HomeMy WebLinkAbout17-59 CC Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 17-59
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE
CYPRESS RIDGE PROJECT, CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 22.73 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PECHANGA
PARKWAY AND LOMA LINDA ROAD (APNS 961-450-003,
961-450-012, 961-450-013)
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 December 21, 2015, John Fitzpatrick filed Planning Application Nos.
' PA15-1894 (General Plan Amendment), PA15-1895 (Zone Change/Planned
Development Overlay), PA15-1893 (Tentative Tract Map), and PA15-1892 (Development
Plan). These applications (collectively "Project') were filed in a manner in accord with the
City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code.
B. Collectively, the proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan
designation on the site from Professional Office (PO) to Medium Density (M) residential
and a rezone of the site from Professional Office (PO) to Cypress Ridge Planned
Development Overlay District (to be known as PDO-15). PDO-15 is a series of standards
and regulations that will govern all development on the property. These standards and
regulations address architectural style, setbacks, and building height. Together, these
regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic
appearance, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the
proposed PDO-15, the project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development
Plan.
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 17-59 1
E. On May 24, 2016, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the
City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
(Draft EIR) 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 # 2016051073). The NOP was circulated from May
25, 2016, through July 23, 2016, to receive comments and input from interested public
agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR") for the Project. On June 15, 2016 in accordance with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from
interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR.
F. 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 EIR.
G. Thereafter, the City contracted for the independent preparation of a Draft
EIR for the Project, including all necessary technical studies and reports in support of the
Draft EIR. 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.
H. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in February 2017, the City initiated a
' public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning
and Research on Monday, February 27, 2017. The City also published a Notice of
Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general
circulation within the City.
I. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from March 2, 2017 through
April 17, 2017. Copies of the Draft EIR 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, 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.
J. In response to the Draft EIR, eight (8)written comments were received from
various agencies, individuals, and organizations. The City responded to all written
comments. Those comments and the Responses to Comments, together with the Draft
EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, constitute the Final Environmental
Impact Report (Final EIR).
K. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, at least 10 days prior
' to certification, the City prepared and provided the Final EIR, including responses to
comments, to the public and all commenting public agencies.
Resos 17-59 2
L. On August 2, 2017, the Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled
' and duly noticed meeting, considered the Project and the Final EIR, at which time the City
staff presented its report and interested persons had an opportunity to be heard and to
present evidence regarding the Project and the Final EIR.
M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 17-24 recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR
prepared for the Cypress Ridge Project, 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. 17-25
17-26, 17-27, and 17-28, recommending that the City Council take various actions,
including adoption of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change/Planned Development
Overlay, Tentative Tract Map, and Development Plan related to the approval of the
Project.
N. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before
approving a project forwhich an EIR is required, make one or more of the following written
finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each finding:
1 . Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
' effects as identified in the Final EIR; or,
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency; or,
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
the final EIR.
O. 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 EIR 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
EIR as potentially significant, but that can be reduced to less than significant
' levels with mitigation, are described in Exhibit A, Section VI.
Resos 17-59 3
3. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR 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 VII of Exhibit A of this
Resolution.
P. 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.
Q. 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.
' R. 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 EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR and Final EIR, responses
to comments, staff reports and presentations, and all oral and written testimony presented
during the public hearings on the Project..
S. 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.
B. Find that agencies and interested members of the public have been
afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final EIR and 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 EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR, staff reports and
' responses to comments incorporated into the Final EIR, and all testimony related to
environmental issues regarding the Project.
Resos 17-59 4
' D. Find and determine that the Final EIR 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 EIR 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 EIR, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR,
and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new
information requiring recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. None of the information
presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a
substantial environmental impact of the Project or a feasible mitigation measure or
alternative that the City has declined to implement.
F. Certify the Final EIR as being in compliance with CEQA. The City Council
further adopts the Findings pursuant to CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A; 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 EIR and upon other substantial
evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and
' the City Council, and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that
each of the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit C, by itself, would individually justify
proceeding with the Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the
Final EIR or alleged in the record of proceedings.
G. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the Cypress Ridge
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
ATTES
' Rand in-off—, City Clerk
[SEAL]
Resos 17-59 5
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. 17-59 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 5'h 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
Randi Johl, City Clerk
1
Resos 17-59 6
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 Cypress Ridge Project (the "Project'). These findings are based upon
written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the
Draft EIR and the written responses thereto, the Final EIR, 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 EIR, the objectives of this Project (the "Project Objectives") are as
follows:
A. Develop a high-quality residential community on the Project Site that
focuses on providing a variety of medium-density housing types that would serve
various age groups and household sizes.
B. Provide a housing product that is desirable in light of the competitive
market and the increased availability of attached and detached single-family homes for
purchase.
' C. Provide a project that is compatible in density and character to the
surrounding residential communities.
A-1
11086-019112074636v2.doc
Ill. Back-round.
The proposed Project involves the residential development of approximately 20.18 total
acres located in the southern portion of Temecula ("Project Site"). The Project Site is
currently designated and zoned as Professional Office (PO) in the General Plan and
zoning code. The Site includes disturbed, undeveloped land that varies from
approximately level to slightly undulating with drainage flowing to the north and
northwest. It contains non-native grasses, ruderal herbs and forbs, remnants of native
scrub (associated with drainages), and a number of isolated mature trees as well as a
concrete drainage channel. Recent disking for fuel modification is evident at the site.
The Site is not developed with any structures.
The proposed Project consists of a General Plan Amendment, zoning code amendment,
adoption of a Planned Development Overlay District, a tentative tract map, and a
development plan review. The proposed Project would change the Project Site's
General Plan designation to Medium Density Residential (M) and its zoning to Planned
Development Overlay District (PDO). The Project would consist of 245 residential units
(attached and detached) and several common use areas, including a club house, four
tot lots, five picnic areas, a bocce court, and a trail.
IV. Effects Determined to Be Less than Significant/No Impact in the EIR.
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. In the following categories of environmental impacts, the proposed Project
was found to have no impact or a less than significant impact for the reasons set forth in
the EIR. The impacts were not analyzed in detail in the EIR because they required no
additional analysis to determine whether the effects could be significant.
A. AESTHETICS
1. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista. The Site has not been identified as a scenic view-shed, nor is
the Project located near an identified scenic view-shed.
2. The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway. The Project Site is not
located near a state scenic highway. The nearest designated state
scenic highway is State Route 74, located approximately 30 miles
northeast.
B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
' 1. The Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. The
A-2
11086-0191\2074636v2.d oc
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.
' 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.
2. The Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The Project Site is not located
in an area susceptible to collapse, karsts, or subsidence due to
groundwater withdrawal.
3. The Project would not have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
waste water. Sewers are available to deliver wastewater to the
Eastern Municipal Water District, so this issue is not applicable to
the Project.
D. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
' 1 . The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
A-3
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. As a
' residential project, the anticipated use, transport, and disposal of
hazardous materials would be in relatively small quantities
commonly associated with a typical home.
2. The Project would not be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5.
3. The Project would not be located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport.
4. The Project would not impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan. It would be designed in accordance with Fire
Codes and other emergency response requirements made by the
City of Temecula.
5. The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands. The Project Site is located in a
developed urban area that is not at high risk of wildland fires.
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. The Project would not result in impacts related to inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The Project Site is not located near a
large surface water body and there is no potential for inundation by
tsunami, seiche, or mudflow.
F. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. The Project would not physically divide an established community.
The residential units would be consistent with the surrounding
residential uses, and the Project would not involve the construction
of major roadways or other major structures within an established
community that would result in division of that community.
G. 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.
A-4
11086-0191\2074636v2.d oc
H. NOISE
' 1. The Project would not be located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, or within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport. The closest public airport is
approximately six miles north. The closest private airstrip is
approximately four miles northeast.
I. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1 . The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing
housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere. The Project would construct housing on vacant,
undeveloped land.
J. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
1. The proposed Project would have a less than significant or no
impact on traffic air patterns. The Project is not within the influence
area of an airport.
2. The Project would not adversely impact policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and would
' not otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
V. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the
EIR.
The EIR 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 topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained
in the Final EIR.
A. AESTHETICS
1. The Project would not substantially degrade the exiting visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The residential
development would be consistent with the suburban residential
character of the surrounding land uses and would include high-
quality development with visually appealing elements such as
improved landscaping and natural-like building materials.
Meandering walking paths would border the Project Site, and would
feature understory and over-story trees along the perimeter of the
site to provide privacy for the development and shade for
' pedestrians.
A-5
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
2. 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 proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of an applicable air quality plan. The proposed
Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of
regional air quality management planning.
2. The Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing air quality violation.
3. The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in
nonattainment. Neither emissions during construction nor
operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds of
significance for any criteria pollutant. When considered in addition
to other projects in the cumulative scenario, the Project's
incremental contribution to air quality would not be cumulatively
considerable.
' 4. Operation of the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations.
5. The Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people. As a residential development, it does
not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being
associated with odors and any potential sources of odors during
construction would be temporary and intermittent in nature.
6. When considered in addition to other projects in the cumulative
scenario, the Project's incremental contribution to impacts on air
quality would not be cumulatively considerable.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Implementation of the proposed Project could result in impacts to
sensitive biological communities, including jurisdictional waters. No
naturally occurring riparian habitat occurs onsite; patches of mulefat
' scrub in the southern portion of the Project Site are supported by
periodic runoff from the street and not a part of a natural riparian
system. Other vegetation onsite is non-native grassland, mesquite
A-6
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
thicket, disturbed habitat, and developed land, all of which are not
' considered sensitive habitats.
2. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means.
3. The Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Implementation of the
proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species.
4. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance. The Project would be required to pay applicable
development fees levied by the City's Multispecies Habitat
Conservation Mitigation Fees Ordinance as part of the City's
cooperation with the Western Riverside County Multi-Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (WRC MSHCP). The proposed
development is consistent with local policies and ordinances,
including the General Plan's goals for biological resources and the
City's tree preservation ordinance.
5. The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
The Project Site is located within the WRC MSHCP area and the
City of Temecula is a participating entity and permittee of the WRC
MSHCP. The Project Site falls within the fee payment area for the
Stephens' kangaroo rat, but is not located within identified occupied
habitat and has a low potential for the species to occur due to lack
of geographic connectivity. The Project must pay development fees
pursuant to the WRC HSHCP and the City's Multispecies Habitat
Conservation Mitigation Fees Ordinance.
6. The Project's incremental contribution to impacts on biological
resources would not be cumulatively considerable.
