafety.pdf on June 18, 2015.
City of Temecula, 2004. City of Temecula Draft General Plan Environmental Impact Report,
December 2004.
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), 2006. Sanitary Sewer System Planning and Design:
Principle Guidelines Criteria.
Metropolitan Water District (MWD), 2007. Chapter IV: Groundwater Reports. Available at:
http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/supply/groundwater/PDFs/EastsideMe
tropolitanBasins/Temecula-MurrietaBasin.pdf . Accessed June 18, 2015.
Altair Specific Plan 7-19 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
Rancho California Water District (RCWD), 2015. Water Supply Assessment for the Altair
Specific Plan.
Rancho California Water District (RCWD), 2015a. Service Area. Available at:
http://www.ranchowater.com/index.aspx?nid=110. Accessed February 13, 2015.
Rancho California Water District (RCWD), 2015b. RCWD Service Area Map. Available at:
http://www.ranchowater.com/DocumentCenter/View/295. Accessed February 13, 2015.
Rancho California Water District (RCWD), 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Update.
Accessed at: http://www.ranchowater.com/DocumentCenter/View/248. Accessed
February 13, 2015.
Rancho California Water District (RCWD), 2014. Sewer System Facility Requirements and
Design Guidelines, April 2014.
San Diego County, 2005. Santa Margarita River Watershed Urban Water Management Plan.
Accessed at: http://www.projectcleanwater.org/pdf/smg/smrwmp_3-10-05.pdf . Accessed
June 24, 2015.
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB). Basin Plan, 2011. Accessed at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/. Accessed
February 21, 2013.
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB). Regional MS4 Permit.
Available at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb9/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/updates05
2313/2013-0523_Order_No._R9-2013-0001_COMPLETE.pdf .. Accessed July 3, 2013.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2006. Statewide General Requirements for
Sanitary Sewer Systems. Accessed at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2006/wqo/
wqo2006_0003.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2013.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2009-0009-
DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System No. CAS000002.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2010. Integrated Report (Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report). Available at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml.
Accessed February 21, 2012.
Land Use and Planning
City of Temecula, 2005. City of Temecula General Plan, Land Use Element. Adopted in 1993,
updated 2005. Available at: http://www.cityoftemecula.org/NR/rdonlyres/A6E5CB9E-
FC95-4508-AADD-E4D82710BB12/0/LandUse.pdf. Accessed March 24, 2015.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2015. About SCAG. Available at:
http://www.scag.ca.gov/about/Pages/Home.aspx. Accessed March 12, 2015.
Altair Specific Plan 7-20 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
SCAG, 2012a. 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS). Adopted April, 2012. Available at:
http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2012/final/f2012RTPSCS.pdf. Accessed March 12,
2014.
SCAG, 2012b. 5th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Final Allocation Plan for
1/1/2014 ‐ 10/1/2021. Adopted August 29, 2012. Available at:
http://www.scag.ca.gov/programs/Pages/Housing.aspx. Accessed March 12, 2015.
SCAG, 2008. Regional Comprehensive Plan. Available at:
https://scag.ca.gov/NewsAndMedia/Pages/RegionalComprehensivePlan.aspx. Accessed
March 12, 2014.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. City of Temecula Quick Facts. Updated December 4, 2014. Available
at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html. Accessed January 29, 2015
Noise and Vibration
California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans). 2004. Transportation- and Construction-
Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. March 2015.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1998. Technical Noise Supplement (TNS), a
Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. March 2015.
City of Temecula, 2005. City of Temecula General Plan, Noise Element. Adopted in 1993,
updated 2005. Available at: http://www.cityoftemecula.org/NR/rdonlyres/DE308781-
2A54-4DF6-9775-467426FE14C8/0/Noise.pdf.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
February 2015.
Fehr & Peers, 2015. Altair Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. April, 2015.
Office of Planning and Research. 2003. State of California Genera Plan Guidelines. March 2015.
