HomeMy WebLinkAbout17-55 CC Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 17-55
' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE TRUAX HOTEL
PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 2.46
ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND
SOUTH SIDE OF 3RD STREET BETWEEN OLD TOWN
FRONT STREET AND MERCEDES STREET (APNS
922-043-002, 922-043-004, 922-043-018, 922-043-024,
922-043-003, 922-043-015, 922-043-023, 922-043-025,
922-044-017, AND 922-044-020)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does
' hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On February 22, 2016, Chris Campbell of Walter R. Allen Architect +
Associates filed Planning Application No. PA16-0270, a Development Plan. On January
23, 2017, Gary Thornhill, on behalf of the Truax Group submitted Planning Application
No. PA17-0109, for a Specific Plan Amendment. On June 30, 2017, Ross Jackson, on
behalf of the Truax Group, submitted Planning Application PA17-1020, a Minor Exception.
These applications (collectively "Project') were filed in a manner in accord with the City
of Temecula General Plan and Development Code.
B. Collectively, the Project consists of a relocation of a portion of the existing
Hotel Overlay contained within the Old Town Specific Plan to allow for the development
of a full service hotel. The Project also includes a Minor Exception to increase allowable
building height for a parking garage that will be constructed across the street from the
hotel.
C. The Project was processed, including but not limited to all public notices, in
the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (CEQA) and the
CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.
D. Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Project because it is
' the public agency with the authority and principal responsibility for reviewing, considering,
and potentially approving the Project.
Resos 17-55 1
E. On February 8, 1994, the City Council adopted the Old Town Specific Plan
' (OTSP). In 2010, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council amended
the OTSP to adopt a form-based code that established development regulations and
standards in the Old Town area. On May 25, 2010, the City Council certified the Program
Environmental Impact Report for the OTSP (SCH #2009071049).
F. CEQA encourages "tiering" EIRs for a sequence of actions so that later
EIRs build on information in previous EIRs (Public Resources Code sections 21068.5 and
21093; CEQA Guidelines section 15152(d)). The Project is located within the OTSP area
and, therefore, tiers off of the Program EIR for the OTSP.
G. Pursuant to CEQA, City staff determined that the Project could have a
significant effect on the environment and therefore a Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report (SEIR) was prepared for the Project.
H. On January 12, 2017, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082,
the City published and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to all agencies and
persons that might be interested in or affected by the Project. The NOP was also
distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH
# 2017011029). The NOP was circulated from January 17, 2017 through February 15,
2017 to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties
on issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. On January 23, 2017, in
' accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping
meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft SEIR.
I. In response to the NOP, eight written comments were received from various
individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in formulating the
analysis in the Draft SEIR.
J. Thereafter, the City contracted for the independent preparation of a Draft
SEIR for the Project, including all necessary technical studies and reports in support of
the Draft SEIR. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City analyzed
the Project's potential impacts on the environment, potential mitigation, and potential
alternatives to the Project.
K. Upon completion of the Draft SEIR in May 2017, the City initiated a public
comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and
Research on Thursday, April 27, 2017. The City also published a Notice of Availability
for the Draft SEIR in San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within
the City.
L. The Draft SEIR was circulated for public review from May 2, 2017 through
June 15, 2017. Copies of the Draft SEIR were sent to various public agencies, as well
as to organizations and individuals requesting copies. In addition, copies of the
' documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the
Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street,
Resos 17-55 2
' Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at
30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County
Center Drive; Chamber of Commerce located at 26790 Ynez Court, Ste. A, and the City
of Temecula website.
M. In response to the Draft SEIR, the City received eight (8) written comments
from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. In compliance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments. None of
the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise
constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Those comments and the Response to
Comments, together with the Draft SEIR, the Errata to the SEIR, and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, constitute the Final Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report (Final SEIR).
N. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, at least 10 days prior
to certification, the City prepared and provided the Final SEIR, including responses to
comments, to the public and all commenting public agencies.
O. On August 16, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly notice public
hearing to, consider the Project and the Final SEIR, at which time City staff presented its
report and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify regarding this matter.
' P. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearing and due consideration of the Project, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 17-31 recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR prepared
for the Truax Hotel, adopt Findings pursuant to the CEQA, adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for
the Project. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution Nos. 17-32, 17-33, and
17-34, thereby recommending that the City Council take various actions, including
adoption of a Specific Plan Amendment, Minor Exception, and Development Plan related
to the approval of the Project.
Q. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before
approving a project forwhich a SEIR is required, make one or more of the following written
finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the Final SEIR accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each finding:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects as identified in the Final SEIR; or,
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency; or,
Resos 17-55 3
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
the Final SEIR.
R. These required written findings are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
1 . Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR as no impact or less
than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Sections IV
and V, respectively, of Exhibit A.
2. Environmental impacts, or certain aspects of impacts, identified in the Final
SEIR as potentially significant, but that can be reduced to less than
significant levels with mitigation, are described in Exhibit A, Section VI.
3. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR as significant and
unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are
described in Exhibit A, Section VII.
4. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section VIII of Exhibit A.
' S. CEQA Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have
been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B,
and is herein incorporated by reference as if set forth in full.
T. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires that if a project will cause
significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations
states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project
benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The Statement of
Overriding Considerations is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and is incorporated herein by
reference as if set forth in full.
U. Prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with,
reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, including
the Final SEIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR,
responses to comments, staff reports and presentations, technical studies, appendices,
plans, and all oral and written testimony presented during the public hearings on the
Project.
Resos 17-55 4
V. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is the
' custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of
proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk,
City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590.
Section 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula,
California does hereby:
A. Declare that the above Procedural Findings are true and correct, and
hereby incorporates them herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
B. Find that agencies and interested members of the public have been
afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final SEIR and on the Project.
C. Find and declare that the City Council has independently considered the
administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which
includes the Final SEIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft SEIR, responses to
comments incorporated into the Final SEIR, staff reports and presentations, and all
testimony related to environmental issues regarding the Project.
D. Find and determine that the Final SEIR fully analyzes and discloses the
potential impacts of the Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided
' to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference, with the exception of those impacts found to be
significant and unmitigable as discussed therein.
E. Find and declare that the Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment of
the City Council. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in
the staff reports, in comments on the Draft SEIR, the responses to comments on the Draft
EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new
information requiring recirculation of the SEIR under CEQA. None of the information
presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a
substantial environmental impact of the Project or a feasible mitigation measure or
alternative that the City has declined to implement.
F. Certify the Final SEIR as being in compliance with CEQA. The City Council
further adopts the Findings pursuant to CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A; adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B; and adopts the
Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit C. The City Council further
determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution (including Exhibit A) are based
upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final SEIR and upon other substantial
evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and
the City Council, and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that
each of the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit C, by itself, would individually justify
' proceeding with the Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the
Final SEIR or alleged in the record of proceedings.
Resos 17-55 5
G. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the Truax Hotel Project
' each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit B, and directs City staff to implement and to
monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit B.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this 5"' day of September, 2017.
aryann Edwards, Mayor
ATTEST:
W::��
Randi Jo)TrCity Clerk
[SEAL]
1
Resos 17-55 6
' STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 17-55 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 5'" day of September, 2017 by the
following vote:
AYES: 3 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Naggar, Rahn, Edwards
NOES: 1 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stewart
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Comerchero
�4—
Randi Johl, City Clerk
Resos 17-55 7
Exhibit A
' FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
I. Introduction.
The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.
("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq.
("Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a Project for which
an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") has been certified that identifies one or more
significant effects on the environment caused by the Project unless the public agency
makes one or more of the following findings:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects identified in the EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other
agency.
3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the EIR.
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula
("Temecula" or "City") hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection
with the proposed Truax Hotel Project (the "Project"). These findings are based upon
written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the
Draft Subsequent EIR (SEIR) and the written responses thereto, the Final SEIR, and
reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and the
City's environmental consultants.
II. Project Objectives.
As set forth in the SEIR, the objectives of this Project (the "Project Objectives") are as
follows:
A. Provide an upscale lodging facility that will service both residents and tourists
visiting Old Town Temecula;
B. Provide additional conference room facilities within Old Town Temecula; and
C. Create an aesthetically compatible development and minimize impacts to
neighboring properties by designing with high quality architecture and signage.
1
A-1
III. Background.
' In 2010, the City of Temecula certified the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP) Program EIR
("Program EIR") which evaluated an amendment of the original OTSP. The purpose of
the Amendment was to enhance design guidelines and encourage residential
development within the Old Town area. The 2010 document served as a Program EIR for
the OTSP that established development parameters, provided land use areas, but did not
propose or evaluate any specific project development, since the exact development
proposals for future projects, such as the proposed Project, were not yet known at the
time.
The Project proposes to develop a six-story boutique hotel, including 151 guest rooms
and a basement, and a six-story, 219-stall parking garage in Old Town Temecula, on the
1.8-acre Project site. The proposed Project site is located within the Old Town Specific
Plan (OTSP) area and is located in the Downtown Core District (DTC) along Third Street
between Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street. A Development Plan Review would
be required for development of the Project.
The proposed Project would require approval of a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA)to the
OTSP in order to relocate a portion of the Hotel Overlay (HO) that is currently sited
approximately 200 feet southeast of the Project location. The SPA would relocate
approximately 61,569 SF of the DTC zoning district at the intersection at First Street and
' Front Street. The SPA would then shift 61,569 SF of that zone to the proposed hotel site
and rezone the area as DTC/HO zoning district.
In addition, the proposed Project would require the approval of a Tentative Parcel Map in
order to: (1) merge the two existing parcels into one parcel on the north side of Third
Street for development of the parking structure and (2) merge the eight existing parcels
into one parcel on the south side of Third Street to allow development of the hotel.
Effects Determined to Be Less than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Study for the
Program EIR and in the SEIR.
The City of Temecula issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") and in the course of the
environmental review, the Project was found to have no impact in certain impact
categories because a Project of this type and scope or in this location would not create
such impacts or because of the absence of Project characteristics producing effects of
this type. The impact areas discussed below were found to be less than significant or
have no environmental impact in the Initial Study for the OTSP Amendment, and therefore
were not evaluated in the 2010 OTSP Program EIR or the Draft SEIR for the Project.
These impact areas include Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources,
Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services and Recreation. A summary
of the impact discussions from the resource areas below can be found in Chapter 3.0 of
the Draft SEIR.
1
A-2
IV. Effects Determined to Be Less than Significant/No Impact in the Initial
Study for the Program EIR and in the SEIR.
A. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
1. The Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. The
Project Site does not contain any Forest Land, Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.
2. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use
or a Williamson Act contract. The Project Site does not contain any
land subject to a Williamson Act contract.
3. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland
Production. The Project Site does not contain any type of land zoned
for forest land or timberland.
4. The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use. The Project site does not contain any
type of forest land.
' 5. The Project would not involve any changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use.
6. The Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to
agriculture or forestry resources.
B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any
candidate, sensitive, or special status species, riparian habitat,
sensitive natural communities, or federally protected wetlands. The
Project site is located in a developed, urban area and would not
impact these biological resources.
2. The Project would not have interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident, migratory fish or wildlife species, wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The
Project site is located in a developed, urban area and would not
impact these biological resources.
3. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protection biological resources, such as the City's Heritage Tree
Ordinance.
A-3
4. The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted
' Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan,
such as the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan.
C. MINERAL RESOURCES
1 . The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state or a locally-important mineral resource
recovery site. The area is not considered to contain mineral
resources of significant economic value and the Project would not
result in cumulative impacts related to mineral resources.
D. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1. The Project would not induce substantial population growth in the
area, either directly or indirectly.
2. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing
housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere. The Project would be developed on non-
operational commercial uses and vacant land.
' E. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. The Project would not result in impacts associated with the need for
additional public services from fire protection, police protection,
schools, parks and other public facilities. Development of the OTSP
area was anticipated in the Final EIR that was prepared for the City
General Plan. Therefore, the need for public services was previously
analyzed and determined, and no additional facilities would be
required as a result of the Project.
F. RECREATION
1 . The Project does not include or require construction of parks or
recreational facilities and would not increase the use of existing parks
or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur.
V. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the
SEIR.
The SEIR found that the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact without
' the imposition of mitigation on a number of environmental topic areas listed below. A less
than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following
A-4
' topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the Final
SEIR.
A. AESTHETICS
1 . The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista, scenic resources, or a State Scenic Highway. The proposed
six-story hotel and parking garage could potentially obstruct views of
the foothills and ridgelines east of the Project, but the Project site has
not been identified as a designated viewshed, nor is it located in the
sightline of a nearby viewshed. Furthermore, the Project site is not
visible from any State Scenic Highways, and no State Scenic
Highways are visible from the Project site.
2. The Project would not substantially degrade the exiting visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The hotel
development would be consistent with the Old Town Specific Plan
design guidelines, architectural character, and surrounding land
uses. The Project would likely enhance the visual character of the
area because of the high-quality architecture with visually appealing
elements, such as improved landscaping and new buildings.
3. The Project, in conjunction with other cumulative projects, would not
result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to aesthetic
impacts. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
B. AIR QUALITY
1. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an
applicable air quality plan. The employment growth associated with
the proposed hotel would be within the anticipated growth accounted
for in the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG)
growth assumptions for the City, and therefore the Project would be
consistent with the regional Air Quality Management Plan.