D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1 . The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to
' potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-
A-7
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
related ground failure, including liquefaction, or landslides. The
Project Site is characterized by gentle slopes that do not exceed
1.5:1 and is generally characterized as consisting of gentle slopes.
Compliance with building safety design standards also would
reduce potential impacts associated with ground shaking and
liquefaction to less than significant levels.
2. Operation of the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil. Following construction activities, disturbed
areas would be either revegetated or covered by impervious
surfaces such as asphalt.
3. The Project would not be located on expansive soil, creating
substantial risks to life or property.
4. The proposed 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.
5. The Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable
impact on geology and soils.
' E. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1 . The Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment. Total GHG emissions, when divided by the number of
residents at the Project Site, would equal an emissions ratio of 4.41
MT CO2e per service population per year and would not exceed
SCAQMD's recommended GHG efficiency threshold of 4.8 MT
CO2e per service population per year.
2. The proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Implementation of
the proposed Project would be consistent with the goals of
applicable greenhouse gas reduction plans.
3. The Project would result in less than significant GHG and climate
change cumulative impacts.
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1 . Operation of the Project would not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials. Hazardous wastes used in the
residential or maintenance areas may include small quantities of
A-8
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
lubricants or fuels used in maintaining residents' personal vehicles,
' pesticides or herbicides, solvents, paints and lubricants. These
common consumer products would be used for the same purposes
as in any residential setting and the health effects associated with
them are not considered significant.
2. The proposed Project would not 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. The Project Site is located more
than 25 miles, but less than 50 miles, from the San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station. The facility is in decommission status and
existing emergency procedures are in place.
3. The Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts
related to hazards and hazardous materials.
G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. The proposed 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 proposed development would
include a permanent infiltration basin, infiltration swale, and open
space located throughout the site in order to maximize infiltration
into the ground and assist with restoring groundwater supplies. The
Rancho California Water District provided a Will Serve letter to
provide water service to the proposed Project, indicating there are
adequate water supplies available to meet the Project's anticipated
water demand.
2. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The City
maintains a Dam Inundation Evacuation Plan and California
Emergency Management Agency coordinates with the California
Division of Safety of Dams to provide effective dam incident
response procedures and planning. Additionally, the City
coordinates with the State Office of Emergency Services to ensure
that dam safety plans reflect the level of development within the
community. As such, failure of a dam has an extremely low
probability of occurring and is not considered to be a reasonably
foreseeable event.
3. The Project's incremental contribution to water quality and quantity
impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
A-9
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
H. LAND USE AND PLANNING
' 1. The proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect.
2. The Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable
impact on land use and planning.
I. NOISE
1. Operation of the Project would not expose persons to or generate
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The
proposed residential uses would not generally include stationary
equipment that would result in high vibration levels; as such,
vibration impacts associated with operation of the future residential
uses under the proposed Project would be less than significant.
2. The Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing
without the Project. The development's noise levels would not
exceed the significance thresholds at the identified offsite sensitive
receptors.
' 3. The Project's contribution to cumulative noise impacts attributable
to cumulative development would not be cumulatively considerable,
and impacts would be less than significant.
J. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1. The proposed Project would not induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. The proposed
residential uses would constitute approximately six percent of the
population growth expected in the City between 2010 and 2020. As
such, the population associated with the proposed residential uses
would be within the anticipated population growth for the City and
would not exceed the projections on which the City has based
plans.
2. The Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts
related to population and housing.
K. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse
' physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, or create the need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
A-10
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
' acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, or other
public facilities. The fire department already has the staff and
necessary equipment to accommodate the proposed residential
uses. No additional police facilities would need to be constructed
and while the Project could require additional officers, adding
officers to the staff would not result in adverse environmental
impacts. The proposed residences would increase the student
population and require payment of a school impact fees to offset
any new school services. The proposed residences would require
payment of impact fees and the Project would involve park
improvements, any impacts of which were analyzed in the EIR.
2. The Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated.
3. The Project would not include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment.
' 4. The Project would not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to impacts related to fire protection, police protection,
schools, or other public facilities.
L. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
1. The Project would not conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including travel demand measures. There
are no policies in the Temecula General Plan Circulation Element in
regards to TDM or other standards that apply to a development of
this type. There are also no CMP locations near the study area.
2. The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature or incompatible uses.
3. The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. The
most likely emergency vehicle access route would be from the
Principal Arterials Temecula Parkway and Pechanga Parkway and
the Collector Roadway Loma Linda Road to ultimately reach
Temecula Lane and the Project Site. Given the number and
placement of these driveway locations along with adequate
roadway widths, the emergency vehicle access is therefore
sufficient.
A-11
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
M. 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 have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the Project from existing entitlements and resources and new or
expanded entitlements not needed.
3. 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.
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. In
addition, EMWD provided a Will Serve letter to provide sewer
service to 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 EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental
impacts in the areas of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural
Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and
Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, 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 EIR would reduce
the Project's impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of the
A-12
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
unmitigable impacts discussed in Section VII. The City Council adopts all of the feasible
' mitigation measures for the Project described in the Final EIR as conditions of approval
of the Project and incorporates those into the Project, as discussed more fully in
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. 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.
MM-AES-1: The following light and glare standards shall be applied to all
development within the project area:
• Temporary nighttime construction lighting shall be shielded and
' directed downward such that no light spillage will occur on adjacent
properties.
• The applicant shall ensure that all outdoor lighting fixtures in public
areas contain "sharp cutoff' fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass
and internal and external shielding.
The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be
grouped into control zones to allow for opening, closing, and night
light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by
an automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low
voltage relays.
• The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the
development shall take advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural
massing, and off—site architectural massing to block light sources and
reflection from cars.
• The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall
surfaces shall be prohibited.
• Prior to the issuance of construction permits for any phase of the
' project that includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an
outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved
by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with
A-13
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
Ordinance No. 655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, the following
information and standards:
• Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens;
• Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted
by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal plan
passing through the lowest point of the shield;
• A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and
intensities, including security, roadway, and task lighting;
• Specification of each light fixture and each light shield;
• Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as
lumens per acre; and
• Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be
used, especially for security lighting.
• The City shall conduct a post-installation inspection to ensure that
the development is in compliance with the design standards in
' Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 and Riverside County Ordinance
No. 655.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Currently, the Project Site is undeveloped with no onsite sources of light or glare. During
construction of the Project, there is the possibility of limited, temporary nighttime
construction lighting for security. Once operational, the Project's residential uses would
introduce new sources of light and glare from lighting for residential buildings and
streets, as well as from cars traveling through the Project Site. The proposed Project is
located approximately 17 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.
A-14
11086-0191\2074636v2.d oc
B. AIR QUALITY
' 1. Construction -- Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Pollutant
Concentrations.
Impact AIR-4: The Project's construction emissions could exceed
SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds for PM,o and PM2.6, and
therefore 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
exposure of sensitive receptors to air quality pollutants. 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: 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.
Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-2: The site shall be watered four times per
day during ground disturbance (grading) activities for all project
development phases. During drought conditions, defined as Water
Shortage Stages 4 or 5 as determined by the Rancho California Water
District, use of reclaimed water or non-water chemical stabilizers shall be
implemented such that fugitive emissions reductions are comparable.
Permission to use potable water for dust control activities during drought
conditions shall be granted by the City of Temecula Building Official if the
General Contractor shows in writing that (1) Reclaimed water is not
available in sufficient quality and quantity from recycled wastewater
treatment facilities located within 10 miles of the construction site; and (2)
Well water or groundwater is not available in sufficient quality and quantity
from wells and groundwater sources located within 10 miles of the
construction site.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Residential units located immediately adjacent 'to the west of the Project Site,
approximately 40 feet (12.2 meters) from the Project boundary, are the nearest
sensitive receptors, which means that construction emissions were compared to the
two-acre site localized significance thresholds (LST) (listed in Table 3.2-5 of the Draft
EIR) 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
A-15
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
(http://www.agmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-
significance-thresholds), the determination of significance based on two acres of
disturbance per day is appropriate for this analysis. For PM10, the LST is 7 pounds per
day; for PM2.5, the LST is 4 pounds per day. During the first year of construction,
emissions would exceed LSTs during the site preparation phase for PM10 (9.45
Ibs/day) and PM2.5 (6.21 Ibs/day) and would exceed the LST during the grading phase
for PM2.5 (4.29 Ibs/day).
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 5.38 pounds and maximum daily emissions of PM2.5
would be 2.99, 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. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Sensitive and Special Status Species.
Impact BIO-1: Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds include direct
' loss of potential foraging and nesting habitat. Potential nesting habitat
onsite includes mature trees and shrubs as well as grassland (in the case
of ground-nesting birds such as northern harrier and mourning dove). It is
possible that raptors and other migratory birds would nest onsite due to
the proximity to open space and preserved lands such as Temecula Creek
and the Pechanga Reservation lands.
Impact BIO-2: Burrowing owls could inhabit the site prior to Project
construction as appropriate burrowing owl foraging and nesting habitat is
present. Potential impacts to this species would include loss of foraging
and nesting (i.e., burrowing) habitat. Individuals present during grading
and other construction related activities have the potential to be killed or
displaced through burrow collapse and other impacts.
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
sensitive or special status species. Specifically, the following measures have been
included to ensure that the Project's potential biological impacts remain less than
significant.
' Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1: To the extent feasible, clearing and
grubbing activities shall take place outside of the avian breeding season,
which occurs from February 1 to September 15. If clearing and grubbing
A-16
11086-0191\2074636v2.d oc
activities are necessary during the breeding season, a focused survey for
' active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist having demonstrated experience conducting breeding
bird and nest surveys. The survey shall occur no more than 7 days prior to
any clearing, grubbing, construction or ground-disturbing activities. If
active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project
area, the nest shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and
fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own and
are no longer relying on the nest for survival). A 500-foot construction
setback from any active raptor nesting location (or a distance to be
determined by the qualified biologist, based on species, construction
activity, the birds' response/habituation to human presence, and/or
topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to
the nest) shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until
the young have fledged or the nest has failed, as determined by a
qualified biologist. A 300-foot construction setback (or a distance to be
determined by the qualified biologist, based on species, construction
activity, and the birds' response/habituation to human presence, and/or
topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to
the nest) shall be established for all other migratory birds. If no active
nests are identified, construction may commence. All construction
setbacks shall be clearly demarcated in the field with appropriate material
(flagging, staking, construction fencing, etc.) and verified by a qualified
biologist. Such fencing shall be maintained and monitored until the nest is
confirmed to be inactive. If an avoidance buffer is not feasible, as
determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the City, noise walls
or other noise attenuation devices may be installed as needed to prevent
disturbance to the nest.