USEPA, 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and
Home Appliances.
Population and Housing
California Department of Finance (CA DOF), 2014a. Report E-1: City/County Population
Estimates with Annual Percent Change. May 1, 2014. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php. Accessed
March 13, 2015.
CA DOF 2014b. Report E-5: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the
State, January 1, 2011-2014, with 2010 Benchmark. May 1, 2014. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php. Accessed
March 13, 2015.
Altair Specific Plan 7-21 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2012. Adopted 2102 Forecasts,
accessed at http://www.scag.ca.gov/DataAndTools/Pages/GrowthForecasting.aspx.
Accessed January 20, 2015.
SCAG, 2008. Final 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan: Helping Communities Achieve a
Sustainable Future.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2014a. City of Temecula Quick Facts. Updated December 4, 2014.
Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html. Accessed January 29,
2015.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2014b. Riverside County Quick Facts. Updated December 4, 2014.
Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html. Accessed January 29,
2015.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2013. Report DP04: Selected Housing Characteristics. 2013 American
Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/state_census_data_center/american_communi
ty_survey/. Accessed January 29, 2015.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012. California 2010: Population and Housing Unit Counts. 2010 Census
of Population and Housing. Issued August, 2012.
Employment Development Department (EDD), 2015. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and
Census Designated Places (CDP). Available at:
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/CES/Labor_Force_Unemployment_Data_for_Citie
s_and_Census_Areas.html. Accessed January 29, 2015.
Public Services
City of Temecula, 2005. City of Temecula General Plan. Adopted in 1993, updated 2005.
City of Temecula, 2015. Parks Map. Available at:
http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Residents/ParksFacilities/Parks/. Accessed
February 4, 2015.
Edwards, William, 2015. Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, Southwest Station, email
correspondence. February 25, 2015.
Johnson, Ben, 2013. Strategic Planning Bureau, Planning and Development Supervisor, email
correspondence, July 11, 2013.
Karnes, 2014. Temecula Valley Hospital Expands Emergency Department and Outpatient
Services. Available at: http://patch.com/california/temecula/temecula-valley-hospital-
expands-emergency-department-and-outpatient-services-0. Accessed March 2, 2015.
Myers-Russo, 2015. City of Temecula. Parks information email correspondence. February 26,
2015.
Obmann, Becky, 2015. Temecula Fire Department administration. Fire information email
correspondence. February 12, 2015.
Altair Specific Plan 7-22 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
Riverside County, 2015. GIS Data. Available at: http://gis.rivcoit.org/GISData.aspx. Accessed
March 15, 2015.
Ryan, Susan, 2012. Temecula Valley Unified School District Planning Facility, telephone
conversation, June 21, 2012.
Southwest Health Care System, 2015. About Southwest Healthcare System. Available at:
http://www.swhealthcaresystem.com/community-information/about-southwest-healthcare-
system. Accessed February 5, 2015.
Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD), 2015a. Quick facts. Available at:
http://www.tvusd.k12.ca.us/district_quick_facts.Accessed February 3, 2015
TVUSD, 2015b. Developer Fees. Available at:
http://www.tvusd.k12.ca.us/cms/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1375364640327. Accessed
February 5, 2015.
Universal Health Services, 2015. About the Hospital. Available at:
http://www.temeculavalleyhospital.com/patients-and-visitors/about-the-hospital. Accessed
February 5, 2015.
Vanderhaak, 2015. City of Temecula. Library information email correspondence. February 20,
2015.
Transportation and Traffic
City of Temecula, 2005. City of Temecula General Plan, Circulation Element. Adopted 1993,
updated 2005.
City of Temecula, 2011. Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. City of Temecula Public Works
Department. May 2011.
Fehr & Peers, 2015. Altair Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. April, 2015.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2012. Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition.
Published September 1, 2012.
Transportation Research Board, 2010. Highway Capacity Manual, 2010.
Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), 2015. Maps and Schedules (effective May 10, 2015). Available
at: http://www.riversidetransit.com/index.php/riding-the-bus/maps-schedules
Riverside County Transportation Committee (RCTC). 2011 Riverside County Congestion
Management Program. December 14, 2011. Available at:
http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media_items/congestionmanagementprogram.original.pdf
Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), 2014. Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fee. Available at: http://www.wrcog.cog.ca.us/tumf
Altair Specific Plan 7-23 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
California Water Boards, 2015. San Diego Region- Storm Water. Available at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/stormwater/. Accessed
February 15, 2015.
CalRecycle, 2009a. El Sobrante Landfill. Available at:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/33-AA-0217/Detail/. Accessed
February 15, 2015.
CalRecycle, 2009b. Badlands Landfill. Available at:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/33-AA-0006/Detail/. Accessed June
17, 2015.
Chang Consultants, 2015. Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan for the Altair Project.
Prepared for Ambient Communities, May 19, 2015.
City of Temecula. 2015. Trash and Recycling. Available at:
http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Residents/TrashRecycling/. Accessed February
15, 2015.
City of Temecula. 2005. City of Temecula General Plan, Growth Management / Public Facilities
Element. Adopted 1993, updated 2005.
Eastern Municipal Water District (EWMD). 2015. EWMD Service Area Map. Available at:
http://www.emwd.org/meet-emwd/emwd-service-area. Accessed February 13, 2015.
Rancho California Water District (RCWD), 2015a. Service Area. Available at:
http://www.ranchowater.com/index.aspx?nid=110. Accessed February 13, 2015.
RCWD, 2015b. Water Supply Assessment for the Altair Specific Plan.
RCWD, 2015c. Fact Sheet History. Available at:
http://www.ranchowater.com/DocumentCenter/View/152. Accessed July 1, 2015.
RCWD. 2015d. The Rancho California Water District Water Shortage Contingency Plan.
Adopted July 2008; Revised June 11, 2015. Available at
http://www.ranchowater.com/DocumentCenter/View/1067; accessed July 21, 2015.
RCWD. 2015e. Drought Watch. Available at:
http://www.ranchowater.com/index.aspx?NID=266; accessed July 21, 2015.
RCWD, 2014. Sewer System Facility Requirements and Design Guidelines, April 2014.
RCWD, 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Update. Available at:
http://www.ranchowater.com/DocumentCenter/View/248. Accessed February 13, 2015.
State of California. 2015. Executive Order N-29-15. Released April 1, 2015. Available at
http://gov.ca.gov/docs/4.1.15_Executive_Order.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2015.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2015. Urban Water Supplier Conservation
Tiers. Date current as of July 15, 2015. Available at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/docs/supplier_t
iers.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2015.
Altair Specific Plan 7-24 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016
7. Acronyms, References, and Preparers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2003. Estimating Building-Related
Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/imr/cdm/pubs.htm. Accessed June 23, 2015.
USEPA, 2014. Transfer Stations. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/transfer.htm. Last updated January 10,
2014. Accessed June 25, 2015.
7.3 Report Preparers
Lead Agency
City of Temecula
Planning Department
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Matt Peters, Associate Planner
EIR Consultant
Environmental Science Associates (ESA)
Eric Ruby, Project Director
Jack Gorzeman, Project Mgr.
Candace Ehringer
Courtney Casey
Eric Schniewind
Ian Hillway
Heather Dubois
Hunter Connell
Jason Nielsen
Jack Hutchison
Julie Fontaine
Kelly Ross
Kimberly Comacho
Laura Rocha
Linda Uehara
Monica Strauss
Madeline Bray
Michelle Irace
Terrance Wong
Arabesque Abdelwahed
Transportation Consultant
Christopher Gray and Nathan Schmidt
Fehr & Peers
8141 Kaiser Boulevard, Suite 110
Anaheim, CA 92808
Altair Specific Plan 7-25 ESA / 140106
Draft Environmental Impact Report May 2016