2. The Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people. As a hotel development, it does not
include any uses identified by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) as being associated with odors and
any potential sources of odors during construction would be
temporary and intermittent in nature.
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1 . The Project would not expose people or structures to potential
' substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. The Project area is
located outside of any Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture Zone.
A-5
2. The Project would not expose people or structures to potential
' substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving seismic-related ground failure, including landslides and
liquefaction. The Project site is located on a relatively level area that
has a low likelihood of being susceptible to landslides or liquefaction.
3. The Project would not have soils incapable of inadequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems.
The Project development would deliver wastewater to the
wastewater treatment plant in Temecula and would not have use for
any septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems.
4. The Project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and
reasonably foreseeable development in Temecula and nearby areas
of Riverside County, would not contribute to cumulative geologic and
soils impacts.
D. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. The Project would not create significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of
hazardous materials. Construction and operation of the Project
would comply with all required applicable regulations, such as the
' Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Plan of Riverside
County, related to hazardous material handling, storage and
removal.
2. The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing school.
There are no schools located within a quarter mile of the proposed
Project site. The closest school to the site is the Vail Elementary
School located approximately 0.75 miles to the northeast.
3. The Project would not be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites and would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment.
4. The Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working within an airport land use plan, two miles of a public airport,
or the vicinity of a private airstrip.
5. The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan. Construction of the Project would comply with all emergency
vehicle access requirements. Operation of the Project would not
' impede emergency access routes or result in permanent road
closures.
A-6
' 6. The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The Project is
located in an urbanized section of Temecula and would be required
to adhere to all fire suppression requirements and fire safety
measures in accordance with the most recent Uniform Fire Code.
7. The Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts
related to hazards and hazardous materials.
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. The Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level. The Rancho California Water District
(RCWD) would have sufficient water supplies to accommodate the
proposed Project as projected in its 2030 water demand forecast.
The Project site is currently developed and largely covered in
impermeable surfaces. After completion of construction, the Project
site would continue to be largely covered by impermeable surfaces
and thus would have no substantive change to the amount of
groundwater recharge that occurs at the site.
2. The Project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the
site such that it would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or
off the site. Construction of the Project would be required to comply
with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Construction General Permit and to develop a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would protect against substantial
erosion or siltation on and off the Project site. The impermeable
surfaces could result in changes in flows and drainages, but runoff
from the Project site would be treated by implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs), such as the proposed biotreatment
facilities.
3. The Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map, nor
structures which would impede or redirect any flood flows. The
Project area and structural development is not within the 100-year
flood zone of Murrieta Creek.
4. The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam. The Project site is located in the dam inundation
areas for Lake Skinner, Vail Lake, and Diamond Valley Lake.
However, compliance with applicable plans and programs, such as
A-7
the City's Dam Inundation Evacuation Plan, would reduce risks
' associated with flooding and dam failure to less than significant.
5. 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
site is relatively level and would not be subject to mudflow.
6. The Project's incremental contribution to hydrology and water quality
impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
F. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. The Project development would not physically divide an established
community. There are residential apartments located approximately
70 feet southwest of the Project boundary, but the development of
the Project would not divide this existing community. There are no
other residential communities in the immediate vicinity of the Project
site.
2. The Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation or adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect. The Project would be consistent
with all applicable policies from the SCAG 2016-2040 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
and the City's OTSP.
3. The Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The
proposed Project is located within the Western Riverside County
Multiple Species Natural Community Conservation Plan (WRC
MSHCP); however, the Project site is located in a developed, urban
area, and is not located within a criteria area identified by the WRC
MSHCP. A Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy
or Joint Powers Review is not required for the Project.
4. The Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact
on land use and planning.
G. NOISE
' 1. The Project would not result in exposure of people within an airport
land use plan, two miles of a public airport, or the vicinity of a private
A-8
airstrip to excessive noise levels. There are no airports or airstrips
located within two miles of the Project area. The closest airport to the
plan area is the Billy Joe Airport located approximately five miles
east.
H. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
1. The Project would not conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways. The Project would not conflict with
the City of Temecula policies, including, but not limited to travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the CMP for
designated roads or highways for the Existing (2016) Plus Project
and Opening Year (2018) Plus Project study scenarios.
2. The Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks. The Project area is not within
the French Valley Airport or Billy Joe Airport influence areas.
3. The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) or result in inadequate
emergency vehicle access. The final grading, landscaping, and
street improvement plans will demonstrate that design standards
related to traffic and emergency access are met.
4. The Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
None of the Project's public right of way improvements would impede
existing bicycle facilities (i.e., the Class III facility on Old Town Front
Street) or transit facilities.
I. UTITILIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
1 . The Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.
2. The Project would not 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.
A-9
' 3. The Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the Project from existing entitlements and resources, and does not
need new expanded entitlements.
4. The Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the
Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments. The Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation
Facility would have sufficient capacity to process the additional
average wastewater flow that would be generated by the Project.
5. The Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs
and would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste. The existing capacity of the El
Sobrante Sanitary Landfill would be sufficient to accommodate solid
waste generation by the Project during construction and at full build-
out.
6. The Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts
related to utilities and service systems.
' VI. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to
a Less Than Significant Level.
The SEIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental
impacts in the areas of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, and
Transportation and Circulation. Measures have been identified that would mitigate all of
the impacts in this section to a less than significant level.
The City Council finds that mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR would reduce
the Project's impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of the unmitigable
impacts discussed in Section VII. The City Council adopts all of the feasible mitigation
measures for the Project described in the Final SEIR as conditions of approval of the
Project and incorporates those into the Project, as discussed more fully in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
A. AESTHETICS
1. Light and Glare
' Impact AES-4: The Project would create a new source of light and glare
throughout the Project area.
A-10
' a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to light and
glare. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's
potential light and glare impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1: The Project applicant would be required
to implement the lighting reduction mitigation proposed in the OTSP
Program EIR. The following light and glare standards shall be applied to the
proposed Project:
• The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures shall contain
"sharp cut-off' fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass lenses and
internal and external shielding.
• The applicant shall ensure that all fixtures shall be parallel with the
finished grade of the Project site; no fixtures shall be tilted above a
90-degree angle.
• The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped
into control zones to allow for open, closing, and night light/security
' lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an
automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low
voltage relays.
• The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall
take advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural massing, and
off-site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection
from cars.
• The applicant shall submit a lighting plan and photometric plan to be
reviewed by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall include
design features (such as those mentioned above) to minimize
impacts of light and glare on the surrounding area.
• The City shall complete a post-installation inspection to ensure that
the site is not excessively illuminated (such that lighting is not
creating excessive glare, unreasonably competing for the public's
attention or creating any roadway safety hazard) and that lighting
sources are properly shielded.
• In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mount Palomar
Observatory, all lighting plans shall be reviewed by the City to assure
' utilization of low pressure sodium vapor lamps; step-down lighting
techniques; shielding to prevent upward and outward illumination;
and compliance with the County Ordinance No. 655.
A-11
The proposed Project shall prohibit the use of highly reflective
' construction materials on exterior wall surfaces. The exterior of
permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high
performance tinted non-mirrored glass, painted metal panels and
pre-cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Currently, the Project Site includes onsite sources of light or glare from existing
commercial buildings and street lights. However, these existing buildings would be
demolished as part of the proposed Project and on-site existing light sources would be
removed. During construction of the Project, there is the possibility of limited, temporary
nighttime construction lighting for security. Once operational, the Project's hotel and
parking garage uses would introduce new sources of light and glare from lighting for the
buildings and streets, as well as from cars traveling through the Project site. The proposed
Project is located approximately 20 miles from the Palomar Observatory, which is in Zone
B (45-mile Radius Lighting Impact Zone) according to the Palomar Observatory Light
Pollution Ordinance (Riverside County's Light Pollution Ordinance No. 655). The Project
would be required to comply with Ordinance No. 655, which lessens "sky glow" from
nighttime light sources by requiring a variety of measures. These measures, which are
included as part of Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1, include the preparation of an outdoor
lighting plan and photometric plan to reduce the effects of light pollution from nighttime
' light sources.
Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 imposes lighting design and placement requirements that
would further reduce "sky glow' and the spilling of light from on-site light sources. With
the imposition of MM-AES-1, impacts of the proposed Project related to light and glare
would be less than significant.
B. AIR QUALITY
1. Construction — Violate an Air Quality Standard
Impact AIR-4: The Project's construction emissions could exceed
SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds for NOX, and therefore could
would violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation.
a. Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid
' or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to violation
of air quality standard. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure
that the Project's potential air quality impacts remain less than significant.
A-12
Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-1: All off-road construction equipment with a
' horsepower(HP) greater than 50 shall be required to have USEPA certified
Tier 4 interim engines or engines that are certified to meet or exceed the
emission ratings for USEPA Tier 4 engines. A copy of each unit's certified
tier specification or model year specification shall be available upon request
at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Construction of the Project would produce maximum daily air pollutant emissions during
the grading and excavation phase of construction. The maximum daily construction
emissions generated by the Project's worst-case construction scenario (i.e. days with the
most construction equipment operating)would produce approximately 105.56 pounds per
day of NOx. SCAQMD's daily significance threshold for NOx is 100 pounds per day.
Therefore, construction emissions would have a potentially significant regional air quality
impact regarding NOx emissions and would require mitigation.
Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-1 would require the use of EPA Rated Tier 4 (or equivalent)
engines on construction equipment. The use of Tier 4 (or equivalent) engines is applied
to all equipment greater than 50 horsepower in each phase in order to be reduced to
below a significant level. With implementation of this mitigation measures, maximum daily
emissions of NOx would be 50.39 pounds per day, which is below the significance
threshold of 100 pounds per day. Therefore, impacts related to violation of an air quality
' standard are reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
2. Cumulative Net Increase of Any Nonattainment Pollutant
Impact AIR-3: The Project's construction emissions could result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment pollutant.
a. Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to the net
increase of any nonattainment pollutant. Specifically, the following measure has been
included to ensure that the Project's potential air quality impacts remain less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-1.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
According to the SCAQMD, 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 proposed
A-13
Project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
' standard. As discussed above, the Project's emissions during construction would exceed
SCAQMD's regional threshold of significance for NOx. Therefore, when considered in
addition to other projects in the cumulative scenario, the Project's incremental contribution
of NOx emissions to impacts on air quality would be cumulatively considerable. However,
with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-1, the Project's NOx emissions would
not exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold and cumulative air quality impacts would be
reduced to a less than significant level.
3. Construction — Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant
Concentrations
Impact AIR-3: The Project's construction emissions could expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
a. Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to exposing
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Specifically, the following
measures have been included to ensure that the Project's potential air quality impacts
remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-1
Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-2: During earthmoving and construction
phases, use water trucks to spray unpaved roads and exposed soils on the
Project site at least four times per day to keep all areas where vehicles
move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site. In addition,
require all vehicles and off-road equipment to limit maximum speed on
unpaved roads within the Project site to 15 miles per hour.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Residential apartment units located immediately adjacent to the southwest of the Project
site, approximately 65 feet (25 meters) from the Project boundary, are the nearest
sensitive receptors, which means that construction emissions were compared to the 1.9-
acre site localized significance thresholds (LST) (listed in Table 3.2-5 of the Draft SEIR)
for a receptor distance of 82 feet (25 meters)from the site boundary. Based on SCAQMD
guidance (specifically, the Fact Sheet for Applying CaIEEMod to Localized Significance
Thresholds (Fact Sheet), found under the heading Appendix C- Mass Rate LST Look-up
Table under the guidance page located at
(http://www.agmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-
significance-thresholds), the determination of significance based on 1.8 acres of
disturbance per day was interpolated for this analysis. For PM10, the LST is 6.4 pounds
per day; for PM2.5, the LST is 3.8 pounds per day. During grading and excavation phases
of construction, emissions would exceed LSTs for PM10 (10.4 pounds per day) and
PM2.5 (7.0 pounds per day).
A-14
Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-1 requires all construction equipment to have EPA Rated
Tier 4 (or equivalent) engines during each phase. Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-2 requires
the Project site's unpaved roads used for any vehicular travel to be watered at least four
times per eight-hour workday to reduce fugitive dust emissions to below a significant level.
With implementation of these mitigation measures, maximum daily emissions of PM10
would be 5.6 pounds and maximum daily emissions of PM2.5 would be 3.1, which are
both below the LSTs for nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, impacts related to
exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants are reduced to less than significant with
mitigation.
C. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Historical and Archaeological Resources
Impact CUL-1: The results of archival research, geoarchaeological review,
Tribal correspondence, and field survey suggest the Project area is
sensitive for cultural resources. Although the lack of identified subsurface
archaeological materials greatly reduces the likelihood of encountering
buried archaeological resources as a result of Project implementation, it
does not preclude this possibility entirely. The possibility exists of
encountering buried archaeological resources that may be considered
historical resources or unique archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA.
' a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to historical
and archaeological resources. Specifically, the following measures have been included
to ensure that the Project's potential historical and archaeological resources impacts
remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1: 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 archeologist meeting the Secretary
of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archeology (U.S.
Department of Interior 2012) and as approved by the City of Temecula, to
provide archeological expertise in carrying out all mitigation measures
related to archeological resources (Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and -3).