Mitigation Measure MM BIO-2: A pre-construction survey for burrowing
owl shall be conducted within 30 days of ground disturbing activities in
accordance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (WRC MSHCP). The one-day survey shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist within all suitable habitat areas on the
project site, and will focus on areas previously identified as containing
suitable habitat and potentially suitable burrows. A qualified biologist is
one who has the appropriate education and experience to accomplish pre-
construction burrowing owl surveys. If no burrowing owls are observed
construction may commence. If burrowing owls are observed, the
Regional Conservation Authority and the City will be notified and
additional measures, such as avoidance or installation of exclusion
devices to evict the owls, will be required to demonstrate compliance with
the WRC MSHCP.
' Mitigation Measure MM BIO-3: The applicant shall pay applicable Local
Development Mitigation fees, as established and required by the
Conservation Authority and City of Temecula, for continued
A-17
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and Habitat
' Conservation for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Eleven special-status wildlife species are likely to occur within or in proximity of the
Project Site, six of which have been documented within the Project Site. (See Draft EIR,
Table 3.3-3.) The majority of the species observed onsite are raptors and other
migratory birds protected under the MBTA, including red-tailed hawk, kestrel, mourning
dove, killdeer, northern rough-winged swallow, and white-tailed kite. All bird species
observed onsite are likely using the Project Site's non-native grassland areas for
foraging (and nesting in the case of the mourning dove) and the trees and shrubs for
perching, but supplementing these activities with the surrounding open space parks,
Temecula Creek, and other fallow fields. If it is found that any of these species have
established an active nest on the Project Site and that the nest would be lost as a result
of site-preparation, significant impacts to these species could occur without mitigation.
Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1 requires any clearing and grubbing activities to occur
outside the avian breeding season to the extent possible. If these activities are
necessary during the breeding season, it requires a focused survey for active nests and
a 500-foot or 300-foot construction setback from any nesting location. This mitigation
measure would ensure that Project construction would not result in impacts by avoiding
' construction activities that would impact any birds nesting on the Project Site
Therefore, impacts to protected birds would be less than significant with mitigation.
In addition, the following species covered by the WRC MSHCP are likely to occur on the
Project Site: coyote, coastal western whiptail, northern red diamondback rattlesnake,
and burrowing owl. With the exception of the burrowing owl, these WRC MSHCP
Covered Species are considered adequately conserved through implementation of the
WRC MSHCP and the payment of associated development fees, as required by
Mitigation Measure MM-1310-3. The burrowing owl would be adequately conserved with
the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 1310-2, which includes preconstruction
surveys, to ensure no active burrows or owls are impacted by Project development.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of these
mitigation measures.
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Historical and Archaeological Resources
Impact CUL-1: The results of the Phase I and Extended Phase I
investigation conducted in 2012, which included archival research,
geoarchaeological review, Native American contact, field survey, and
Extended Phase I testing, 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
A-18
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
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 the issuance of a grading permit
and prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity, the applicant shall
retain a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the
Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for
archaeology (U.S. Department of the Interior 2012) and as approved by
the City of Temecula to provide archaeological expertise in carrying out all
mitigation measures related to archaeological resources (Mitigation
Measures MM CUL-2, -3 and -5).
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2: The qualified archeologist, or an
archaeologist working under the direction of the qualified archaeologist,
' along with a representative designated by the Pechanga Tribe, shall
conduct pre-construction cultural resources worker sensitivity training to
inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that may
be encountered, and to bring awareness to personnel of actions to be
taken in the event of a cultural resources discovery. The applicant shall
ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the
training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3: 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 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 of California, Riverside.
' Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-4: At least 30 days prior to issuance of a
grading permit and prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity, the
applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Pechanga Tribe of
A-19
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with
' the Pechanga Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and
Monitoring Agreement (Agreement). The Agreement shall address the
treatment of known cultural resources; the designation, responsibilities,
and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading,
excavation and all 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 and access roads,
as specified in the Agreement, in consultation with the project
archaeologist. If ground-disturbing activities occur simultaneously in two or
more locations, additional Native American monitors may be required.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-5: If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface
archaeological/cultural resources are made during ground-disturbing
activities, the applicant, the 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 applicant, the qualified archaeologist, and
the Pechanga Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for
such resources, these issues will be presented to the City Planning
Director for decision. The City Planning Director shall make the
determination based on the provisions of the CEQA with respect to
archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs,
customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Notwithstanding any other
rights available under the law, the decision of the City Planning Director
shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-6: 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-4).
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-7: 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
A-20
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
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. Within a 1-mile radius of the Project Site, there have been a total of 37
previously recorded cultural resources, of which 17 were archaeological sites, 14 were
isolated artifacts, and six were historic-period built resources. In addition,
geoarchaeological review suggests that the Project Site, particularly the southern
portion, would have been a suitable location for prehistoric human settlement.
Phase I and Extended Phase I investigations conducted in 2012 identified four
prehistoric isolated artifacts, which are not eligible for listing in the California Register or
local register because they are isolated artifacts that lack archaeological context and do
not otherwise meet CEQA's definitions for historical resources or unique archaeological
resources. However, the presence of these resources suggest that there is a potential
for encountering additional previously unrecorded cultural materials during Project
related ground disturbing activities. The lack of identified subsurface archaeological
materials 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-7 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: If site preparation activities require grading 10 or more feet
below the ground surface, there could be the potential to disturb and
impact significant paleontological resources.
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 measures have been included to
ensure that the Project's potential paleontological resources impacts remain less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-8: Prior to construction, a training session
on the recognition of the types of paleontological resources that could be
encountered within the project area and the procedures to be followed if
they are found shall be presented to project construction personnel by a
qualified cultural resources professional. This training may be conducted
' concurrently with the cultural resources training required in Mitigation
Measure MM-CUL-2.
A-21
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-9: During construction, should excavations
' be greater than 10 feet in depth, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained and shall designate a paleontological monitor to observe the
sediments. Should these sediments appear to have a greater potential for
fossils, paleontological monitoring of ground disturbing activities below 10
feet shall commence until such a time as the excavation of these
sediments has ceased, or upon determination by the qualified
paleontologist that the likelihood of encountering paleontological
resources is unlikely.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-10: If construction or other project
personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, or project
operations and maintenance, regardless of the depth of work, work within
100 feet of the discovery location should cease and a qualified
paleontologist should be called to further assess the discovery and make
further recommendations as necessary.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
This Project is mapped as lying entirely within recent (Holocene) alluvial sediments and
Quaternary alluvium. These sediments are generally considered too young to contain
fossils of any significance. In addition, man-made or affected sediments (artificial fill)
have been noted and observed on portions (two units) of the Project. These sediments
' are too young to contain paleontological resources. Although both of these units have
low sensitivity rating, the San Bernardino County Museum records search notes the
possibility of higher potential, potentially fossiliferous formations beneath these two units
in the Project Site at an unknown depth but as shallow as 10 feet below the ground
surface.
Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-8, MM, CUL-9, and MM-CUL-10 ensure that impacts to
potential unknown paleontological resources would be less than significant by requiring
the identification, avoidance, and assessment by a qualified paleontologist. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
3. Human Remains
Impact CUL-3: Because the proposed Project would involve ground-
disturbing activities, it is possible that such actions could unearth, expose,
or disturb previously unknown human remains interred outside of a formal
cemetery.
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 measures have been included to ensure that
the Project's potential human remain disturbance impacts remain less than significant.
A-22
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-11: 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 MLD shall then make recommendations within 48 hours, and engage
in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in
PRC Section 5097.98 and the Agreement described in Mitigation Measure
MM-CUL-4.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
No formal cemeteries or the presence of human remains have been documented within
the Project Site. However, because the nature of the proposed Project would involve
ground-disturbing activities, it is possible that such actions could unearth, expose, or
disturb previously unknown human remains interred outside of a formal cemetery.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-11 would ensure identification and proper handling of any
previously unknown human remains and impacts would therefore be less than
' significant with mitigation incorporated.
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 Measure MM-CUL-12: The applicant shall provide open space
area(s) for the congregation of participants during the Pechanga Tribe's
"Trail of Tears" commemorative eviction walk, which shall consist of the
area near the corner of Pechanga Parkway and Loma Linda Road and the
sidewalk along Loma Linda Road, near the intersection with Temecula
Lane; both areas shall be outside the walls of the community, and be
' designated by an exhibit as part of the construction plans, on the dates
described in the access agreement. The applicant and the Pechanga
Tribe shall develop and enter into an access agreement formalizing the
A-23
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
Pechanga Tribe's right to access the open space area and upon which
' days and times, permitted and unpermitted activities within the open
space area, donation by applicant of a temporary shade structure for use
by the Pechanga Tribe, as necessary, provisions for the transfer of rights
and obligations under the access agreement to future owners, including
any Home Owner's Association or similar entity, and any other provisions
deemed necessary to carry out the purpose of accessing the open space.
The applicant shall insert language into the Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) allowing the Tribe access to the designated
space(s) during this annual two-day event and incorporating into its terms
the access agreement. Both the access agreement and CC&Rs shall
include an exhibit designating the open space(s) area for use by the
Pechanga Tribe during the commemorative eviction walk.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-13: The applicant shall consult with the
Pechanga Tribe on the creation and installation of commemorative public
art (e.g., plaques, signage, patterned pavers, etc.) related to the eviction
of the Temeku peoples. The public art shall commemorate the eviction
and "Trail of Tears," and shall be designed in collaboration with the
Pechanga Tribe. The applicant shall be responsible for the costs
associated with providing and installing the commemorative public art. The
dedication and the cost of the public art shall be in conformance with the
' City of Temecula's public art dedication process and cost estimating per
Municipal Code, Title 5 Business Licenses and Regulations, Section
5.08.070, Procedure for donation or installation of public artwork.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
During the government-to-government consultation undertaken by the City pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21080.2.152, the Pechanga Tribe identified a Tribal
Cultural Resource related to the eviction of the Temeku peoples within the Project area.
Because a Tribal Cultural Resource has been identified within the Project area,
Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-12 and MM-CUL-13 shall be implemented to reduce
Project-related impacts to less than significant.
E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Construction Impacts to Soil Erosion
Impact GEO-4: 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,
including grading and stockpiling of soils. Changes or alterations have been required in
A-24
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
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.
Measure MM-HYDRO-1: The applicant shall retain a Qualified Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Developer to prepare a
SWPPP in accordance with Construction General Permit requirements.
The SWPPP must be completed prior to filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) to
apply for coverage under the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP
shall contain a detailed project description and best management
practices (BMPs) to be implemented onsite during and post-construction;
BMP categories are expected to include, but are not limited to erosion
control, sediment control, waste management and good housekeeping
BMPs. Examples of BMPs include:
• Revegetation of landscaped areas;
• Hydro-seeding, mulching, or other erosion controls for inactive
exposed areas;
' • Sediment controls such as check dams, desilting basins, fiber rolls,
and silt fencing;
• Catch basin inlet protection;
• Construction materials management; and
• Cover and containment of construction materials and wastes.
The project operator shall also submit an Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan (ESCP) to the City of Temecula Department of Public Works for
approval as part of the project's grading permit application process. The
ESCP shall detail planned erosion control measures on the construction
site including but not limited to filtration of runoff, erosion controls,
sediment controls, site perimeter protection, stabilization of construction
access points, and slope protection. The ESCP shall be approved by the
City prior to the start of construction activities.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
This mitigation measure requires the implementation of construction best management
practices (BMPs), which would be detailed in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) as required by the Construction General Permit from the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, as further discussed in the Hydrology
and Water Quality section. Although these measures are intended to prevent
A-25
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
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 the BMPs,
potential construction-related erosion would be reduced to less than significant.
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Construction —Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials.
Impact HAZ-1: Hazardous materials used onsite during construction
activities (i.e., petroleum products, solvents, paints, etc.) could be
released to the environment through improper handling or storage,
resulting in a potentially significant impact.
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 measures have 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 best management practices (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;
• 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.
A-26
11086-0191\207463M.doc
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.
G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1 . Water Quality or Waste Discharge
Impact HYDRO-1: The Project could degrade water quality as a result of
proposed construction and/or operational activities.
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 measures have been
included to ensure that the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant.
' Mitigation Measure MM-HYDRO-1: The applicant shall retain a Qualified
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Developer to prepare a
SWPPP in accordance with Construction General Permit requirements.
The SWPPP must be completed prior to filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) to
apply for coverage under the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP
shall contain a detailed project description and best management
practices (BMPs) to be implemented onsite during and post-construction;
BMP categories are expected to include, but are not limited to erosion
control, sediment control, waste management and good housekeeping
BMPs. Examples of BMPs include:
• Revegetation of landscaped areas;
• Hydro-seeding, mulching, or other erosion controls for inactive
exposed areas;
• Sediment controls such as check dams, desilting basins, fiber
rolls, and silt fencing;
• Catch basin inlet protection;
• Construction materials management; and
' • Cover and containment of construction materials and wastes.
A-27
11086-0191\2074636v2.d oc
The project operator shall also submit an Erosion and Sediment Control
' Plan (ESCP) to the City of Temecula Department of Public Works for
approval as part of the project's grading permit application process. The
ESCP shall detail planned erosion control measures on the construction
site including but not limited to filtration of runoff, erosion controls,
sediment controls, site perimeter protection, stabilization of construction
access points, and slope protection. The ESCP shall be approved by the
City prior to the start of construction activities.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYDRO-2: The applicant shall implement the
best management practices (BMPs) contained in the Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the project in March 2016. The
project WQMP proposes implementation of various Structural Source
Control BMPs (permanent, structural features), Operational Source
Control BMPs (implemented by the site's occupant or users), and Low
Impact Development (LID) BMPs. Source Control BMPs specified in the
WQMP include, but are not limited to, marking all inlets to indicate that
they drain to the ocean, designing landscaping to minimize irrigation and
runoff, minimizing fertilizer and pesticide use, designating of trash
receptacle areas, and avoiding the use of unprotected metals that could
leach into runoff. Operational BMPs specified in the WQMP include, but
are not limited to, repainting or replacing inlet markings, providing
' Integrated Pest Management plan information to owners, tenants, and
employees, and inspecting and maintaining drains to prevent blockages
and overflow. LID BMPs include a large infiltration basin, encouragement
of natural infiltration, and conversion of a concrete-lined flood control
channel to an infiltration swale.
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. In accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 18.18, the Project operator
would be required to comply with construction runoff-related measures including
avoidance of grading during the rainy season when possible, minimizing exposure time
of disturbed soil areas, stabilization of disturbed areas as soon as possible, and
implementation of landscaping as early as feasible.
Further, Mitigation Measure MM-HYDRO-1 would require the applicant to prepare a
' Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the Construction
General Permit, which would utilize erosion control, sediment control, waste
management and good housekeeping BMPs to prevent construction-related pollutants
A-28
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
from mixing with stormwater and being discharged into receiving waters. Erosion control
' refers to any source control practice that protects the soil surface and prevents soil
particles from being detached by rainfall, flowing water, and wind. Sediment control
refers to any practice that traps soil particles after they have been detached and moved
by rain, flowing water, and wind. Mitigation Measure MM-HYDRO-1 also requires the
Project operator to submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) to the City as
part of the grading permit application in order to prevent erosion and sedimentation from
occurring during construction.
These required measures would reduce potential for erosion and sedimentation to occur
onsite. With implementation of the SWPPP, ESCP, and Municipal Code requirements,
water quality impacts from construction would be less than significant.
Operation of the Project would introduce residential and recreational land uses to the
Project Site, which have the potential to impact the existing water quality of the Project
Site's receiving water bodies. To reduce impacts to water quality, Mitigation Measure
MM-HYDRO-2 would require the Project operator to prepare a Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) in compliance with the City's Stormwater Management Plan
(SWMP) and Stormwater Ordinance. By cross-referencing pollutants that currently
impair the Project Site's receiving waters and those associated with proposed
residential and recreational land uses, the following priority pollutants of concern were
identified for the WQMP: bacteria, metals, nutrients, pesticides, and toxic organic
' compounds. The Project WQMP's would implement various Structural Source Control
BMPs and Operational Source Control BMPs, including both physical structures and
actions that would prevent onsite priority pollutants of concern from coming into contact
with runoff.
The WQMP also recommends infiltration as a Low Impact Development (LID) BMP and
infiltration will be achieved through a large infiltration basin appropriately sized to
capture runoff and conversion of the existing concrete-lined flood control channel into
an infiltration swale. The infiltration basin and infiltration swale would be used to remove
targeted pollutants from stormwater runoff onsite during operation through the
absorption and filtering of runoff.
With implementation of the Project-specific WQMP recommendations, the Project would
achieve compliance with the City's SWMP and Stormwater Ordinance and impacts to
water quality during operation would be less than significant.
2. Drainage Pattern Alteration through Stream or River Alteration,
Erosion, or Surface Runoff— Siltation or Flooding
Impact HYDRO-3: The Project could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
a. Findings
A-29
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
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 patterns. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure
that the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYDRO-1: The applicant shall retain a Qualified
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Developer to prepare a
SWPPP in accordance with Construction General Permit requirements.
The SWPPP must be completed prior to filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) to
apply for coverage under the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP
shall contain a detailed project description and best management
practices (BMPs) to be implemented onsite during and post-construction;
BMP categories are expected to include, but are not limited to erosion
control, sediment control, waste management and good housekeeping
BMPs. Examples of BMPs include:
• Revegetation of landscaped areas;
• Hydro-seeding, mulching, or other erosion controls for inactive
exposed areas;
• Sediment controls such as check dams, desilting basins, fiber
rolls, and silt fencing;
• Catch basin inlet protection;
• Construction materials management; and
• Cover and containment of construction materials and wastes.
The project operator shall also submit an Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan (ESCP) to the City of Temecula Department of Public Works for
approval as part of the project's grading permit application process. The
ESCP shall detail planned erosion control measures on the construction
site including but not limited to filtration of runoff, erosion controls,
sediment controls, site perimeter protection, stabilization of construction
access points, and slope protection. The ESCP shall be approved by the
City prior to the start of construction activities.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYDRO-2: The applicant shall implement the
best management practices (BMPs) contained in the Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the project in March 2016. The
project WQMP proposes implementation of various Structural Source
Control BMPs (permanent, structural features), Operational Source
' Control BMPs (implemented by the site's occupant or users), and Low
Impact Development (LID) BMPs. Source Control BMPs specified in the
WQMP include, but are not limited to, marking all inlets to indicate that
A-30
11086-0191\2074636v2.d oc
they drain to the ocean, designing landscaping to minimize irrigation and
' runoff, minimizing fertilizer and pesticide use, designating of trash
receptacle areas, and avoiding the use of unprotected metals that could
leach into runoff. Operational BMPs specified in the WQMP include, but
are not limited to, repainting or replacing inlet markings, providing
Integrated Pest Management plan information to owners, tenants, and
employees, and inspecting and maintaining drains to prevent blockages
and overflow. LID BMPs include a large infiltration basin, encouragement
of natural infiltration, and conversion of a concrete-lined flood control
channel to an infiltration swale.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
During construction, excavation, grading, and stockpiling of materials would alter the
ground surface, consequently altering drainage patterns. Further, a portion of the
Project Site is located within a flood zone, indicating that flood flows have a chance of
inundating the area and being altered by construction activities. Altered drainage
patterns have the potential to result in erosion, sedimentation and/or flooding on or
offsite by redirecting or concentrating flows onsite.
To reduce these potential impacts, Mitigation Measure MM-HYDRO-1 would require the
Project operator to implement a SWPPP that would include erosion and sediment
control BMPs, which minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation to occur
during construction. The Project operator would also be required to submit an ESCP
that includes erosion and sedimentation control measures as well as BMPs designed to
filter (and slow the velocity of) runoff onsite during construction. Further, compliance
with Municipal Code Chapter 18.18 would avoid grading operations during the rainy
season to the maximum extent possible, minimize exposure time of disturbed soil areas,
and implement landscaping as early as feasible. These measures and BMPs would
minimize the potential for erosion, sedimentation and flooding to occur during
construction.
Therefore, major alterations to the drainage pattern would occur over a relatively limited
time frame and would be timed to avoid rainy season/flooding events when possible.
Impacts to drainage patterns and associated erosion, sedimentation and/or flooding
during construction would be less than significant with the above mitigation measures
incorporated.
During operation, the Project Site would consist of new residences, recreational areas,
parking spaces, and landscaped areas. Approximately 52 percent of the Project Site (or
approximately 12 of the 23 total acres) would be impervious. Therefore, compared to
existing undeveloped conditions, the Project would permanently alter the drainage
pattern of the Site.