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2: Prior to the start of ground-disturbing
activities, the qualified archaeologist shall designate an archaeological
monitor to observe ground-disturbing activities, including but not limited to
brush clearance and grubbing, grading, trenching, excavation, and the
construction of fencing and access roads, in consultation with the Pechanga
monitor. If ground-disturbing activities occur simultaneously in two or more
areas located more than 500 feet apart, additional archaeological monitors
may be required. The archaeological monitor shall keep daily logs. After
A-15
monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a
monitoring report that details the results of monitoring activities, which shall
be submitted to the City, Pechanga Tribe, and to the EIC at the University
California, Riverside.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3: At least 30 days prior to issuance of a
grading permit and prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity, the
Project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of
grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the
Tribe to develop and enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment and
Monitoring Agreement (Agreement). The Agreement will address the
treatment of known cultural resources; appropriate treatment and procedure
for inadvertent discoveries; the designation, responsibilities, and
participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation
and ground disturbing activities; Project grading and development
scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final
disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains
discovered on the site.
The Pechanga Tribal monitor shall monitor all ground-disturbing activities
including, but not limited to, brush clearance and grubbing, grading.
trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing, as specified in the
' Agreement, and in consultation with the Project archeologist. If ground-
disturbing activities occur simultaneously in two or more locations,
additional Native American monitors may be required.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-4: If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface
cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the
Project Applicant, the Project qualified Archaeologist, and the Pechanga
Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and
confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. Pursuant to PRC Section
21083.2(b), avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for
archaeological resources. If the Project Applicant and the Pechanga Tribe
cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these
issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The Planning
Director will make the determination based on the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological
resources and will 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 Planning Director will be appealable to
the City Planning Commission and/or City of Temecula City Council.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-5: The landowner shall relinquish ownership
of all cultural resources, including sacred items. Burial goods and all
archaeological artifacts that are recovered as a result of Project
implementation to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition
as outlined in the Agreement (Mitigation Measure CUL-3).
A-16
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-6: All sacred sites, should they be
' encountered within the Project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the
preferred mitigation, if feasible.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
There are no current, known archeological or built environment resources in the Project
Site that are listed in or eligible for listing in the California Register or local register, or that
may be considered unique archaeological resources. As such, there would be no impact
to known historical or unique archaeological resources. Nonetheless, archival research
indicates the Project Site lies within an area that is highly sensitive for cultural resources.
The lack of identified subsurface archaeological materials within or immediately adjacent
to the Project site greatly reduces the likelihood of encountering buried archaeological
resources, but it does not preclude this possibility entirely.
As such, there exists the possibility of encountering buried archaeological resources that
may be considered historical resources or unique archaeological resources pursuant to
CEQA. Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-6 require specific measures to
ensure that any such resources would be identified and any impacts to the resources
would be avoided. Therefore, these mitigation measures would ensure that impacts would
be reduced to less than significant.
2. Paleontological Resources
' Impact CUL-2: The Project could not directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to
paleontological resources. Specifically, the following measure has been included to
ensure that the Project's potential paleontological resources impacts remain less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-7: In the event paleontological resources are
discovered during Project implementation, the Project Applicant will notify
the City's Planning Director and a qualified paleontologist, defined as one
meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology, 1995). The paleontologist shall document the
discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the
significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5. If fossil or fossil bearing deposits are discovered during
construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily
halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified
' paleontologist. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to
determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed
to resume at the location of the find. If the City determines that avoidance
A-17
is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for
' mitigating the effect of the Project on the qualities that make the resource
important. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval
prior to implementation.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The Project vicinity is underlain by older Quarternary alluvium and the Pauba Formation.
Previous resource assessments indicate a wide range of vertebrate fauna from the
Rancholabrean North American Land Mammal Age have been recovered from older
Quarternary alluvium in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Furthermore, the Pauba
formation is known to contain vertebrate fossils of late Irvingtonian and early
Rancholabrean ages. As such, the older Quaternary alluvium and the Pauba Formation
have a high paleontological sensitivity and there exists the possibility that proposed
Project implementation may impact paleontological resource or unique geological feature.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-7 would reduce potential impacts to
paleontological resources to less than significant.
3. Human Remains
Impact CUL-3: Because the 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.
' a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to human
remains. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the
Project's potential human remain disturbance impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-8: If human remains are encountered,
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further
disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the
necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to PRC Section
5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a
final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the
Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American,
the NAHC must be contacted within 24 hours. The NAHC must then
immediately identify the MLD upon receiving notification of the discovery.
The MILD shall then make recommendations within 48 hours and engage in
' consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in PRC
Section 5097.98 and the Agreement described in Mitigation Measure MM-
CUL-3.
A-18
b. Facts in Support of Findings
No known human remains exist within the proposed Project vicinity. However, since the
proposed Project would involve ground-disturbing activities, it is possible that such
actions could unearth, expose, or disturb previously unknown human remains.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-8 would ensure that impacts are less than
significant.
4. Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-4: Project implementation may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in PRC
21074.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to tribal
cultural resources. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure
that the Project's potential tribal cultural resources impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-3, MM-CUL-4, MM-CUL-S, and MM-CUL-
6
b. Facts in Support of Findings
While no tribal cultural resources were identified within the Project site, at least four
resources were identified by the Pechanga Tribe within the immediate vicinity. Given the
sensitivity of the broader area for archaeological, ethno-historic, and tribal cultural
resources, the Pechanga Tribe considers the entire area to be highly sensitive for tribal
cultural resources. Project activities, particularly ground-disturbing activities, have the
potential to uncover previously unidentified resources that could be identified as tribal
cultural resources. In light of this sensitivity, the Pechanga tribe has requested Native
American monitoring of all ground disturbing activities associated with the Project. This
request has been incorporated into the mitigation measures presented in this section.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-3 through MM-CUL-6 would reduce
potential impacts to tribal cultural resource to less than significant.
D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1 . Seismic Groundshaking
Impact GEO-1 b: The Project development could expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse effects from strong seismic
groundshaking, including the risk of loss, injury or death.
' a. Findings
A-19
The Project site is located in a seismically active region with active fault segments of the
' Elsinore fault zone located approximately 2,000 feet from the Project boundary. The
Elsinore Fault Zone is one of the faults considered capable of producing significant
groundshaking. If not designed appropriately, the proposed Project's structures could be
damaged from significant groundshaking in a 6.7 or greater magnitude earthquake on the
Elsinore or one of the other regional active faults. Changes or alterations have been
required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant environmental effects to groundshaking to less than significant.
Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's
potential impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-GEO-1: Prior to issuance of a building permit, a
final design level geotechnical report shall be prepared by a California
registered geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to
the City in accordance with City, California Building Code (CBC) and
engineering standards. The final report shall be based on the
recommendations contained within the Preliminary Geotechnical report
prepared for the Project site and include measures to incorporate seismic
design measures that meets CBC requirements. The report shall address
all geotechnical hazards including seismic design, liquefaction, soil stability,
and any other geotechnical hazard identified at the site.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The Project would be constructed 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). These recommendations, based on those contained within the preliminary
geotechnical investigation prepared for the site would be necessary to reduce potential
impacts associated with groundshaking. Therefore, with implementation of the seismic
design requirements into construction specification as required by Mitigation Measure
GEO-1, the impacts associated with the effects associated with groundshaking would be
reduced to less than significant levels.
2. Construction Impacts to Soil Erosion
Impact GEO-2: Construction of the Project could result in soil erosion of the
loss of topsoil on the Project Site.
a. Findings
' Construction of the Project has a potential to result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil on
the Project Site because construction would involve significant earthwork activities,
A-20
including grading and stockpiling of soils. Changes or alterations have been required in
or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially
significant environmental effects to soil erosion to less than significant. Specifically, the
following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's potential impacts
remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1: As a condition of approval, the proposed
Project shall be required to implement the 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 final Project designs
implement specific water quality features to meet the City's Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit and Stormwater Ordinance
requirements. The WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of
Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 (from OTSP Program EIR): Prior to the
issuance of a grading or building permit for individual Projects, the Project
developer shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with California to comply with
the requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit (Municipal
Code, Chapter Chapter 8.24). This would include the preparation of a
SWPPP incorporating construction BMPs for control of erosion and
' sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
These mitigation measures require the implementation of construction BMPs, which
would be detailed in the SWPPP as required by the Construction General Permit from the
NPDES program, as further discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section, and
the preparation of a WQMP, as required by the City Stormwater Ordinance. Although
these measures are intended to prevent sedimentation from entering runoff from the site,
they generally prevent soil erosion and loss of topsoil occurring at a construction site.
Therefore, with adherence to these mitigation measures, potential construction-related
erosion would be reduced to less than significant.
1. Unstable or Expansive Soils
Impact GEO-3 and GEO-4: The Project could result in subsidence,
liquefaction, lateral spreading, expansion or collapse as a result of being
located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become
unstable as a result of the proposed Project.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid
' or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to unstable
or expansive soils to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been
included to ensure that the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant.
A-21
Mitigation Measure MM-GEO-1
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The 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 and included as part of Mitigation Measure MM-GEO-1 . The final
required geotechnical report for the Project 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 provides a basis of conditions that are expected to occur
but a final geotechnical report with specific design criteria would be required to obtain a
building permit. The final geotechnical report would determine appropriate foundation
requirements, footing size, fill placement, grading, and then any structural engineering
specific to the proposed elements of the Project. 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 and CBC building code requirements would result in less than significant impacts
from unstable soils and other adverse soil properties.
E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Construction — Upset or Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials.
' Impact HAZ-2: The Project could 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.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to
hazardous materials. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure
that the Project's potential hazardous material impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1: As a condition of approval for a grading
permit, the use of construction BMPs shall be implemented as part of
construction to minimize the potential negative effects of accidental release of
hazardous materials to groundwater and soils. These shall include the
following:
• Follow manufacturer's recommendations on use, storage and
disposal of chemical products used in construction;
' . Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel gas tanks;
A-22
• During routine maintenance of construction equipment, properly
' contain and remove grease and oils; and
• Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other
chemicals in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and local
and state regulations.
All the BMPs shall be in accordance with the most recent version of the
California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) BMP Handbook for
construction and included in contract specifications.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The onsite storage and/or use of large quantities of materials capable of impacting soil
and groundwater are not typically required for a Project of this proposed size and type.
However, construction activities would require the use of certain hazardous materials
such as fuels, oils, solvents, and glues. The inadvertent release of large quantities of
these materials into the environment could adversely impact soil, surface waters, or
groundwater quality. As such, Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1 requires the
implementation of best management practices to minimize the potential negative effects
of accidental release of hazardous materials to groundwater and soils. Therefore, with
implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1, impacts would be reduced to less than
' significant.
F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Construction —Water Quality or Waste Discharge
Impact HYD-1 and HYD-6: Construction activities associated with the
Project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to water
quality and waste discharge. Specifically, the following measure has been included to
ensure that the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1: As a condition of approval, the proposed
Project shall be required to implement the 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 final Project designs
A-23
implement specific water quality features to meet the City's Municipal
' Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit and Stormwater Ordinance
requirements. The WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of
Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
During construction, potential impacts on water quality are related to sediments, turbidity,
and certain pollutants that might be associated with sediments (e.g., phosphorus and
legacy pesticides). Construction-related activities that are primarily responsible for
sediment releases are related to exposure of soils to rainfall/runoff and wind and include
removal of vegetation, grading, and excavation. Other pollutants that are of concern
during construction include waste materials, chemicals, concrete, and petroleum products
used in building construction or the maintenance of heavy equipment.
The Project construction would require disturbance of more than one acre, and thus would
be required to obtain coverage under the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit
(as also required by Mitigation Measure MM-3.5-1), which is contained within the OTSP
Program EIR and applies to this Project). The Construction General Permit requires the
development to prepare and implement a SWPPP, which 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. With the application of the these regulations, construction-
related impacts to water quality from the Project would be less than significant.
Operation of the new development at the Project site would be required to comply with
the development planning requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board (SDRWQCB) MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction and prepare a Project-
specific WQMP as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance, per Mitigation
Measure MM-HYD-1. These regulations include implementation of non-structural,
structural, and source control and treatment control BMPs during the planning process
prior to Project approval for development projects. The SDRWQCB MS4 permit and the
City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance require that the Project-specific WQMP shall
include a drainage hydrologic/hydraulic analysis that details the site's anticipated runoff
calculations. With implementation of these requirements, the Project would not result in
adverse impacts to water quality.
2. Drainage Pattern Alteration and Stormwater Facilities
Impact HYD-4 and HYD-5: The Project could substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site such that increases in runoff result in flooding on or offsite or exceed
the capacity of existing or planned infrastructure.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to drainage
A-24
patterns. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the
' Project's potential impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-2: 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 be under capacity, then
other improvements to existing or proposed drainage facilities shall be
incorporated into the final design in accordance with Public Works
requirements.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
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. However, construction BMPs would be in place during storm
events as required by the Construction General Permit, which would reduce the potential
for stormwater 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.
A conceptual drainage plan and WQMP has already been prepared for the site to address
how the Project would comply with drainage control requirements. The analyses
determined drainage management areas for the Project, calculations for Low Impact
Development (LID) BMP facilities, potential pollutants of concern, and a preliminary
design. As part of Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-2, a final drainage study would be
prepared by an engineer that would verify the capacity of the existing receiving drainage
facilities in accordance with City of Temecula requirements. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure HYD-2 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.