' Mitigation Measure MM-HYDRO-2 requires implementation of the BMPs specified in the
Project-specific WQMP, including low Impact Development (LID) BMPs requiring
conversion of the existing Project Site concrete-lined channel to an infiltration swale with
A-31
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
grass sides and cobblestone bottom. With implementation of these measure and BMPs,
' drainage would drain similarly to existing conditions (in a northwest direction) to the
swale that would then direct surface flows into a newly-constructed infiltration basin at
the northern end of the Project Site. The infiltration swale and infiltration basin would
promote absorption of floodwaters onsite and would thus attenuate flooding potential.
Therefore, the Project's permanent alterations in topography and drainage on the
Project Site are not expected to result in erosion, sedimentation, or flooding with the
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-HYDRO-1 and MM-HYDRO-2. Impacts
would be less than significant.
3. Create or Contribute Stormwater Runoff Water or Require New
Storm Water Drainage Facilities or Expansion of Existing Facilities.
Impact HYDRO-4: The Project could create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff.
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
' stormwater drainage runoff or drainage. Specifically, the following measures have been
included to ensure that the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant.
See Mitigation Measures MM-HYDRO-1 and MM-HYDRO-2 above.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Currently, the Project Site's drainage flows to the northwest corner into an open channel
that eventually discharges into Temecula Creek and, as further discussed above,
construction activities and materials would alter the drainage pattern.
Construction of the Project would require the use of water onsite for various purposes
including dust control, concrete mixing, and sanitation, which would potentially increase
flow into the drainage system.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYDRO-1 requires implementation of an ESCP, which requires
filtration of discharge leaving the Project Site, thereby slowing discharge flows and
preventing runoff from overwhelming storm drains. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure MM-HYDRO-1, construction of the Project would not exceed the existing
capacity of storm drains during construction.
During operation, the Project Site would consist of new residences, recreational areas,
' parking spaces, and landscaped areas. Approximately 52 percent of the Project Site (or
approximately 12 of the 23 total acres) would be impervious. Compared with existing
undeveloped site conditions, operation of the Project could reduce the site's capacity to
A-32
11086-0191 Q07463W.doc
capture and filter stormwater runoff and, during a storm event, an increase in runoff
could potentially overwhelm receiving storm drains. However, the proposed Project
includes the installation of storm drains on the Project Site that would connect with the
existing storm drain in the northwest corner.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYDRO-2 would require the implementation of infiltration LID
BMPs by way of an infiltration basin, conversion of the concrete-lined channel to an
infiltration swale, and maximization of pervious, open space areas throughout the
Project Site. The Preliminary Drainage Study prepared for the Project concluded the
Project would have no negative impacts downstream post-development, indicating that
flows leaving the Project Site would not overwhelm or exceed storm drain capacity
Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant
impacts related to the capacity of existing and planned stormwater drainage systems
with the implementation of mitigation measure MM-HYDRO-2.
4. Dearadation of Water Quality
Impact HYDRO-5: The Project could 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. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that
the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant.
See Mitigation Measures MM-HYDRO-1 and MM-HYDRO-2 above.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
As discussed above in Sections VI.G, impacts to water quality from the introduction of
sediment or other pollutants into receiving water bodies during construction and
operation would be reduced through the implementation of the SWPPP and ESCP
required as part of Mitigation Measure MM-HYDRO-1 and the implementation of the
BMPs specified in the Project-specific WQMP required as part of Mitigation Measure
MM-HYDRO-2.
Given the depth of the local groundwater table (approximately 63 feet beneath the
ground surface), ground-disturbing construction activities, including excavation and
trenching, would not likely reach groundwater such that groundwater contamination
would occur. During operation, surface water infiltration would be subject to natural
treatment via percolation prior to entering the groundwater basin, and would thus not
substantially affect groundwater quality. As such, the Project would not have the
potential to otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts to the
' degradation of water quality would be less than significant with the implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM-HYDRO-1 and MM-HYDRO-2.
A-33
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
5. Housing or Structures Within 100-Year Flood Hazard Area —
' Flooding and Flood Flows
Impact HYDRO-6: The Project could 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; or place
within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows.
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. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that
the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYDRO-2: The applicant shall implement the
best management practices (BMPs) contained in the Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the project in March 2016. The
project WQMP proposes implementation of various Structural Source
Control BMPs (permanent, structural features), Operational Source
Control BMPs (implemented by the site's occupant or users), and Low
Impact Development (LID) BMPs. Source Control BMPs specified in the
' WQMP include, but are not limited to, marking all inlets to indicate that
they drain to the ocean, designing landscaping to minimize irrigation and
runoff, minimizing fertilizer and pesticide use, designating of trash
receptacle areas, and avoiding the use of unprotected metals that could
leach into runoff. Operational BMPs specified in the WQMP include, but
are not limited to, repainting or replacing inlet markings, providing
Integrated Pest Management plan information to owners, tenants, and
employees, and inspecting and maintaining drains to prevent blockages
and overflow. LID BMPs include a large infiltration basin, encouragement
of natural infiltration, and conversion of a concrete-lined flood control
channel to an infiltration swale.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The northern portion of the Project Site is located within a 100-year flood zone and has
the potential to become flooded when major rainstorms cause stream overflows in
Temecula Creek. (See Draft EIR, Figure 3.8-1.) However, the Preliminary Drainage
Study prepared for the Project Site determined there would be no negative downstream
impacts during Project operation regarding post-development flows, indicating the
Project would not worsen flooding.
' During operation, the proposed Project would consist of 245 residential units (attached
and detached), a clubhouse including a spa and pool, tot lots, picnic areas, a bocce
court, and a meandering trail. Potential impacts to the site's hydrology resulting from
A-34
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
placing housing and recreational structures in the flood zone include increased runoff
volume and velocity; reduced infiltration; increased flow frequency, duration, and peaks;
faster time to reach peak flow; and water quality degradation.
In the event of a flood, the Project Site would be able to infiltrate portions of flood flows.
Specific building standards, as described in Municipal Code Chapter 15.12, apply to
flood-prone areas, including anchoring, use of flood-resistant building materials, use of
adequate drainage paths, and elevating the structures to or above the base flood
elevation. The City also reviews development plans for projects within the floodplain to
ensure compliance with the California Building Code, the City's Municipal Code, and
FEMA floodplain development requirements to resist flood-related damage. As part of
compliance with Mitigation Measure MM-HYDRO-2, the proposed Project would
implement LID BMPs, including an infiltration basin, conversion of the concrete-lined
channel to an infiltration swale, and pervious surfaces throughout the site to increase
site infiltration. With implementation of these measures, the Project Site would be able
to infiltrate portions of flood flows in the event of a flood.
Therefore, impacts related to placement of housing and structures within a 100-year
flood hazard area would be less than significant with mitigation.
H. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1 . Consistency with Conservation Plans.
Impact LAN-3: The Project is located within the WRC MSHCP area and
the payment of development fees to the Stephens' kangaroo fund is
required.
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
consistency with conservation plans. Specifically, the following measures have been
included to ensure that the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM BIO-3: The applicant shall pay applicable Local
Development Mitigation fees, as established and required by the
Conservation Authority and City of Temecula, for continued
implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and Habitat
Conservation for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The Project Site is located within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (WRC MSHCP) area, where the City of Temecula is a
' participating entity and permittee of the WRC MSHCP. A full WRC MSHCP compliance
report for the Project determined that the Project was consistent with the WRC MSHCP.
Additionally, a subsequent Biological Technical Report and MSHCP Consistency
A-35
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
Analysis was prepared in 2016 to document the current existing conditions on the
' Project Site to determine if conditions have changed since the previous survey reports.
Based on the surveys in these reports, the proposed Project is in compliance with the
WRC MSHCP.
Specifically, the Project Site is located within two criteria cells-7445 and 7446—of the
WRC MSHCP, which requires the conservation of Proposed Constrained Linkage 14
(Temecula Creek) and species-specific surveys for burrowing owl. As described under
Biological Resources above, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-610-2 requires
preconstruction surveys to confirm the presences or absence of this species, which
would reduce any potentially significant impacts related to burrowing owls. Thus,
implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure consistency with the WRC
MSHCP as it relates to the burrowing owls.
Additionally, the Project Site falls within the federal Habitat Conservation Program
(HCP) fee payment area for the Stephens' kangaroo rat. This fee payment area
generally encompass the historic range of the Stephens' kangaroo rat in Western
Riverside County. However, the Project Site is not located within identified occupied
habitat for the Stephens' kangaroo rat and the species has a low potential to occur due
to lack of geographic connectivity. Therefore, impacts to the Stephen's kangaroo rat
would be less than significant, but development fees into the Stephens' kangaroo rat
fund are required by Mitigation Measure MM BIO-3 and City of Temecula Municipal
' Code (Section 3.2.3) for consistency with the WRC MSHCP.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable conservation plans
and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
I. NOISE
1 . Operations – Exposure to Noise Levels in Excess of Standards.
Impact NOI-1: Operation of the proposed Project could expose nearby
sensitive resources to noise levels exceeding 5 dB due to operation of
HVAC equipment at the Project Site.
Impact NOI-2: The proposed duplex/triplex units could be exposed to
noise levels exceeding 70 dBA CNEL due to traffic noise along adjacent
roadways.
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
exposure to excessive 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-3: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that all new HVAC or mechanical
A-36
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
equipment associated with the proposed project be designed with
' adequate shielding (e.g., via rooftop parapet or enclosure) or noise
muffling devices to ensure that noise levels would not exceed the ambient
noise level on the premises of other occupied residential properties
located offsite by more than 5 dBA CNEL.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, the applicant shall ensure that all exterior windows associated
with the proposed residential uses at the project site along Pechanga
Parkway, west of Loma Linda Road shall be constructed to provide a
sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels
would be below 45 dB Ldn or CNEL in any habitable room.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
As part of the proposed Project, new mechanical equipment, such as heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning units (HVAC), may be installed on the residential units.
The noise levels generated by the new HVAC units and exhaust fans could potentially
disturb the existing residential uses surrounding the Project Site. In particular, the
residential uses located immediately west of the Project Site, across the concrete-lined
flood channel, would be exposed to the highest noise levels due to their proximity to the
Project Site.
According to Municipal Code Section 9.20.030 (Exemptions), sound emanating from
heating and air conditioning equipment are exempt from the City's noise standards.
Nonetheless, as an industry practice and Project design, the onsite HVAC units and
other noise-generating mechanical equipment on new residential units would typically
be installed on the rooftops and would be equipped with noise muffling devices or
shielding to reduce noise levels that may affect nearby noise-sensitive uses.