A-25
G. NOISE
' 1. Operations — Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
Impact NOI-3: Operation of the proposed Project could result in a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity
above existing levels.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to
permanent increase in noise levels. Specifically, the following measures have been
included to ensure that the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4:
• Building equipment (e.g., HVAC units) shall be located away from
nearby residences, on building rooftops, and properly shielded by
either the rooftop parapet or within an enclosure that effectively
blocks the line of sight of the source from the nearest receptors. The
resultant HVAC noise level shall not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest
receptors.
• In order to avoid noise-sensitive hours, commercial and retail shall
prohibit loading and unloading activities between the nighttime hours
of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
• To further address the nuisance impact of loading dock/truck delivery
noise, all loading areas for commercial and retail uses shall be
located at the rear or sides of buildings within the commercial and
mixed-use districts, where noise can be directed away from
residential uses within the mixed use areas of the Project.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-S: If necessary to comply with the interior
noise requirements of the City of Temecula and achieve an acceptable
interior noise level, noise reduction in the form of sound-rated assemblies
(i.e., windows, exterior doors, and walls) shall be incorporated into Project
building design, based upon recommendations of a qualified acoustical
engineer. Final recommendations for sound-rated assemblies will depend
on the specific building designs and layout of buildings on the site and shall
be determined during the design phase.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
' As part of the proposed Project, new mechanical equipment, such as heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning units (HVAC), would be installed on the hotel building. Such rooftop
HVAC units typically generate noise levels of approximately 55 dB at a reference distance
A-26
of 100 feet from the operating units during maximum heating or air conditioning
' operations. The noise level of the HVAC, if on the edge of the building nearest the
sensitive receptors, could exceed the City of Temecula's 65 dBA noise standard.
Delivery trucks are expected to be used during on-site commercial operations. An idling
truck at 50 feet was found to produce noise levels of 72 dBA Leq, and a passing truck at
50 feet was found to produce noise levels of 68 dBA Leq. Cal-OSHA also requires backup
beepers to be at least 5 dBA above ambient noise levels. Because the truck delivery
access point would be the furthest point of the Project site away from sensitive receptors
(approximately 500 feet), the truck deliveries are not anticipated to impact nearby
residences.
The Project-specific traffic analysis revealed that traffic impacts for the proposed Project
would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Therefore,
noise impacts related to operational traffic are expected to be less than significant.
The OTSP Program EIR determined that residences in the Project area would be subject
to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires an interior noise standard
of DNL 45 dBA in any habitable room. Although the proposed Project is a hotel project,
it is also subject to Title 24 Building Codes. Therefore, hotel rooms located along affected
roads exceeding 65 dBA would require sound-rated assemblies at the exterior facades of
project buildings. The OTSP Program EIR also included Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-4
and MM-NOI-5 to reduce indoor noise exposure to within City of Temecula and State
' standards. Compliance with the mitigation measures contained in the OTSP Program
EIR, and herein incorporated by reference would reduce operational noise impacts to less
than significant levels.
H. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
1. Cumulative Intersection Level of Service
Impact Cumulative CIR-1: The proposed Project would result in significant
impacts at the following intersections under Cumulative Conditions:
• Rancho California Road / Old Town Front Street (AM and PM peak
hours)
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to traffic
under existing (2016) conditions. Specifically, the following measure has been included
to ensure that the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUM-CIR-1. The Project applicant shall
' contribute fair-share funding (2%) towards the optimization of the AM peak
hour traffic signal coordination timing plan. Since Rancho California Road
A-27
' operates an Adaptive Traffic Signal System, the entire corridor will require
optimization.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The City of Temecula's significance criteria states that a traffic impact is considered
significant if the addition of Project traffic causes the intersection LOS to decrease to
worse than LOS D during peak hours. For intersections currently operating at LOS E or
F, a project impact will be considered significant if the project causes the delay at a
signalized intersection to increase by more than 2 seconds or adds more than 20 peak
hour trips to the critical movement of an unsignalized intersection.
All of the study intersections would operate acceptably at LOS D or better with and without
the proposed Project, with the exception of the following location, which would operate at
LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour:
• Rancho California Road / Old Town Front Street (AM and PM peak hours)
The intersection at Rancho California Road and Old Town Front Street currently operates
at LOS E (AM) and F (PM); the proposed Project's contribution to LOS E conditions during
the AM peak hour in combination with cumulative projects, is considered a significant
impact because the intersection delay would increase by more than two seconds.
Therefore, a significant cumulative impact would occur at the Rancho California Road
' and Old Town Front Street intersection. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure
MM-CUM-CIR-1 would require the Project applicant to contribute fair-share funding
towards optimization of the AM peak hour traffic signal coordination timing plan. This
would reduce delay time at the intersection and would reduce this cumulative impact to
less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation.
VII. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After
Mitigation.
In the environmental areas of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and Noise and
Vibration, there are instances where potential environmental impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable, as discussed below:
A. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1. Generation of GHG Emissions Impacts
Impact GHG-1: The Project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Impact GHG-2: The Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases.
a. Findings
A-28
The OTSP Program EIR determined that implementation of the full build-out of the OTSP
' Amendment would result in the generation of GHG emissions from construction and
operations that would exceed SCAQMD's GHG screening threshold, and therefore would
be considered a potentially significant impact. The GHG analysis contained in the OTSP
Program EIR was incorporated in Chapter 3.0, Summary of Findings from the OTSP
Program EIR, of the Project Draft SEIR.
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce
the impacts related to GHG emissions. The below mitigation measures from the OTSP
Program EIR are required in order to reduce GHG emissions impacts to the maximum
extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 (from the OTSP Program EIR): The applicant
shall require implementation of all feasible energy efficiency and GHG
reduction measures, including but not limited to the following measures.
Energy Efficiency
• Design buildings to be energy efficient.
• Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an
integral part of lighting systems in buildings.
• Install light colored "cool" roofs, cool pavements.
• Provide information on energy management services for large energy
users.
• Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and
equipment, and control systems.
• Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor
lighting.
Water Conservation and Efficiency
• Create water-efficient landscapes.
• Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil
moisture-based irrigation controls.
• Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and
appliances.
• Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to
non-vegetated surfaces) and control runoff.
• Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles.
A-29
• Implement low-impact development practices that maintain the existing
' hydrologic character of the site to manage storm water and protect the
environment. (Retaining storm water runoff on-site can drastically
reduce the need for energy-intensive imported water at the site.)
• Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the
project and location. The strategy may include many of the specific items
listed above, plus other innovative measures that are appropriate to the
specific project.
• Provide education about water conservation and available programs
and incentives.
Solid Waste Measures
• Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not
limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard).
• Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green
waste and adequate recycling containers located in public areas.
' Land Use Measures
Include mixed-use, infill, and higher density in development projects to
support the reduction of vehicle trips, promote alternatives to individual
vehicle travel, and promote efficient delivery of services and goods.
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
• Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and
construction vehicles.
• Use low or zero-emission vehicles, including construction vehicles.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The OTSP Program EIR determined that implementation of the full build-out of the OTSP
Amendment would result in approximately 12,004 metric tons (MT) of CO2e per year from
construction and approximately 192,657 MT CO2e per year from operations, which was
considered a potentially significant impact. The OTSP Program EIR included a list of GHG
reduction measures, incorporated above as Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 , from the State of
California Attorney General's office that could be applied to a diverse range of projects in
order to reduce GHG emissions.
' However, since the project would result in GHG emissions that would exceed the major
source threshold (25,000 MT CO2e per year) and the SCAQMD GHG screening threshold
A-30
(3,000 MT CO2e per year), the OTSP Amendment would potentially conflict with the
' state's ability to meet the AB 32 goals. Even with implementation of all measures that are
feasible from Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 listed above, build-out of the OTSP Amendment
was considered to be a major source of greenhouse gases and would exceed the
SCAQMD GHG screening threshold. Consequently, the increase in greenhouse gases
from implementation of the OTSP places the project in conflict with the goal of the state
to reduce up to 169 million metric tons CO2e/year. The OTSP Program EIR determined
impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not introduce any new land uses that were
not already accounted for in the certified OTSP Program EIR. The Project would involve
an amendment to the OTSP that would relocate a portion of the Hotel Overlay zone to
the Project site and would not change the overall intensity or distribution of uses in the
Specific Plan area. The GHG emissions resulting from the construction and operation of
the Project are cumulative in nature. Therefore, Project-specific emissions are accounted
for in the OTSP Program EIR and there would be no additional emissions as a result the
Project. Since the OTSP Program EIR determined that impacts from GHG emissions
would be considered significant and unavoidable, the proposed Project would also have
significant and unavoidable impacts related to GHG emissions.
B. NOISE AND VIBRATION
1. Construction Noise Impacts
Impact NOI-1: The Project would result in the exposure of persons to, or
generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance.
Impact NOI-2: The Project would exposure of persons to, or generation of,
excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels
Impact NOI-4: The Project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without
the project.
a. Findings
During construction, the proposed Project has a potential to temporarily generate noise
levels that may result in (1)exposure of persons to or generation of noise or ground-borne
vibration levels in excess of applicable local standards and (2) a substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing
without the Project.
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce
the impacts related to construction noise and vibration. The below mitigation measures
are required in order to reduce construction noise and vibration impacts to the maximum
extent feasible.
A-31
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1:
' The applicant shall ensure, as specified in City of Temecula Ordinance
No. 94-25, that no construction may occur within one-quarter (1/4) of a
mile of any occupied residence during the following hours:
0 6:30 PM to 6:30 AM, Monday through Friday.
o Before 7:00 AM or after 6:30 PM, Saturday.
o At any time on Sunday or any nationally recognized holiday.
• The applicant shall ensure that all construction equipment will have
properly operating mufflers.
• The applicant shall ensure that all construction staging shall be
performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings.
• The applicant shall ensure that signs shall be posted at the construction
sites that include permitted construction days and hours, and a contact
number for the job site.
Mitigation Measure MM-N0I-2: The construction contractor will conduct
' crack surveys before construction activities that could cause architectural
damage to nearby structures. The survey will include any historic buildings
or buildings in poor condition within 15 feet of construction. The surveys will
be done by photographs, video tape, or visual inventory, and will include
inside as well as outside locations. All existing cracks in walls, floors, and
driveways should be documented with sufficient detail for comparison after
construction to determine whether actual vibration damage occurred. A
post-construction survey should be conducted to document the condition of
the surrounding buildings after the construction is complete. The
construction contractor would be liable for construction vibration damage to
adjacent structures.
Mitigation Measure N0I-3: Implement Temporary Noise Barriers.
Implement the field-erected temporary noise barriers including but not
limited to sound blankets on existing fences and walls or the use of
freestanding portable sound walls, to block the line-of-site between
construction equipment and noise-sensitive receptors during Project
implementation. Noise barriers should be a minimum of 8-feet-tall and
continuous between the source of noise and adjacent or nearby noise-
sensitive receptors. Noise barriers are most effective when placed directly
adjacent to either the noise source or receptor. Place sound barriers around
' stationary sources and near windows, where feasible.
Barrier construction may include, but not necessarily be limited to, using
appropriately thick wooden panel walls (at least 1/2 inch thick), as shown in
A-32
Figure 3.8-1 , which are tall enough to block the line-of-sight between the
' dominant construction noise source(s) and the noise-sensitive receptor.
Such barriers can reduce construction noise by 5 to 15 dBA at nearby noise-
sensitive receptor locations, depending on barrier height and length, and
the distance between the barrier and the noise-producing equipment or
activity. Alternately, field-erected noise curtain assemblies could be
installed around specific equipment sites or zones of anticipated mobile or
stationary activity, resembling the sample shown in Figure 3.8-2. These
techniques are most effective and practical when the construction activity
noise source is stationary (e.g., auger or drill operation) and the specific
source locations of noise emission are near the ground and can be placed
as close to the equipment/activity-facing side of the noise barrier as
possible. Barrier layout and other implementation details would vary by
construction site.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Construction of the proposed Project would require the use of heavy equipment during
the grading and excavation activities at the Project site, installation of new utilities, paving,
and building fabrication for the proposed residential buildings. Development activities
would also involve the use of smaller power tools, generators, and other sources of noise.
During each stage of development, there would be a different mix of equipment, which
' means that construction activity noise levels at and near the Project Site would fluctuate
depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of the various pieces of
construction equipment.
Under Municipal Code Section 9.20.040, the exterior noise standard for single-family
residential use receptors is 65 dBA Ldn/CNEL. However, Section 9.20.070 (Exceptions)
allows for construction-related exceptions from these noise standards if approved by 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). Further, construction
activities are prohibited between the hours of 6:30 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Monday through
Friday, and are allowed on Saturday only between 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. Construction
activities are prohibited on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays.
Existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project site consist of the residential
apartment buildings located 65 feet southwest of the Project boundary. Because the
nearest sensitive receptor is close to the Project site, construction activity would generate
noise levels, which would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels at the
nearby receptors. Therefore, the impact would be significant, as indicated in the OTSP
Program EIR.
To address significant construction noise impacts of a substantial increase in ambient
' noise levels, the proposed Project would be required to comply with noise Mitigation
Measures MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2, which were identified in the OTSP Program EIR.
To further reduce construction noise levels at residences, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3
A-33
would include the implementation of temporary noise barriers at construction activities.
The barrier material is assumed to be solid and dense enough to demonstrate acoustical
transmission loss that is at least 10 dBA greater than the estimated noise reduction effect.