To ensure that the nearby noise-sensitive uses to the Project Site would not be
adversely affected by any HVAC equipment noise, Mitigation Measure MM N0I-1
requires the use shielding or noise muffling devices that ensure noise levels would not
exceed the noise level on the premises of offsite residential properties by more than 5
dBA CNEL. Therefore, noise impacts associated with HVAC equipment would be
mitigated to less than significant.
The new residential uses on the Project Site would be considered noise sensitive, so
the Project itself would locate new noise-sensitive uses on the Project Site in an existing
urban setting. The Project's detached cluster units along Pechanga Parkway, west of
Loma Linda Road, would be exposed to maximum ambient noise levels up to
approximately 73 dBA CNEL at 40 feet from Pechanga Parkway, which would exceed
the City's land use compatibility standard of 70 dBA CNEL for multiple-family housing.
' Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4 would require the applicant to construct the residential
units in the detached cluster along Pechanga Parkway west of Loma Linda Road with
A-37
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
sound insulating windows that ensure that interior noise levels would be below 45 dB
' Ldn or CNEL. With implementation of this mitigation measure, noise impacts to these
on-site residences are reduced to less than significant.
Increased traffic associated with the proposed Project would not result in a significant
increase to current baseline or future (2020) baseline conditions. The Project would
increase local noise levels by a maximum of 0.5 dBA CNEL at the nearest roadway
segment of Loma Linda, which would not exceed the identified threshold of significance
and, thus, the Project's impact to traffic noise would be less than significant without
mitigation.
J. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant traffic impacts at six
intersections under either Existing (2016) Baseline Conditions or Opening Year (2020)
Baseline Conditions, as further discussed below. In addition, the EIR identified the
potential for the Project to cause a significant cumulative impact to four intersections.
Measures have been identified that would mitigate impacts at each of these
intersections to a less than significant level.
1 . Effectiveness of Circulation System — Existing (2016) Conditions.
Impact Circ-1a: The proposed Project would result in significant impacts at
' the following intersections under Existing (2016) Conditions:
• 1-15 SB Ramps & Temecula Parkway (AM and PM peak hours)
• 1-15 NB Ramps & Temecula Parkway (PM peak hour)
• Loma Linda Road & Pechanga Parkway (PM peak hour)
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 measures have been
included to ensure that the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-CIRC-1: To mitigate the project impact, the
following improvements are required:
• Optimize the AM and PM peak hour traffic signal cycle lengths
and splits within the coordinated timing plan for the 1-15 SB
Ramps & Temecula Parkway and 1-15 NB Ramps & Temecula
Parkway intersections.
' • Optimize the AM and PM peak hour traffic signal cycle lengths
and splits within the coordinated timing plan for the Loma Linda
Road & Pechanga Parkway intersection. Since Pechanga
A-38
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
Parkway operates an Adaptive Traffic Signal System, the entire
' corridor will need to be optimized.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The City's Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines sets a standard of LOS "D" for all City
facilities in this Project's study area for this Project. For intersections that already
operate at an LOS "E" or worse, an increase in delay of 2.0 seconds or more is
considered a significant impact. Projects are not responsible for mitigating intersections
unless the project causes an increase in delay of 2.0 or more seconds, even if the
intersection is operating at an unacceptable LOS.
The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies sets a desired standard
of either LOS "C" or "D," but the higher standard of LOS "C" was applied to all Caltrans
facilities for a conservative analysis of this Project's impacts. For intersections that
already operate at LOS "D" or worse, any increased delay is considered a significant
impact.
At the following three intersections, the Project would result in impacts that exceed the
above LOS standards: (a) 1-15 SB Ramps/Temecula Parkway (during AM and PM peak
hours); (b) 1-15 NB Ramps/Temecula Parkway (during PM peak hour); and (c) Loma
Linda Road/Pechanga Parkway (during PM peak hour).
The 1-15 SB Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection is a Caltrans facility that operates
at the unacceptable LOS "D," and the Project would result in an increased delay of 0.7
seconds during AM and PM peak hours. During PM peak hour, the 1-15 NB
Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection also operates at LOS "D," and the Project would
result in an increased delay of 5.1 seconds during PM peak hour.
The required improvements to these two Caltrans intersections in Mitigation Measure
MM-CIRC-1 would improve the LOS at both intersections to LOS "C," which is
acceptable under the Caltrans standard. Therefore, impacts to these two intersections
would be less than significant with mitigation.
The Loma Linda Road/Pechanga Parkway is a City facility that operates at an
acceptable LOS "D" during PM peak hour. The Project would degrade this intersection's
LOS to an unacceptable LOS "E," and increase delays by 26.3 seconds, during PM
peak hour.
The required improvements to this City intersection in Mitigation Measure MM-CIRC-2
would maintain the intersection's LOS at "C," and would improve delays from 39.2 to
29.0 seconds, during PM peak hour. Therefore, impacts to this this intersection would
be less than significant with mitigation.
' 2. Effectiveness of Circulation System — Ooenino Year (2020)
Conditions
A-39
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
Impact Circ-1c: The proposed Project would result in a significant impact
' at the 1-15 NB Ramps & Temecula Parkway intersection under Opening
Year (2020) Conditions.
Impact Circ-1d: The proposed Project would result in a significant impact
at the Loma Linda Road & Pechanga Parkway intersection under Opening
Year (2020) Conditions.
Impact Circ-le: The proposed Project would result in a significant impact
at the La Paz Road & Temecula Parkway intersection under Opening Year
(2020) Conditions.
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 opening year (2020) conditions. Specifically, the following measures have
been included to ensure that the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM CIRCA: To mitigate the project impact, the
following improvements are required:
• Optimize the AM and PM peak hour traffic signal cycle lengths
' and splits within the coordinated timing plan for the 1-15 SB
Ramps & Temecula Parkway and 1-15 NB Ramps & Temecula
Parkway intersections.
• Optimize the AM and PM peak hour traffic signal cycle lengths
and splits within the coordinated timing plan for the Loma Linda
Road & Pechanga Parkway intersection. Since Pechanga
Parkway operates an Adaptive Traffic Signal System, the entire
corridor will need to be optimized.
Mitigation Measure MM CIRC-2: To mitigate the project impact, the
project proponent/developer is required to pay a fair-share contribution for
the following additional improvements:
• Modify the southbound approach to add a right-turn overlap
phase.
Mitigation Measure MM CIRC-3: To mitigate the project impact, the
project proponent/developer is required to pay a fair-share contribution for
the following improvements:
• Optimize the AM and PM peak hour traffic signal cycle lengths
' and splits within the coordinated timing plan. Since Temecula
A-40
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
Parkway operates an Adaptive Traffic Signal System, the entire
' corridor will need to be optimized.
• Modify the westbound approach to provide a right turn lane with
300 feet of storage.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The City's Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines sets a standard of LOS "D" for all City
facilities in this Project's study area for this Project. For intersections that already
operate at an LOS "E" or worse, an increase in delay of 2.0 seconds or more is
considered a significant impact. Projects are not responsible for mitigating intersections
unless the project causes an increase in delay of 2.0 or more seconds, even if the
intersection is operating at an unacceptable LOS.
The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies sets a desired standard
of either LOS "C" or "D," but the higher standard of LOS "C" was applied to all Caltrans
facilities for a conservative analysis of this Project's impacts. For intersections that
already operate at LOS "D" or worse, any increased delay is considered a significant
impact.
At the following three intersections, the Project could result in impacts that exceed the
' above LOS standards without mitigation: (a) 1-15 NB Ramps/Temecula Parkway (during
PM peak hour); (b) Loma Linda Road/Pechanga Parkway (during AM peak hour); and
(c) La Paz Road/Temecula Parkway (during AM peak hour).
The 1-15 NB Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection is a Caltrans facility that is
expected to operate at the unacceptable LOS "D" during PM peak hour under Opening
Year (2020) Conditions (Without Project). The Project would result in an increased
delay of 0.9 seconds during PM peak hour.
The required improvements to this Caltrans intersection in Mitigation Measure MM-
CIRC-1 would improve the LOS at this intersection to LOS "C" during PM peak hour,
which is acceptable under the Caltrans standard. Therefore, impacts to the 1-15 NB
Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection would be less than significant with mitigation.
The Loma Linda Road/Pechanga Parkway is a City facility that is expected to operate at
an acceptable LOS "D" under Opening Year (2020) Conditions (Without Project). The
Project would result in a degradation of this intersection to an LOS "E," and result in an
increased delay of 11.7 seconds, during AM peak hour.
The required improvements in Mitigation Measures MM-CIRC-1 and MM-CIRC-2 would
maintain the intersection's acceptable LOS at "D," and improve the delay from 47.9
under baseline conditions to 41 .4, during AM peak hour. Therefore, impacts to the Loma
Linda Road/Pechanga Parkway intersection would be less than significant with
mitigation.
A-41
11066-0191\2074636v2.doc
The La Paz Road/Temecula Parkway intersection is a City facility that is expected to
operate at an unacceptable LOS "F" under Opening Year (2020) Conditions (Without
Project) during AM peak hour. During AM peak hour, the Project would result in an
increased delay of 5.7 seconds.
The required improvements to this intersection in Mitigation Measure MM-CIRC-3 would
result reduce delays at this intersection by 34.4 seconds (from 145.6 seconds under
baseline conditions to 111.2 seconds with the Project and MM-CIRC-3). Therefore,
impacts to the La Paz Road/Temecula Parkway intersection would be less than
significant with mitigation.
Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-CIRC-1, MM-CIRC-2,
and MM-CIRC-3, impacts to circulation under Opening Year (2020) Conditions would be
less than significant.
3. Cumulative Traffic Impacts — Future Buildout (2035) Conditions.
Impact CUM-CIRC-1b: Under Future Buildout (2035) Plus Project
conditions, the 1-15 NB Ramps and Temecula Parkway intersection would
operate at an unacceptable LOS, resulting in a potentially significant
impact.
Impact CUM-CIRC-1c: Under Future Buildout (2035) Plus Project
conditions, the Pechanga Parkway and Temecula Parkway intersection
would operate at an unacceptable LOS, resulting in a potentially
significant impact.
Impact CUM-CIRC-1d: Under Future Buildout (2035) Plus Project
conditions, the Loma Linda Road and Pechanga Parkway intersection
would operate at an unacceptable LOS, resulting in a potentially
significant impact.