These suggested barrier types do not represent the only ways to achieve the indicated
noise reduction in dBA; they represent examples of how such noise attenuation might be
attained by an implemented measure under the right conditions.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1 would reduce construction noise levels
at the nearby receptors, thereby, reducing the increase in ambient noise levels due to
Project construction. However, mitigation measure NOI-1 may not be feasible to
physically implement at the construction activities to achieve blocking line-of-sight
between the construction noise sources and the nearby sensitive receptors. For example,
temporary barriers may not feasibly be tall and or wide enough to block line-of-sight,
and/or and the placement of temporary barriers could endanger construction crew
members and equipment. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant and
unavoidable with regard to resulting in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels.
The OTSP Program EIR determined that use of a large bulldozer for Project construction
generates vibration levels of up to 0.089 PPV or 87 RMS at a distance of 25 feet.
Implementation of mitigations measures would reduce vibration impacts. A large
bulldozer would reduce to 80 RMS at 45 feet and increase to 0.2 PPV at 15 feet from
operation. The OTSP Program EIR determined that this impact would be less than
' significant with implementation of OTSP Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2.
However, even with the implementation of these mitigation measures, construction of the
proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable temporary vibration impacts
to the nearby sensitive receptors.
Due to the proximity of the nearest residences to the Project site, it is anticipated that
even with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the OTSP Program
EIR, and additional measures proposed (i.e, noise barriers), construction of the proposed
Project would potentially result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels
at nearby sensitive receptors during construction. Therefore, the impact would be
significant and unavoidable. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available to
reduce construction noise impacts to sensitive receptors.
VIII. Project Alternatives.
The SEIR considered and analyzed three alternatives to the Proposed Project:
Alternative 1—No Project Alternative (No Development); Alternative 2— Reduced Hotel
with no Specific Plan Amendment Alternative; and Alternative 3— Commercial and
Residential Use Alternative.
The three alternatives that were analyzed in the SEIR are discussed below, including the
basis for rejecting each alternative. In addition, comparison of the alternatives is available
' in Table 5-2 of the SEIR. Each alternative's environmental impacts are considered and
analyzed, along with an analysis of whether it achieves any of the Project Objectives as
shown below.
A-34
• Provide an upscale lodging facility that will service both residents and
' tourists visiting Old Town Temecula;
• Provide additional conference room facilities within Old Town Temecula;
and
• Create an aesthetically compatible development and minimize impacts to
neighboring properties by designing with high quality architecture and
signage.
A. ALTERNATIVE 1—NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE (NO DEVELOPMENT)
1. Summary of Alternative
Alternative 1 evaluates the environmental impacts if the Project site were to remain in its
current state for the foreseeable future. The Project site is comprised of approximately
1.8 acres of predominantly developed land in Old Town Temecula. The Project site is
currently developed with approximately 22,424 square feet (SF) of several vacant
buildings. An undeveloped parcel approximately 17,500 SF is located across Third Street
where the proposed parking garage would be constructed.
Under this alternative, the Project site would remain vacant and the proposed hotel and
parking garage would not be built. The site would continue to contain the existing
t structures on the hotel site and vacant land on the garage site. Unimproved areas along
Third Street would not be landscaped or improved in any way.
2. Reason for Rejecting Alternative
Alternative 1 is the "No Build" alternative in which no development would occur on the
Project Site. The Site would remain vacant, undeveloped land. Because no development
or change would occur on the Project Site, no impacts would occur. As such, the proposed
Project's impacts would generally be reduced under this Alternative.
For aesthetics impacts, the existing Project site under Alternative 1 would not feature any
additional sources of light and glare. No impacts to scenic vistas or resources would occur
under this alternative. Under the proposed Project, the site would be developed with an
aesthetic character in accordance with the design guidelines specified in the Old Town
Specific Plan and visual quality of the site would be enhanced. Under Alternative 1 , the
existing site would remain vacant which degrades the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings due to its current lack of unkempt appearance. Therefore,
implementation of Alternative 1 would result in more negative aesthetic impacts than the
proposed Project.
Air quality impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed Project because
Alternative 1 would result in no construction-related emissions (from construction
' activities, vehicles, and equipment), and no operational emissions (associated with
increased traffic). With no construction and no additional traffic volumes or operational
A-35
' emissions, air emissions in the vicinity would remain unchanged. No impact to air quality
would occur as a result of this alternative, so impacts would be reduced as compared to
the proposed Project.
No potential impacts to cultural resources would occur under Alternative 1 because no
grading activities would occur that could unearth cultural resources or disturb
paleontological resources. Under this alternative, there would be no changes to the site
and thus no impact to cultural resources would occur, eliminating any potential Project
impacts.
Potential impacts to geology and soils, such soil erosion during construction, would not
occur under Alternative 1. The Project site would not be developed. However, geology
and soils effects under the proposed Project are not anticipated to be significant, so these
differences would be negligible.
Construction-related hazardous materials would not be brought to the site, nor would
hazardous materials be used during operation of the proposed Project, such as
landscaping sprays or household cleaning products. Therefore, this alternative would
result in fewer impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials than the proposed
Project.
No increase of impervious surfaces and no change to the natural drainage patterns of the
Project site would occur under Alternative 1. No improvements would be required for
' water quality treatment. Overall, this alternative would result in fewer effects related to
hydrology and water quality than the proposed Project.
Under Alternative 1, no change would occur to the existing conditions at the Project site.
This alternative would involve no amendment or rezoning associated with the Specific
Plan. Because no change to the existing land use or land use plans and policies related
to the Project site would occur, this alternative would have no direct impact on land use
at the site or in the vicinity.
Alternative 1 would not result in any change to existing ambient noise levels and would
introduce no new source of noise. Because the site would remain with the existing non-
operational uses under this alternative, traffic-related noise attributable to the Project
would not occur. This alternative would result in no impact related to noise at or in the
vicinity of the Project site. The significant and unavoidable temporary construction noise
impact would be completely avoided. Impacts would be reduced and the proposed Project
construction-phase impacts would not occur.
Under Alternative 1, no additional traffic would be generated by uses on the Project site,
which is vacant or out of business, resulting in no impacts related to traffic and circulation.
Thus, Alternative 1 would result in fewer impacts when compared to the proposed Project.
Under Alternative 1, the Project site would not.be developed and no increase demand for
water, wastewater, or solid waste services would occur. No new water service or sewer
line connections would be developed under Alternative 1 . Thus, under Alternative 1 ,
impacts to utilities and service systems would not occur.
A-36
Overall, Alternative 1 would reduce environmental impacts compared to the proposed
' Project. However, Alternative 1 does not satisfy any of the three Project Objectives.
Because Alternative 1 would result in no development of the Project Site, it would not
provide an upscale lodging facility or conference room facilities that will service both
residents and tourists visiting Old Town Temecula. Whereas the proposed Project
satisfies each Project Object, Alternative 1 fulfills none of the Objectives.
Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 1 would not meet any of the Project
Objectives. The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would
be an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 1, and by itself, independent of any
other reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 1.
B. ALTERNATIVE 2—GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE
1 . Summary of Alternative
Under this alternative, the Project site would be developed with a smaller, three-story
hotel, which would include 90 rooms, and would be in accordance with the current Specific
Plan land use designation for the Project site, which is Downtown Core (DTC). This
alternative would still develop the parking garage. This alternative would not include the
Specific Plan Amendment to relocate a portion of the Hotel Overlay (HO) onto the
proposed Project site. The hotel would be developed on the existing DTC zoning district,
where permitted uses include, but are not limited to hotels, art galleries, museums,
' restaurants, entertainment oriented uses, small scale boutique retailers such as gift,
specialty food, and antique shops and similar retail uses, offices and service oriented
uses. Hotels under three stories in the DTC zoning district are not subject to the
Supplemental Standards and Special Use Standards in Section IV.G of the Old Town
Specific Plan.
2. Reason for Rejecting Alternative
Environmental impacts in the Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and
Soils, and Hydrology and Water Resources correlate primarily with the footprint of site
development because they relate to the location of a Project and the development of
vacant land. A similar area would be disturbed under either Alternative 2 and the proposed
Project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have the same impact in these areas when
compared to the proposed Project.
Under Alternative 2, the site would be developed with a three-story hotel. Impacts to
scenic vistas and scenic resources would be similar to the proposed Project since
development of the hotel in either scenario would partially block views of the western
viewshed from certain viewpoints. In addition, the hotel developed under Alternative 2
would also be required to comply with the DTC design guidelines and standards because
these guidelines and standards apply to all buildings within the DTC or DTC/HO zoning
districts. Therefore, the Alternative 2 hotel would be designed with architectural elements
' that are consistent with the Old Town Specific Plan and would be fitting with the visual
A-37
character of its surroundings. Thus, implementation of Alternative 2 would result in similar
' aesthetic impacts compared to the proposed Project.
Under Alternative 2, construction of the smaller hotel would result in a shorter construction
schedule, fewer ground-disturbing activities and less construction equipment on site.
Construction-related emissions from Alternative 2 would have fewer air quality impacts
than the proposed Project. Operation of the smaller hotel would result in less energy
usage by the building, fewer vehicle trips generated and reduced area source emissions
produced on site, in comparison to the proposed Project. Therefore, implementation of
Alternative 2 would have fewer air quality impacts than the proposed Project.
Under Alternative 2, a similar area would be disturbed as the proposed Project, and thus,
ground disturbing impacts to below ground cultural resources would be similar. The
reduced building height under Alternative 2 would not impact cultural resources. However,
the development envelope of Alternative 2 would be smaller, thus potential impacts to
nearby potential historic structures would be reduced. Therefore, implementation of
Alternative 2 would have fewer cultural resources impacts than the proposed Project.
Under Alternative 2, the smaller hotel with a reduced building height would be developed
with the same California Building Code guidelines and standards as the proposed Project,
resulting in the same structural-related and geologic-hazard impacts as the proposed
Project.
' Under Alternative 2, construction and operation of the smaller hotel would result in fewer
amounts of hazardous materials that would be used, transported, stored and disposed in
comparison to the proposed Project. However, the hotel developed under Alternative 2
would similarly be required to comply with all relevant permits and plans that address and
limit the potential release of hazardous materials during construction and operation of the
proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in similar, but slightly reduced,
hazard-related impacts as the proposed Project.
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would increase impervious surfaces on the
Project site. The smaller hotel under Alternative 2 would likewise be required to adopt a
water quality management plan and best management practices to ensure that
construction and operation of the hotel do not result in significant impacts to hydrology
and water quality. The Project under Alternative 2 would require the same drainage
modifications as the proposed Project. Alternative 2 would result in similar effects on
hydrology and water quality as the proposed Project.
Under Alternative 2, the smaller hotel would be developed on the current Specific Plan
land use designation DTC zoning district and no OTSP amendment would be required,
resulting in no land use impacts. According to the Specific Plan guidelines, a hotel under
four stories is permitted in the DTC zoning district. The smaller hotel would be required
to comply with the land use and urban development standards specified for the DTC and
DTC/HO zoning districts, similar to the proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would
result in similar land use impacts as the proposed Project.
A-38
Like the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would increase ambient noise levels and would
introduce a new source of noise at the Project site. Construction-related traffic would
increase for both the proposed Project and Alternative 2. Traffic-related noise would also
increase as a result of both this alternative and the proposed Project. Alternative 2 would
generate less daily trips than the proposed Project. However, Alternative 2 would also
have a significant and unavoidable temporary construction noise impact on the nearby
sensitive receptors to the Project site.
Under Alternative 2, the three-story hotel would have approximately 90 rooms, resulting
in a total of approximately 735 daily trips, which is 499 daily trips less than the proposed
Project's estimated 1,234 daily trips. Therefore, Alternative 2 would decrease the amount
of vehicles in the surrounding circulation system and result in fewer impacts related to
traffic and circulation compared to the proposed Project.
The proposed Project would result in an increase in the demand for water, wastewater
services, and solid waste disposal. Under Alternative 2, the Project site would be
developed with a smaller hotel use and which would also increase the demand for water,
wastewater, or solid waste services over existing conditions. However, because the hotel
would be reduced in size and accommodate fewer guests under Alternative 2, there would
be less water consumed and less wastewater generated than the proposed Project. Thus,
implementation of Alternative 2 would result in fewer impacts related to utilities and
service systems compared to the proposed Project.
' Overall, Alternative 2 would result in similar or reduced impacts in all environmental
resource areas as compared to the proposed Project. Thus, Alternative 2 would overall
result in lesser environment impacts.
Alternative 2 would partially accomplish the objectives set forth by the Project. It would
provide an upscale lodging facility, additional conference room facilities, and be
aesthetically compatible within Old Town Temecula. However, Alternative 2 would
provide only 90 lodging rooms, as compared to the 151 lodging rooms in the proposed
Project. Because Alternative 2 would provide 61 fewer lodging rooms, it would not service
the anticipated demand for lodging facilities for residents and tourists in the Old Town
area and would not fulfill the DTC/HO designation's purpose of allowing a greater number
of rooms to serve lodging needs. Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 2 would not
fully meet any of the Project Objectives.
The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would be an
independent ground for rejecting Alternative 2, and by itself, independent of any other
reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 2.
C. ALTERNATIVE 3—REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
1 . Summary of Alternative
Under this alternative, a mixed-use commercial retail and residential development would
be developed on the Project site, currently designated as DTC zoning district according
to the Specific Plan. This alternative would not involve the development of a hotel and
A-39
would not provide conference facilities and banquet rooms, as is provided by the
' proposed Project. The Project would not require a Specific Plan Amendment for rezoning.