Impact CUM-CIRC-1e: Under Future Buildout (2035) Plus Project
conditions, the La Paz Road and Temecula Parkway intersection would
operate at an unacceptable LOS, resulting in a potentially significant
impact.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which
avoid or substantially lessen the cumulatively considerable impacts to local roadways.
Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the impacts
remain less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measure MM CIRCA: To mitigate the project impact, the
' following improvements are required:
A-42
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
• Optimize the AM and PM peak hour traffic signal cycle lengths
' and splits within the coordinated timing plan for the 1-15 SB
Ramps & Temecula Parkway and 1-15 NB Ramps & Temecula
Parkway intersections.
• Optimize the AM and PM peak hour traffic signal cycle lengths
and splits within the coordinated timing plan for the Loma Linda
Road & Pechanga Parkway intersection. Since Pechanga
Parkway operates an Adaptive Traffic Signal System, the entire
corridor will need to be optimized.
Mitigation Measure MM CIRC-2: To mitigate the project impact, the
project proponent/developer is required to pay a fair-share contribution for
the following additional improvements:
• Modify the southbound approach to add a right-turn overlap
phase.
Mitigation Measure MM CIRC-3: To mitigate the project impact, the
project proponent/developer is required to pay a fair-share contribution for
the following improvements:
• Optimize the AM and PM peak hour traffic signal cycle lengths
and splits within the coordinated timing plan. Since Temecula
Parkway operates an Adaptive Traffic Signal System, the entire
corridor will need to be optimized.
• Modify the westbound approach to provide a right turn lane with
300 feet of storage.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUM-CIRC-2: To mitigate the project impact, the
following improvements are required:
• Modify the northbound approach to add a second right-turn
lane.
• Modify the eastbound approach to add a third right-turn lane.
• Modify the westbound approach to add a third left-turn lane.
• Optimize the AM and PM peak hour traffic signal cycle lengths
and splits within the coordinated timing plan. Since the
Temecula Parkway and Pechanga Parkway intersection
operates Adaptive Traffic Signal Systems, both corridors will
' require optimization.
A-43
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
b. Facts in Support of Findings
' The City's Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines sets a standard of LOS "D" for all City
facilities in this Project's study area for this Project. For intersections that already
operate at an LOS "E" or worse, an increase in delay of 2.0 seconds or more is
considered a significant impact. Projects are not responsible for mitigating intersections
unless the project causes an increase in delay of 2.0 or more seconds, even if the
intersection is operating at an unacceptable LOS.
The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies sets a desired standard
of either LOS "C" or "D," but the higher standard of LOS "C" was applied to all Caltrans
facilities for a conservative analysis of this Project's impacts. For intersections that
already operate at LOS "D" or worse, any increased delay is considered a significant
impact.
At the following four intersections, the Project could result in impacts that exceed the
above LOS standards without mitigation: (a) 1-15 NB Ramps/Temecula Parkway (during
AM peak hour); (b) Pechanga Parkway/Temecula Parkway (during PM peak hour); (c)
Loma Linda Road/Pechanga Parkway (during AM peak hour); and (d) La Paz
Road/Temecula Parkway (during AM and PM peak hours).
The 1-15 NB Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection is a Caltrans facility that is
' expected to operate at the unacceptable LOS "D" during AM peak hour under Future
Buildout (2035) Conditions (Without Project). The Project would result in an increased
delay of 0.2 seconds during AM peak hour.
The required improvements to this Caltrans intersection in Mitigation Measure MM-
CIRC-1 would improve the LOS at this intersection to LOS "A" during AM peak hour,
which is acceptable under the Caltrans standard. Therefore, cumulative impacts to the I-
15 NB Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection would be less than significant with
mitigation.
The Pechanga Parkway/Temecula Parkway intersection is expected to operate at the
unacceptable LOS "F" during PM peak hour under Future Buildout (2035) Conditions
(Without Project). The Project would result in an increased delay of 5.7 seconds during
PM peak hour.
The required improvements to this intersection in Mitigation Measure MM-CUM-CIRC-1
would improve the LOS at this intersection to LOS "D" during PM peak hour, which is
acceptable under the City standard. Therefore, cumulative impacts to the Pechanga
Parkway/Temecula Parkway intersection would be less than significant with mitigation.
The Loma Linda Road/Pechanga Parkway intersection is expected to operate at the
unacceptable LOS "D" during AM peak hour under Future Buildout (2035) Conditions
(Without Project). The Project could result in degraded operations at this intersection to
' an LOS "E" an increased delay of 9.3 seconds during AM peak hour.
A-44
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
The required improvements to this intersection in Mitigation Measures MM-CIRC-1 and
MM-CIRC-2 would maintain the LOS at this intersection to LOS "D" during PM peak
hour, which is acceptable under the City standard, and improve delays from 47.9
seconds without the Project to 45.6 with the Project and mitigation. Therefore,
cumulative impacts to the Loma Linda Road/Pechanga Parkway intersection would be
less than significant with mitigation.
The La Paz Road/Temecula Parkway intersection is expected to operate at the
unacceptable LOS "F" during AM peak hour and LOS "E" under Future Buildout (2035)
Conditions (Without Project). The Project could result an increased delay of 4.4 seconds
during AM peak hour and 3.9 seconds during PM peak hour. These increased delays
would exceed the 2-second threshold applicable to intersections that already operate at
an unacceptable LOS.
The required improvements to this intersection in Mitigation Measure MM-CIRC-3 would
maintain the expected service levels at LOS "F during AM peak hour and LOS "E"
during PM peak hour. Although the intersection would still operate at an unacceptable
LOS, implementation of MM-CIRC-3 would result in reduced delays compared to
baseline Future Buildout (2035) Conditions. During AM peak hour, delays would be
reduced from 132.6 seconds under baseline conditions to 106.2 seconds with
implementation of the Project and MM-CIRC-3. During PM peak hours, the Project with
mitigation would maintain operations at pre-Project conditions. Therefore, cumulative
' impacts to the La Paz Road/Temecula Parkway intersection would be less than
significant with mitigation.
Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-CIRC-1, MM-CIRC-2,
MM-CIRC-3, and MM-CUM-CIRC-1 , cumulative traffic impacts to the following
intersections would be less than significant: (a) 1-15 NB Ramps/Temecula Parkway; (b)
Pechanga Parkway/Temecula Parkway; (c) Loma Linda Road/Pechanga Parkway; and
(d) La Paz Road/Temecula Parkway.
As discussed below in Section VII, cumulative impacts to the 1-15 SIB Ramps/Temecula
Parkway intersection would remain significant and unavoidable.
VII. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After
Mitigation.
In the environmental areas of Noise and Traffic and Circulation, there are instances
where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as
discussed below:
A. NOISE
1 . Construction Noise Impacts
' Impact NOI-1: Construction activities occurring at each individual development
site in the Project area would potentially expose their respective adjacent or
nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in ambient noise levels.
A-45
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
Impact NOI-4: Construction activities associated with the proposed Project
' would generate a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the Project vicinity and would expose nearby sensitive receptors to
substantial increases in noise levels. These noise levels would result in
substantial temporary or periodic ambient noise levels at the following
surrounding sensitive land uses: residences southeast of the Project Site across
Loma Linda Road, residences west of the Project Site across the concrete-lined
flood channel, residences northeast of the Project Site across Temecula Lane,
and at the Pala Community Park.
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 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. The below mitigation measures are
required in order to reduce construction noise impacts to the extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1: Prior to the issuance any grading or
' building permits for a phase or sub phase (project-specific future
development within a construction phase), the applicant shall provide
evidence to the City that the development will not exceed the City's
exterior noise standards for construction (see Table 3.10-8). If it is
determined that City noise standards for construction activities would be
exceeded, the applicant shall submit a construction- related exception
request to the City Manager at least one week in advance of the project's
scheduled construction activities, along with the appropriate inspection
fee(s), to ensure that the project's construction noise levels would be
granted an exception from the noise standards set forth in Section
9.20.040 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Factors the City shall
consider when granting a noise exception include, but are not limited to,
the consideration of the level of noise, duration of noise, constancy or
intermittency of noise, time of day or night, place, proximity to sensitive
receptors, nature and circumstances of the emission or transmission of
any such loud noise. If a construction-related exception request is not
approved by the City, design measures shall be taken to reduce the
construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible to achieve
compliance with the City's construction noise standards. These measures
may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise barriers/curtains,
use of advanced or state-of-the-art mufflers on construction equipment,
' and/or reduction in the amount of equipment that would operate
concurrently at the development site.
A-46
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-2: The applicant shall comply with the
' following noise reduction measures during construction:
• Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction
activities whose specific location on a construction site may be
flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement
mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as
possible from the nearest noise- and vibration-sensitive land
uses.
• Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction
methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential will
be minimized. Examples include the use of drills and
jackhammers. When impact tools (e.g., jack hammers,
pavement breakers, and caisson drills) are necessary, they shall
be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to
avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from
pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is
unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust
shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the
exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools
themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a
reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures, such as use of drills
rather than impact tools, shall be used whenever feasible, as
determined by the City of Temecula's Building Official based on
the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors, type
and number of equipment used, and duration of noise.
• Locate stationary construction noise sources away from
adjacent receptors and muffled and enclosed within temporary
sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the
extent feasible, as determined by the City's Building Official
based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive
receptors, type and number of equipment used, and duration of
noise.
• Construction truck traffic shall be restricted to routes approved
by the City of Temecula, and shall avoid residential areas and
other sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible.
• Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison
with surrounding residents and property owners who is
responsible for responding to address any concerns regarding
construction noise and vibration. The liaison's telephone
' number(s) shall be prominently displayed at construction
locations.
A-47
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
• Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors
' and the general contractor or onsite project manager to confirm
that noise and vibration mitigation and practices (including
construction hours, sound buffers, neighborhood notification,
posted signs, etc.) are implemented.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
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 primarily of single-
family residential uses located nearby the Project Site to the southeast, southwest,
west, and northwest. A community park is also located north of the Project Site. During
construction of the Project, these nearby offsite land uses could be located less than 30
feet from a construction site.
To provide a conservative or "worst-case" analysis, the EIR assumed that the highest
noise level would occur continuously for an entire hour during a construction day. But it
should be noted that construction equipment would rarely operate continuously for a full
hour at a construction site because the operating cycle for construction equipment
would typically involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three or
four minutes at lower power settings. Additionally, construction equipment engines
would likely be intermittently turned on and off over the course of an hour.