The Old Town Specific Plan Land Use and Urban Development standards permit the use
of commercial retail and residential uses in the DTC zoning district. However, only
attached and non-ground floor residential uses permitted in the DTC area along Old Town
Front Street and Main Street. Alternative 3 would develop approximately 61,000 square
feet of commercial uses and approximately 123,000 square feet of residential uses,
consisting of 120 residential units.
2. Reason for Rejecting Alternative
Under Alternative 3, the site would be developed with a mixed-use commercial and
residential development with a four-story, 50 feet maximum height. Impacts to scenic
vistas and scenic resources would be similar to the proposed Project, since development
of the mixed-use building would also partially block views of the western viewshed from
certain viewpoints. In addition, the development under Alternative 3 would also be
required to comply with the DTC design guidelines and standards because these
guidelines and standards apply to all buildings within the DTC or DTC/HO zoning districts.
Therefore, the Alternative 3 development would be designed with architectural elements
that are consistent with the Old Town Specific Plan guidelines and would be fitting with
the visual character of its surroundings. Thus, implementation of Alternative 3 would result
in similar aesthetic impacts compared to the proposed Project.
' Under Alternative 3, there would be a similar amount of construction-related emissions to
the proposed Project due to comparable ground-disturbing activities, amount of
construction equipment, and size of building footprint. Therefore, construction-related
emissions from Alternative 3 would have similar air quality impacts than the proposed
Project. Operation of the mixed-use commercial and residential development, however,
would result in higher intensity energy usage by the building, greater vehicle trips
generated and increased area source emissions produced on site in comparison to the
proposed Project due to the permanent residency within the residential units. Therefore,
implementation of Alternative 3 would have greater air quality impacts from operational
emissions than the proposed Project.
Under Alternative 3, a similar area would be disturbed as the proposed Project, and thus,
impacts to below surface cultural resources would be similar. The development envelope
of Alternative 3 would also be similar, thus potential impacts to nearby potential historic
structures would be reduced. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 3 would have
similar cultural resources impacts than the proposed Project.
Under Alternative 3, the mixed-use development would also be developed with the same
California Building Code guidelines and standards as the proposed Project, resulting in
the same structural-related and geologic-hazard impacts as the proposed Project.
Under Alternative 3, construction and operation of a mixed-use Project would result in
similar amounts of hazardous materials that would be used, transported, stored and
disposed in comparison to the proposed Project. In addition, the development under
A-40
' Alternative 3 would similarly be required to comply with all relevant permits and plans that
address and limit the potential release of hazardous materials during construction and
operation of the proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in similar hazard-
related impacts as the proposed Project.
Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would also increase impervious surfaces on
the Project site. The mixed-use development under Alternative 3 would likewise be
required to adopt a water quality management plan and best management practices to
ensure that the construction and operation of the development does not result in
significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. Alternative 3 would result in similar
effects on hydrology and water quality as the proposed Project.
Under Alternative 3, the site would be developed with a mixed-use development and
would be developed on the current Specific Plan land use designation DTC zoning district.
According to the Specific Plan guidelines, commercial and residential uses under four
stories are permitted in the DTC zoning district. The development would be required to
comply with the land use and development standards specified for the DTC and DTC/HO
zoning districts, similar to the proposed Project. Additionally, development of Alternative
3 would not require a Specific Plan Amendment. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in
reduced land use impacts as the proposed Project.
Like the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would increase ambient noise levels and would
' introduce a new source of noise at the Project site. Construction-related traffic would
increase in the Project area for both the proposed Project and Alternative 3. Similar to the
proposed Project, Alternative 3 would also have a significant and unavoidable temporary
construction noise impact. Similarly, traffic-related noise would also increase as a result
of this alternative; however, traffic would increase more with Alternative 3 than the
proposed Project. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in greater noise impacts than the
proposed Project.
The proposed Project would result in an increase in traffic congestion at nearby
intersections and would generate 1,234 daily trips. With Alternative 3, the amount of trips
generated from the commercial and residential uses would be increased to 3,427 daily
trips, resulting in greater impacts to traffic and circulation than the proposed Project.
The proposed Project would result in an increase in the demand for water, wastewater
services, and solid waste disposal compared to the existing non-operational uses at the
site. The proposed Project would also result in approximately 3.8 million gallons per year
(MGY) of water consumed and produce approximately 82.7 tons of waste per year. Under
Alternative 3, the Project site would be developed with mixed use, commercial and
residential uses, which would also increase the demand for water, wastewater, or solid
waste services over existing conditions. Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in
approximately 20.1 MGY of water consumed and produce approximately 119.9 tons of
solid waste per year. Thus, implementation of Alternative 3 would result in greater
impacts related to utilities and service systems compared to the proposed Project.
A-41
' Overall, Alternative 3 would result in similar or reduced impacts to aesthetics, cultural
resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology and land use in comparison
to the Project. However, Alternative 3 would result in increased impacts to air quality,
noise, traffic and circulation, and utilities in comparison to the Project. Thus, Alternative 3
would result in greater environment impacts and it is considered not the environmentally
superior alternative.
In addition, Alternative 3 would not accomplish all of the Project Objectives. Although
Alternative 3 would develop an aesthetically compatible mixed-use development in Old
Town Temecula, it would not provide an upscale lodging facility or additional conference
room facilities in Old Town Temecula.
Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 3 would not fully achieve the benefits of the
Project Objectives and does not avoid the Project's significant environmental impacts.
The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would be an
independent ground for rejecting Alternative 3, and by itself, independent of any other
reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 3.
1
A-42
Exhibit B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Aesthetics
Old Town Specific Plan Program EIR Mitigation Measures
Measure 3.1-3a:The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures shag Pre-Constructiord City of City of Issuance of
contain"sharp cut-off'fixtures,and shag be fitted with flat glass lenses and Construction Temecula Temecula Building Permit
internal and external shielding. Building Official and fieltl
or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Measure 3.1.3b:The applicant shall ensure that all fixtures shall be Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
parallel with the finished grade of the project site;no fixtures shall be tilted Construction Temecula Temecula Building Permit
above a 90-degree angle. Building Official and field
or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Measure 3."c:The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
be grouped into control zones to allow for open,dosing,and night Construction Temecula Temecula Building Permit
light/security lighting schemes.All control groups shall be controlled by an Building Official and field
automatic lighting system utilizing a time dock,photocell,and low voltage or other verification and
relays. Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Measure 3.1-3d:The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
site shall take advantage of landscaping,on-site architectural massing,and Temecula Temecula Building Permit
off-site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. Building Official and field
or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Measure 3.1-3e:The applicant shall submit a lighting plan and photometric Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
plan to be reviewed by the City of Temecula.The lighting plan shall include Temecula Temecula Building Permit
design features(such as those menfioned above)to minimize impacts of Building Official and field
light and glare on the surrounding area. or other verification and
Designee signoff by City
of Temecula
Measure 3.1-3f:The City shall complete a post-installation inspection to Post-Construction City of City of Issuance of
ensure that the site is not excessively illuminated(such that lighting is not Temecula Temecula Building Permit
creating excessive glare,unreasonably competing for the public's attention Building Official and field
or creating any roadway safety hazard)and that lighting sources are or other verification and
properly shielded. Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Truax Hate1 Prated ESA 1160519
MMRP Au9uct 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Measure 3.1-3g:In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mount Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
Palomar Observatory,all lighting plans shall be reviewed by the City to Temecula Temecula Building Permit
assure utilization of low pressure sodium vapor lamps;step-down lighting Building Official and field
techniques;shielding to prevent upward and outward illumination;and or other verification and
compliance with the County Ordinance No.655. Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Measure 3.1-3h:The proposed Specific Plan amendment shall prohibit the Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of
use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces.The Construction/ Temecula Temecula Temecula
exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as Post-Construction Building Official project approval
high performance tinted non-mirrored glass,painted metal panels and pre- or other and field
cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces. Designee verification and
sign-off by City
of Temecula
Project-specific Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1:The project applicant would be required Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of
to implement the lighting reduction mitigation proposed in the OTSP Construction/ Temecula Temecula Temecula
Program EIR.The following light and glare standards shall be applied to Post-Construction Building Official project approval
the proposed project: or other and field
• The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures shall contain"sharp Designee verification and
cut-of"fixtures,and shall be fitted with flat glass lenses and internal sign-off by City
and external shielding. of Temecula
• The applicant shall ensure that all fixtures shall be parallel with the
finished grade of the project site;no fixtures shall be tilted above a
90-degree angle.
• The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped
into control zones to allow for open,closing,and night Iightlsecurity
lighting schemes.All control groups shall be controlled by an
automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock,photocell,and low
voltage relays.
• The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take
advantage of landscaping,on-site architectural massing,and off-site
architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars.
• The applicant shall submit a lighting plan and photometric plan to be
reviewed by the City of Temecula.The lighting plan shall include
design features(such as those mentioned above)to minimize
impacts of light and glare on the surrounding area.
• The City shall complete a post-installation inspection to ensure that
the site is not excessively illuminated(such that lighting is not
creating excessive glare,unreasonably competing for the public's
Truax Molel Project 2 ESA I IM579
MMRP
August 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
attention or creating any roadway safety hazard)and that lighting
sources are properly shielded.
• In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mount Palomar
Observatory,all fighting plans shall be reviewed by the City to assure
utilization of low pressure sodium vapor lamps;step-down lighting
techniques;shielding to prevent upward and outward illumination;
and compliance with the County Ordinance No.655.
• The proposed project shall prohibit the use of highly reflective
construction materials on exterior wall surfaces.The exterior of
permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high
performance tinted non-mirrored glass,painted metal panels and pre-
cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces.
Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Program EIR Mitigation Measures
Measure 3.2-2a:The applicant shall ensure that a fugitive dust control Construction City of City of Issuance of
program is implemented pursuant to the provision of SCAOMD Rule 403. Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
Building Official and field
or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Measure 3.2-2b:Prior to grading and construction,the applicant shall be Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
responsible for compliance with the fallowing: Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
• During clearing,grading,earth moving,or excavation,maintain Building Official and field
equipment engines in proper tune. or other verification and
Designee sign City
• After G of Teemm eculearing,grading,earth moving,or excavation: by a
a
• Wet the area down,sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface
with repeated soakings,as necessary,to maintain the crust and
prevent dust pick up by the wind.
• Spread soil binders.
• Implement street sweeping as necessary.
• During construction:
• Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where
vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the
site.
• Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for
the day.
Tmax Hotel ProJW 3 ESA 1 180579
MMRP August 2017
Mitigation Mondonng and Reponing Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
• Use low sulfur fuel(0.05 percent by weight)for construction
equipment.
• Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts.
Measure 3.2.2c:Prior to grading and construction,the applicant shall be Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
responsible for compliance with the following. Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
• Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize Building Official and field
daily emissions. or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
• Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil of Temecula
during and after the end of work periods.
• Treat unattended construction areas with water(disturbed lands
which have been,or are expected to be,unused for four or more
consecutive days).
Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible
on construction sites.
• Install vehicle wheel-washers before the roadway entrance at
construction sites.
• Wash off trucks leaving the site.
• Require all trucks hauling dirt,sand,soil,or other loose substances
and building materials to be covered,or to maintain a minimum
freeboard of two feet between the top of the load and the lop of the
truck bed sides.
• Use vegetative stabilization,whenever possible,to control soil
erasion from stormwater,especially on super pads.
• Require enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage piles of
sand,dirt,or other aggregate materials.
• Control off-road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these
roads,consistent with City standards.
• Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or
gasoline power generators.
Measure 3.2-2d:Prior to grading and construction,the applicant shall be Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
responsible for the paving of all access aprons to the project site and the Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
maintenance of the paving. Building Official and field
or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Truax Motel Protect 4 ESA 1 190579
MMRP Au9ua12017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Measure 3.2-2e:Prior to issuance of grading permits,the applicant shall Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
be responsible for assuring that construction vehicles are equipped with Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
proper emission control equipment to substantially reduce emissions. Building Official and field
or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Measure 3.2-2f:Prior to issuance of grading permits,the applicant shall be Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction- Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
related traffic congestion into the project grading permit.Measures,subject Building Official and field
to the approval and verification by the Public Works Department,shall or other verification and
include,as appropriate: Designee sign-off by City
• Provision of rideshare incentives. of Temecula
• Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel.
• Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
• Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes.
• Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary.
Measure 3.2-2g:Prior to the building/construction operations,applicant Construction City of City of Issuance of
and individual contractors shall commit in writing to the following: Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
• Scheduling receipt of construction materials outside of the peak travel Building Official and field
period hours(i.e.,7:30—8:30 AM and 4:00—6:00 PM); or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
• Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity; of Temecula
and
• Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods.
Where Feasible: Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
Measure 3.2-3a:Construct on-site or off-site bus turnouts,passenger Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
benches,and shelters. Building Official and field
or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Measure 3.2.3b:Provide shuttles to major rail transit centers of mufti- Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
modal stations. Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
Building Official and field
or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Truax Hotel PMJeV rj ESA 1 160579
MMRP August 2017
� s �
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Measure 3.2-3r.Contribute to regional transit systems(e.g.,right-of-way, Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
capital improvements,etc.). Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
Building Official and field
or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Measure 3.2-3d:Synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
development. Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
Building Official and field
or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Measure 3.2-3e:Set up resident worker training programs to improve Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
job/housing balance. Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
Building Official and field
or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Project-specific Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-1:All off-road construction equipment with a Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
horsepower(HP)greater than 50 shall be required to have USEPA certified Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
Tier 4 interim engines or engines that are certified to meet or exceed the Building Official and field
emission ratings for USEPA Tier 4 engines.A copy of each unit's certified or other verification and
tier specification or model year specification shall be available upon Designee sign-off by City
request at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. of Temecula
Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-2:During earthmoving and construction Construction City of City of issuance of
phases,use water trucks to spray unpaved roads and exposed soils on the Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
project site at least four times per day to keep all areas where vehicles Building Official and field
move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site.In or other verification and
addition,require all vehicles and off-road equipment to limit maximum Designee sign-off by City
speed on unpaved roads within the project site to 15 miles per hour. of Temecula
Tm.HMI P.1.0 6 ESA/160579
MMRP August 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Program EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a:Consistent with the City of Temecula's Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
General Plan Goal and Implementation Procedure OS-26 and OS-39,the Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which requires that all qualified and field
areas slated for development or other ground-disturbing activities shall be Archaeologist verification and
subject to a Phase I survey(including records search and archaeological sign-off by City
survey)for archaeological resources on a project-specific basis prior to the of Temecula
City's approval of project plans.The survey shall be carried out by a
qualified archaeologist in consultation with local Native American groups.If
potentially significant archaeological resources are encountered during the
survey,the City shall require that the resources are evaluated for their
eligibility for listing on the National Register or California Register,and that
recommendations are made for treatment of these resources if found to be
significant,in consultation with the appropriate Native American groups.
Any identified resources shall be avoided if feasible.Ground-disturbing
activity in areas determined to be sensitive for cultural resources shall be
monitored by a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-lb:Consistent with the City of Temecula's Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS-26 and OS-39,the Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which states that qualified and field
during construction,should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural Archaeologist verification and
resources be discovered,all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and sign-off by City
a qualified archaeologist will be contacted to assess the significance of the of Temecula
find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.If any find is
determined to be significant,the City and the archaeologist will determine,
in consultation with local Native American groups,appropriate avoidance
measures or other appropriate mitigation.All significant cultural materials
recovered will be,as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting
archaeologist and in consultation with local Native American groups,
subject to scientific analysis,professional museum curation,and
documentation according to current professional standards.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-2a:Consistent with the City of Temecula's Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS-2,the Specific Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which states that all areas qualified and field
slated for development or other ground-disturbing activities in the Specific Archaeologist verification and
Plan Area which contain structures 50 years old or older be surveyed and sign-off by City
evaluated for their potential historic significance prior to the City's approval of Temecula
of project plans.The survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or
architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Architectural History.If potentially significant resources are encountered
Truax Hole)P,.ut 7 ESA/160579
MMRP August 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
during the survey,demolition or substantial alteration of such resources
identified shag be avoided.If avoidance of identified historic resources is
deemed infeasible,the City shall prepare a treatment plan to include,but
not limited to,photo documentation and public interpretation of the
resource.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-4a:Consistent with State law,CEQA Guidelines, Construction City of City of Issuance of
and the City of Temecula's General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
Procedure OS-26 and OS-39,the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a qualified and field
new policy which slates that 6 human skeletal remains are uncovered Archaeologist verification and
during project construction,work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and sign-off by City
the Riverside County coroner will be contacted to evaluate the remains, of Temecula
following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5(e)(1)
of the CEQA Guidelines.If the County coroner determines that the remains
are Native American,he or she will contact the Native American Heritage
Commission,in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5,
subdivision(c),and Public Resources Code 5097.98(as amended by
A8 2641).The NAHC will then identity the person(s)thought to be the Most
Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American,who will then help
determine what course of action should be taken in dealing with the
remains.
Per Public Resources Code 5097.98,the landowner shall ensure that the
immediate vicinity,according to generally accepted cultural or
archaeological standards or practices,where the Native American human
remains are located,is not damaged or disturbed by further development
activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred,as prescribed in
this section(PRC 5097.98),with the most likely descendants regarding
their recommendations,if applicable,taking into account the possibility of
multiple human remains.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-5a:The Specific Plan Amendment shall include a Construction City of City of Issuance of
new policy which states that in the event that paleontological resources are Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
discovered,the project proponent will notify a qualified paleontologist.The qualified and field
paleontologist will document the discovery as needed,evaluate the Paleontologist verification and
potential resource,and assess the significance of the find under the criteria sign-off by City
set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.If fossil or fossil bearing of Temecula
deposits are discovered during construction,excavations within 50 feet of
the find will be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is
examined by a qualified paleontologist(in accordance with Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology standards(Society of Vertebrate Paleontology,
1995)).The paleontologist will notify the appropriate agencies to determine
procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume
at the location of the find.If the City determines that avoidance is not
feasible,the paleontologist will prepare an excavation plan for mitigating
Tmax Hotel Prolea 8 ESA 1160579
MMRP August 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important.
The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to
implementation.
Project-specific Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure MMCUL-1:Prior to issuance of a grading permit and Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity,the applicant shall retain Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
a qualified archaeologist,defined as an archeologist meeting the Secretary qualified and field
of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archeology(U.S. Archaeologist verification and
Department of interior 2012)and as approved by the City of Temecula,to sign-off by City
provide archeological expertise in carrying out all mitigation measures of Temecula
related to archeological resources(Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and-3).
Mitigation Measure MMCUL-2:Prior to the start of ground-disturbing Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
activities,the qualified archaeologist shall designate an archaeological Temecula Temecula Grading Permit;
monitor to observe ground-disturbing activities,including but not limited to qualified verification by
brush clearance and grubbing,grading,trenching,excavation,and the Archaeologist City of
construction of fencing and access roads,in consultation with the and Pechanga Temecula in
Pechanga monitor.If ground-disturbing activities occur simultaneously in tribal consultation
two or more areas located more than 500 feet apart,additional representatives with Pechanga
archaeological monitors may be required.The archaeological monitor shall Tribe
keep daily logs.After monitoring has been completed,the qualified
archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of
monitoring activities,which shall be submitted to the City,Pechanga Tribe,
and to the EIC at the University California,Riverside.
Mitigation Measure MMCUL-3:At least 30 days prior to issuance of a Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
grading permit and prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity,the Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit;
project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of qualified verification by
grading,excavation and the monitoring program,and to coordinate with the Archaeologist City of
Tribe to develop and enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment and and Pechanga Temecula in
Monitoring Agreement(Agreement).The Agreement will address the tribal consultation
treatment of known cultural resources;appropriate treatment and representatives with Pechanga
procedure for inadvertent discoveries;the designation,responsibilities,and Tribe
participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading,excavation
and ground disturbing activities;project grading and development
scheduling;terms of compensation for the monitors;and treatment and
final disposition of any cultural resources,sacred sites,and human remains
discovered on the site.
The Pechanga Tribal monitor shall monitor all ground-disturbing activities
including,but not limited to,brush clearance and grubbing,grading,
trenching,excavation,and the construction of fencing,as specified in the
Agreement,and in consultation with the project archeologist.If ground-
disturbing activities occur simultaneously in two or more locations,
True.HOW P.I.t 9 ESA 1 160579
MMRP August 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reposing Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
additional Native American monitors may be required.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-4:If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface Construction City of City of Verification by
cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities,the Temecula Temecula City of
project Applicant,the project qualified Archaeologist,and the Pechanga qualified Temecula in
Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and Archaeologist consultation
confer regarding the mitigation for such resources.Pursuant to PRC and Pechanga with Pechanga
Section 21083.2(b),avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for tribal Tribe
archaeological resources.If the project Applicant and the Pechanga Tribe representatives
cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources,these
issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision.The Planning
Director will make the determination based on the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological
resources and will 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 Planning Director will be appealable to
the City Planning Commission and/or City of Temecula City Council.
Mitigation Measure MMCUL-5:The landowner shall relinquish ownership Construction City of City of Verification by
of all cultural resources,including sacred items,burial goods and all Temecula Temecula City of
archaeological artifacts that are recovered as a result of project qualified Temecula in
implementation to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition Archaeologist consultation
as outlined in the Agreement(Mitigation Measure CUL-3), and Pechanga with Pechanga
tribal Tribe
representatives
Mitigation Measure MMCUL-6:All sacred sites,should they be Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of
encountered within the project area,shall be avoided and preserved as the Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula
preferred mitigation,if feasible, qualified Project
Archaeologist Approval
Mitigation Measure MMCUL-7:In the event paleontological resources Construction City of City of Issuance of
are discovered during project implementation,the project Applicant will Temecula Temecula Grading Permit,
notify the City's Planning Director and a qualified paleontologist,defined as qualified review of plans,
one meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards(Society of Paleontologist field verification
Vertebrate Paleontology, 1995).The paleontologist shall document the and City and sign-off by
discovery as needed,evaluate the potential resource,and assess the Planning City of
significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Director Temecula
Section 15064.5.If fossil or fossil bearing deposits are discovered during
construction,excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily
halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified
paleontologist.The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to
determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed
to resume at the location of the find.If the City determines that avoidance
is not feasible,the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for
Truax Hotel Project 10 ESA 1 160579
MMRP August 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Data Remarks
mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource
important.The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval
prior to implementation.
Mitigation Measure MMCUL-8:if human remains are encountered, Construction City of City of Verification by
California Health and Safely Code Section 7050.5 states that no further Temecula Temecula City of
disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the qualified Temecula
necessary findings as to origin.Further,pursuant to PRC Section Archaeologist
5097.98(b),remains shall be leg in place and free from disturbance until a
final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made.If the
Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American,
the NAHC must be contacted within 24 hours.The NAHC must then
immediately identify the Most Likely Descendant(MLD)upon receiving
notification of the discovery.The MLD shall then make recommendations
within 48 hours and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the
remains as provided in PRC Section 5097.98 and the Agreement described
in Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3.
Geology,Soils and Seismicity -
Old Town Specific Plan Program EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1:Prior to the issuance of a grading or building Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
permit for indi vidual projects,the project developer shall file a NOI with Construction Temecula Temecula Grading or
California to comply with the requirements of the NPDES General Building Official Building Permit,
Construction Permit(Municipal Code,Chapter 8.24).This would include or other review of plans,
the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating construction BMPs for control of Designee field verification
erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwaler runoff. and sign-off by
City of
Temecula
Projectapecific Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure MMCEO-1:Prior to issuance of a building permit,a Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
final design level geotechnical report shall be prepared by a California Construction Temecula Temecula Building Permit
registered geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to Building Official and field
the City in accordance with City,CBC and engineering standards.The final or other verification and
report shall be based on the recommendations contained within the Designee signoff by City
Preliminary Geotechnical report prepared for the project site and include of Temecula
measures to incorporate seismic design measures that meets CBC
requirements.The report shall address all geotechnical hazards including
seismic design,liquefaction,soil stability,and any other geotechnical
hazard identified at the site.
Truax Hotel Project 11 ESA 1160579
MMRP August]017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Old Town Specific Plan Program EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.3.1:The applicant shag require implementation of Pr"onstructionr City of City of Issuance of
all feasible energy efficiency and GHG reduction measures,including but Construction Temecula Temecula Building Permit
not limited to the following measures.(Feasibility of measure wig be Building Official and field
determined through consultation with the City and applicant.) or other verification and
Energy Efficiency Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
• Design buildings to be energy efficient.
• Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems.Use daylight as an
integral part of lighting systems in buildings.
• Install light colored"cool"roofs,wol pavements.
• Provide information on energy management services for large energy
users.
• Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems,appliances and
equipment,and control systems.
• Install light emitting diodes(LEDs)for traffic,street and other outdoor
lighting.
Water Conservation and Efficiency
• Create water-efficient landscapes.
• Install wafer-efficient irrigation systems and devices,such as soil
moisture-based irrigation controls.
• Design buildings to be water-efficient.Install water-efficient fixtures and
appliances.
• Restrict watering methods(e.g.,prohibit systems that apply water to
non-vegetated surfaces)and control runoff.
• Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles.
• Implement low-impact development practices that maintain the existing
hydrologic character of the site to manage storm water and protect the
environment.(Retaining storm water runoff on-site can drastically
reduce the need for energy-intensive imported water at the site.)
• Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for
the project and location.The strategy may include many of the specific
items listed above,plus other innovative measures that are appropriate
to the specific project.
• Provide education about water conservation and available programs
and incentives.
Truax Hotel Project 12 ESA/160579
MMRP August 201
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Solid Waste Measures
• Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste(including,but
not limited to,soil,vegetation,concrete,lumber,metal,and cardboard).
• Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green
waste and adequate recycling containers located in public areas.
Land Use Measures
• Include mixed-use,infili,and higher density in development projects to
support the reduction of vehicle trips,promote alternatives to individual
vehicle travel,and promote efficient delivery of services and goods.
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
• Limit idling time for commercial vehicles,including delivery and
construction vehicles.
• Use low or zero-emission vehicles,including construction vehicles.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Projectspacific Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ•1:As a condition of approval for a grading Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
permit,the use of construction best management practices(BMPs)shall be Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
implemented as part of construction to minimize the potential negative Building Official and field
effects of accidental release of hazardous materials to groundwater and or other verification and
soils.These shall include the following: Designee sign-off by City
• Follow manufacturer's recommendations on use,storage and disposal of Temecula
of chemical products used in construction;
• Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel gas tanks;
• During routine maintenance of construction equipment,property
contain and remove grease and oils;and
• Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals
in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and local and state
regulations.
All the BMPs shall be in accordance with the most recent version of the
California Stormwater Quality Association(CASQA)BMP Handbook for
construction and included in contract specifications.
Tmax Hotel Project 13 ESA 1 190579
MMRP August 2017
M M M
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Hydrology and Water Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Program EIR Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 7.5-1:Prior to the issuance of a grading or building Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
permit for individual projects,the project developer shall file a NOI with Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
California to comply with the requirements of the NPDES General Building Official and field
Construction Permit(Municipal Code,Chapter 8.24).This would include or other venfication and
the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating construction BMPS for control of Designee sign-off by City
erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff. of Temecula
Project-specific Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1:As a condition of approval,the proposed Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
project shall be required to implement the project-specific Water Quality ConstructioN Temecula Temecula Building or
Management Plan(WQMP),as required by the City of Temecula Post-Construction Building Official Grading Permit,
Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff or other review of plans,
Management Plan,which will ensure that the final project designs Designee field verification
implement specific water quality features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and sign-off by
and Stormwater Ordinance requirements.The WOMP shall be reviewed City of
and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or Temecula
grading permit.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit,a Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and Construction/ Temecula Temecula Grading Permit,
submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance Post-Construction Engineer or review of plans,
with City,Riverside County and engineering standards.The final study other Designee field verification
shall identify storm water runoff quantities(to mitigate the 100-year storm and sign-off by
event)from the development of this site and upstream of the site,and shall City of
identify all existing or proposed drainage facilities intended to discharge Temecula
this runoff.Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate ouffall 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 be
under capacity,then other improvements to existing or proposed drainage
facilities shall be incorporated into the final design in accordance with
Public Works requirements.
Tmax Hotel Protect 14 ESA J 16057
MMRP
Au9us1201➢
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Noise
Old Town Specific Plan Program EIR Mitigation Measures
Measure 3.7-1a:The applicant shall ensure,as specified in City of Construction City of City of Issuance of
Temecula Ordinance No.94-25,that no construction may occur within one- Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
quarter(1/4)of a mile of any occupied residence during the following Building Official and field
hours: or other verification and
6:30 PM to 6:30 AM,Monday through Friday. Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
• Before 7:00 AM or after 6:30 PM,Saturday.
• At any time on Sunday or any nationally recognized holiday.
Measure 3.7-1b:The applicant shall ensure that all construction equipment Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
will have property operating mufflers. Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
Building Official and field
or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Measure 3.7-1c:The applicant shall ensure that all construction staging Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
Building Official and field
or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Measure 3.7-1d:The applicant shall ensure that signs shall be posted at Construction City of City of Issuance of
the construction sites that include permitted construction days and hours, Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
and a contact number for the job site. Building Official and field
or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Measure 3.7-2a:The construction contractor will conduct crack surveys Pre-Constructiord City of City of Issuance of
before construction activities that could cause architectural damage to Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
nearby structures.The survey will include any historic buildings or buildings Building Official and field
in poor condition within 15 feet of construction.The surveys will be done by or other verification and
photographs,video tape,or visual inventory,and will include inside as well Designee sign-off by City
as outside locations.All existing cracks in walls,floors,and driveways of Temecula
should be documented with sufficient detail for comparison after
construction to determine whether actual vibration damage occurred.A
postconstruction survey should be conducted to document the condition of
the surrounding buildings after the construction is complete.The
construction contractor would be liable for construction vibration damage to
Truax Hotel Plied 15 ESA 1 190579
MMRP August 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
adjacent structures.
Measure 3.7.3a:Building equipment(e.g.,HVAC units)shall be located Construction City of City of Issuance of
away from nearby residences,on building rooftops,and properly shielded Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
by either the rooftop parapet or within an enclosure that effectively blocks Building Official and field
the line of sight of the source from the nearest receptors.The resultant or other verification and
HVAC noise level shall not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest receptors. Designee sign-og by City
of Temecula
Measure 3.7-3b:In order to avoid noise-sensitive hours,commercial and Post-Construction City of City of Issuance of
retail shall prohibit loading and unloading activities between the nighttime Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Building Official and field
or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Measure 3.7-3c:To further address the nuisance impact of loading Post-Construction City of City of Issuance of
dock/truck delivery noise,all loading areas for commercial and retail uses Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
shall be located at the rear or sides of buildings within the commercial and Building Official and field
mixed-use districts,where noise can be directed away from residential or other verification and
uses within the mixed use areas of the project. Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Measure 3.71:If necessary to comply with the interior noise requirements Pre- City of City of Issuance of
of the City of Temecula and achieve an acceptable interior noise level, Construction/Post Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
noise reduction in the form of sound-rated assemblies(i.e.,windows, -Construction Building Official and field
exterior doors,and walls)shall be incorporated into project building design, or other verification and
based upon recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer.Final Designee sign-off by City
recommendations for sound-rated assemblies will depend on the specific of Temecula
building designs and layout of buildings on the site and shall be determined
during the design phase.
Project-specific Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1:The applicant shall ensure: Construction City of City of Issuance of
• As specified in City of Temecula Ordinance No.94-25,that no Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
construction may occur within one-quarter(1/4)of a mile of any Building Official and field
occupied residence during the following hours: or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
— 6:30 PM to 6:30 AM,Monday through Friday. of Temecula
— Before 7:00 AM or after 6:30 PM,Saturday.
— At any time on Sunday or any nationally rewgnized holiday.
• That all construction equipment will have properly operating mufflers.
• That all construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from
Tma.Hmel P,.a 16 ESA 1 160579
MMRP
August 2017
Mitigation Monitonng and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
occupied dwellings.
• That signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include
permitted construction days and hours,and a contact number for the
job site.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI.2:The construction contractor will conduct Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
crack surveys before construction activities that could cause architectural Construction/ Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
damage to nearby structures.The survey will include any historic buildings Post-Construction Building and field
or buildings in poor condition within 15 feet of construction.The surveys will Official, verification and
be done by photographs,video tape,or visual inventory,and will include construction sign-off by City
inside as well as outside locations.All existing cracks in walls,floors,and contractor,or of Temecula
driveways should be documented with sufficient detail for comparison after other Designee
construction to determine whether actual vibration damage occurred.A
past-construction survey should be conducted to document the condition of
the surrounding buildings after the construction is complete.The
construction contractor would be liable for construction vibration damage to
adjacent structures.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3:Implement Temporary Noise Barriers. Construction City of City of Issuance of
Implement the field-erected temporary noise barriers including but not Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
limited to sound blankets on existing fences and walls or the use of Building Official and field
freestanding portable sound walls,to block the line-of-site between or other verification and
construction equipment and noise-sensitive receptors during project Designee sign-off by City
implementation.Noise barriers should be a minimum of 8-feet-tall and of Temecula
continuous between the source of noise and adjacent or nearby noise-
sensitive receptors.Noise barriers are most effective when placed directly
adjacent to either the noise source or receptor.Place sound barriers
around stationary sources and near windows,where feasible.
Barrier construction may include,but not necessarily limited to,using
appropriately thick wooden panel walls(at least%inch thick),as shown in
Figure 3.8-1,which are tall enough to block the line-of-sight between the
dominant construction noise source(s)and the noise-sensitive receptor.
Such barriers can reduce construction noise by 5 to 15 dBA at nearby
noise-sensitive receptor locations,depending on barrier height and length,
and the distance between the barrier and the noise-producing equipment or
activity.Alternately,field-erected noise curtain assemblies could be
installed around specific equipment sites or zones of anticipated mobile or
stationary activity,resembling the sample shown in Figure 3.8-2.These
techniques are most effective and practical when the construction activity
noise source is stationary(e.g.,auger or drill operation)and the specific
source locations of noise emission are near the ground and can be placed
as dose to the equipment/activity-facing side of the noise barrier as
possible.Barrier layout and other implementation details would vary by
construction site.
Truax Hotel Project 17 ESA 1160579
MMRP August 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI.4: Post-Construction City of City of Issuance of
• Building equipment(e.g.,HVAC units)shall be located away from Temecula Temecula Building Permit
nearby residences,on building rooftops,and properly shielded by Building Official and field
either the rooftop parapet or within an enclosure that effectively blocks or other verification and
the line of sight of the source from the nearest receptors.The resultant Designee sign-off by City
HVAC noise level shall not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest receptors. of Temecula
• In order to avoid noise-sensitive hours,commercial and retail shall
prohibit loading and unloading activities between the nighttime hours of
10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
• To further address the nuisance impact of loading dockitruck delivery
noise,all loading areas for commercial and retail uses shall be located
at the rear or sides of buildings within the commercial and mixed-use
districts,where noise can be directed away from residential uses within
the mixed use areas of the project.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-5:If necessary to comply with the interior Post-Construction City of City of Issuance of
noise requirements of the City of Temecula and achieve an acceptable Temecula Temecula Building Permit
interior noise level,noise reduction in the form of sound rated assemblies Building Official and field
(i.e.,windows,exterior doors,and walls)shall be incorporated into project or other verification and
building design,based upon recommendations of a qualified acoustical Designee sign-off by City
engineer.Final recommendations for sound-rated assemblies will depend of Temecula
on the specific building designs and layout of buildings on the site and shall
be determined during the design phase.
Traffic and Circulation
Old Town Specific Plan Program EIR Mitigation Measures
Measure 3.9-1:The project applicant shall incorporate the following Construction City of City of Issuance of
features into the design of the Specific Plan area Temecula Temecula Building Permit
At the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road Building Official and field
provide a northbound througldright-turn lane combination with a right-turn /Public Works verification and
overlap. Department or signoff by City
Provide subsequent Traffic Impact Analyses,as development occurs,to other Designee of Temecula
determine thresholds for implementation of Roundabouts at the
intersections of Old Town Front Street and First StreeVSantiago
Road/Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street.
Provide pedestrian facilities from Old Town Front Street which connect the
east and west neighborhood cores with the Old Town Core District.
Truax Hotel Proied 18 ESA/190579
MMRP
August 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reponing Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Measure 3.9-2:The project applicant shall incorporate the following Construction City of City of Issuance of
features into the design of the Specific Plan area Temecula Temecula Building Permit
At the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road Building Official and field
provide a westbound right-turn overlap. /Public Works verification and
Provide subsequent Traffic Impact Analyses,as development occurs,to Department or sign-off by City
determine thresholds for implementation of Roundabouts at the other Designee of Temecula
intersections of Old Town Front Street and First StreeUSantiago
Road/Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street.
Provide pedestrian facilities from Old Town Front Street which connect the
east and west neighborhood cores with the Old Town Core District.
Project-specific Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure MM-CUM CIR-1:The project applicant shall Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
contribute fair-share funding(2%)towards the optimization of the AM peak Post-Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
hour traffic signal coordination timing plan.Since Rancho California Road Engineer or and Issuance of
operates an Adaptive Traffic Signal System,the entire corridor will require other Designee a Certificate of
optimization. Occupancy
Utilities
Old Town Specific Plan Program EIR Mitigation Measures
Measure 3.84:Prior to construction in any undeveloped areas,EMWD Pre-Construction EMWD EMWD Issuance of
shall review the plans for consistency with design critena.Once approved Engineer or Grading Permit
by the EMWD engineer,the applicant shall pay the required connection fee other Designee and verification
to EMWD prior to construction of the sewer line. and sign-off by
City of
Temecula
Measure 3.8-5:Prior to construction,the project applicant and/or each Pre-Construction EMWD EMWD Issuance of
subsequent project applicant will pay its fair share in mitigation fees to Engineer or Grading Permit
EMWD to upgrade the First Street and the Pujol Street sewer lines. other Designee and verification
and sign-off by
City of
Temecula
Measure 3.8-6:All proposed development plans shall designate adequate Pre-Construction EMWD EMWD Issuance of
and convenient space on the property to be used for collecting all Engineer or Grading Permit
recyclable materials generated on the premises. other Designee and verification
and sign-off by
City of
Temecula
Tmax Motel Prolact 19 ESA I IM529
MMRP August 201
Exhibit C
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
' The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the
proposed approval of the Truax Hotel Development (the "Project').
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social,
technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental effects when
determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the
agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project
acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on
substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for
proceeding with this Project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are
provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen
Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that
alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they generally have similar impacts, or they do
not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as
fully described in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings.
The City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh
' the significant and unavoidable impacts in the areas of Noise and Vibration and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions. In making this finding, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project
against its unavoidable impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits
of the Project independently warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable
environmental impacts of the Project. Each of the following benefits, standing alone, is sufficient
justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts.
A. Hotels were identified as a desirable use for Old Town during the Old Town Specific
Plan visioning process (Land Use/Economic Policy 9 — Old Town Specific Plan). As a result, the
Old Town Specific Plan provided for the Downtown Core/Hotel Overlay district with the intent to
encourage the development of a full service hotel with conference facilities, restaurant and other
guest services. The Project is a full service hotel with conference facilities, restaurant, valet
parking, gym, and pool.
B. The Project is anticipated to stimulate continued development growth within Old Town.
Land Use/Economics Objective 5 of the Old Town Specific Plan seeks to establish Old Town as
a "24 hour" destination. The overnight guests are anticipated to contribute to the overall Old
Town economy during their stay by shopping in local stores and eating at local restaurants.
C. Temecula Valley visitor volume has consistently increased, which has increased
demand for additional hotel rooms within Temecula. The Project will help satisfy this growing
demand by creating 151 new hotel rooms as part of a full-service hotel.