Based on the types of equipment that would be required for construction, noise levels
could reach up to 90 dBA Leq at the nearest land uses, which are located within 30 feet
' of the Project. Based on the conservative "worst case" analysis, it was assumed that
hourly construction noise levels would be 90 dBA Leq for up to eight hours. Given that
construction noise levels generated by the Project could reach as high as 90 dBA Ldn at
A-48
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
30 feet from a construction site, it is likely that the City's exterior noise levels would be
' exceeded at land uses farther from the Project Site. Exterior noise levels could exceed
the 65 dBA Leq/CNEL standard up to 550 feet from construction activities.
The existing daytime noise levels measured at locations surrounding the Project Site
range from approximately 48.5 dBA to 71.2 dBA Leq. As construction noise levels
associated with the Project could reach as high as 90 dBA Leq at a distance of 30 feet
from a construction site, an increase in noise levels of 13 to 38 dBA could occur at a
neighboring receptor to the construction site. The highest increase in ambient daytime
noise levels would be approximately 38 dB, which would occur at the existing single-
family residential uses located west of the Project Site, across the flood channel. Such
an increase in the ambient noise levels at a neighboring receptor would be considered
substantial, since a change in noise levels of 10 dBA is subjectively heard as doubling
of the perceived loudness. As such, construction noise associated with the proposed
Project would be substantially greater than existing noise levels at these nearby
sensitive receptor locations.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1 would require the applicant to provide evidence to the
City that construction activities would not exceed the City's noise standard. If it is
determined that City noise standards would be exceeded during construction, the
applicant must submit an exception request at least one week in advance of
construction activities. Although this exception would allow for the City's noise
standards to be exceeded from a regulatory perspective, the construction noise levels
generated by the Project would be considered a significant environmental impact
because the resultant noise levels could still result in a substantial temporary increase
in noise levels at offsite receptors.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-2 which would require the implementation of noise
reduction devices and techniques during construction activities for the new
developments occurring under the Project, would be implemented to reduce the
construction-related noise levels at nearby receptors to the maximum extent feasible.
Nonetheless, under the circumstances where future construction sites within the Project
Site are located immediately adjacent to other land uses, the noise reduction devices
and techniques prescribed under Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-2 would not be able to
fully attenuate construction noise levels. As a result, noise impacts related to a
substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above existing levels
existing would remain significant.
Although Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-2 would reduce the Project's construction noise
levels to the maximum extent feasible, it is anticipated that the nearest existing land
uses to each of the proposed developments in the Project Site would continue to
experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during
construction activities.
' Therefore, the Project's construction noise would be a temporary significant and
unavoidable impact on the nearby existing land uses and the proposed Project would
generate a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
A-49
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
Project vicinity. Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2 reduce temporary
' construction noise to the extent feasible and no additional feasible mitigation is available
due to the inherent noise associated with construction activities and the proximity of
nearby receptors.
B. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
1. Cumulative Traffic Impacts on 1-15 SB Ramps/Temecula Parkway
Intersection
Impact CUM-CIRC-1a: Under Future Buildout (2035) Plus Project
conditions, the 1-15 SB Ramps and Temecula Parkway intersection would
operate at an unacceptable LOS, resulting in a potentially significant
impact.
a. Findings
The proposed Project has a potential to result in significant traffic impacts to the 1-15 SB
Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection under Future Buildout (2035) Conditions.
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that
reduce the impacts related to construction noise. The below mitigation measures are
required in order to reduce construction noise impacts to the extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUM-CIRC-1: To mitigate the project impact, the
following improvements are required:
• Modify the northbound approach from one left-turn lane, one
through lane, one shared through/right lane and one right-turn
lane to one left-turn lane, one through lane and three right-turn
lanes with a right-turn overlap phase.
• Modify the eastbound approach from one left-turn lane, one
through lane and one shared through/right-turn lane to one left-
turn lane, two through lanes and two right-turn lanes with a
right-turn overlap phase.
• Modify the southbound approach from one left-turn lane, one
through lane and one shared through/right lane to two left-turn
lanes, one through lane and one shared through/right lane.
• Optimize the AM and PM peak hour traffic signal cycle lengths
and splits within the coordinated timing plan.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The EIR calculated traffic volumes for the Future Buildout (2035) Plus Project scenario
by adding volumes generated by the proposed Project to the Future Buildout (2035)
A-50
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
Base conditions. The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies sets a
' desired standard of either LOS "C" or "D," but the higher standard of LOS "C" was
applied to all Caltrans facilities for a conservative analysis of this Project's impacts. For
intersections that already operate at LOS "D" or worse, any increased delay is
considered a significant impact.
At the 1-15 SB Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection (during AM and PM peak hours),
the Project would result in impacts that exceed the above LOS standards without
mitigation. This intersection is a Caltrans facility that is expected to operate at LOS "E"
during AM peak hour and at LOS "F" during PM peak hour under Future Buildout (2035)
Conditions (Without Project). The Project would result in an increased delay of 0.9
seconds during AM peak hour and 5.7 seconds during the PM peak hour. Because any
increased delay is considered a significant impact to a Caltrans facility, impacts would
be significant.
The required improvements to this Caltrans intersection in Mitigation Measure MM-
CUM-CIRC-1 would improve the LOS at this intersection to LOS "C" during both AM
and PM peak hour, which is acceptable under the Caltrans standard. As such, if these
improvements are constructed, impacts to the 1-15 SB Ramps/Temecula Parkway
intersection would be less than significant.
However, neither the applicant nor the City can guarantee that the improvements
because they would require the acquisition of right-of-way to accommodate the
' additional lanes and the intersection falls under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Therefore,
the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. No additional feasible mitigation is
available because improvements that necessitate an expanded right-of-way are needed
to improve this intersection's operations to Caltrans standards.
VIII. Project Alternatives.
The EIR considered and analyzed three alternatives to the Proposed Project:
Alternative 1—No Project Alternative (No Development); Alternative 2—General Plan
Alternative; and Alternative 3—Reduced Development Alternative.
The three alternatives that were analyzed in the EIR are discussed below, including the
basis for rejecting each alternative. In addition, comparison of the alternatives is
available in Table 5-2 of the EIR. 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.
• Develop a high-quality residential community on the project site that
focuses on providing a variety of medium-density housing types that would
serve various age groups and household sizes.
• Provide a housing product that is desirable in light of the competitive
' market and the increased availability of attached and detached single-
family homes for purchase.
A-51
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
• Provide a project that is compatible in density and character to the
' surrounding residential communities.
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 as vacant land for the foreseeable future. The Project Site in its entirety
is approximately 23 acres of previously disturbed, undeveloped land. Vegetation at the
site consists of previously disturbed areas containing non-native grasses, ruderal herbs
and forbs, remnants of native scrub, and a number of isolated mature trees. Disking for
fuel modification is evident at the site. The topography on the site ranges from a high
elevation of 1,031 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the eastern portion of the site, to
a low elevation of 1,015 feet amsl near the northern portion of the site. An existing
watercourse traverses the property, flowing from east to west into an existing drainage
channel.
Under this Alternative 1, the Project Site would be left undeveloped and the proposed
residential Project would not be built. The site would continue to contain the remnants of
a previous structure and several trees as well as ruderal vegetation. In addition, the
concrete culvert along the western edge of the Project Site would remain as is and
' would not be converted into a bioswale. Unimproved areas along Pechanga Parkway
would not be landscaped or improved in any other way.
1. Reason for Reiecting 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 be reduced under this Alternative.
For aesthetic impacts, Alternative 1 would not impact views, scenic resources, or the
visual character and quality of the Project Site because no development would occur
and the Site would remain in its current condition. The Project's aesthetics impacts are
all less than significant without mitigation, except that mitigation is required for light and
glare. Alternative 1 would not introduce new sources of light and glare. This Alternative
would have no impacts to aesthetics and would therefore reduce impacts compared to
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
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.
A-52
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
' No impacts to biological resources would occur under Alternative 1 because no
residential units would be constructed and all impacts related to biological resources
would be avoided. The proposed Project could result in a loss of foraging and nesting
habitat for raptors and other migratory birds, and a loss of habitat for the burrowing owl
and, but mitigation reduces these impacts to less than significant. Because no impacts
to biological resources would occur under Alternative 1, impacts would be reduced.
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.
Greenhouse gas emissions would similarly be reduced under Alternative 1 . Under
Alternative 1, the Project Site would not be developed and increased GHG emissions
would not occur. Therefore, this alternative would result in fewer effects related to global
' warming and climate change than the proposed Project. However, the proposed Project
would not result in significant climate change effects, so the differences would be
negligible.
Construction-related hazardous materials would not be brought to the site under
Alternative 1 , nor would hazardous materials be used. Therefore, this alternative would
result in fewer impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials compared to 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.
The proposed Project would result in a land use change, whereas Alternative 1 would
result in no change to the existing conditions at the Project Site. 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. However, no significant land use compatibility or detrimental environmental
effects are associated with the land use change under the proposed Project.
Noise would be unaffected under Alternative 1. It would result in no change to existing
' ambient noise levels and would not introduce no new source of noise. Because the site
would remain undeveloped under this alternative, traffic-related noise would not
increase. This alternative would result in no impact related to noise at or in the vicinity of
A-53
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
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 significant impacts would not occur.
Alternative 1 would not include new housing and no increase in population would occur.
The proposed Project would not induce greater population growth than what is already
forecasted for the City of Temecula and impacts would be less than significant. Thus,
Alternative 1 would result in fewer effects related to population and housing, but these
differences are not significant from an environmental perspective.
No impacts to public services would occur under Alternative 1 because it would not
result in any additional population at the Project Site, and, therefore, would not result in
an increased demand on existing fire protection, police protection, public schools,
libraries, or hospitals. Although impacts would be reduced under Alternative 1, the
proposed Project's impacts to public services are all less than significant.
Under Alternative 1 , the Project Site would not be developed and no increase demand
for water, wastewater, or solid waste services would occur. Thus, under Alternative 1,
impacts to utilities and service systems would not occur. However, the proposed Project
would not result in significant utilities impacts. Therefore, the difference in impacts to
utilities between the proposed Project and Alternative 1 are negligible.
Overall, Alternative 1 would therefore 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 high-quality residential uses compatible in density and character with
the surrounding uses. 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 according to the current
General Plan land use designation for the Project Site, which is Professional Office
(PO). Development under the PO designation is intended to include low-rise offices
situated in a landscaped garden arrangement and may include mid-rise structures at
appropriate locations.
Typical professional uses include legal, design, engineering, or medical offices,
' corporate and governmental offices, and community facilities and may include
supporting convenience retail and personal service commercial uses to serve the needs
of the on-site employees. The General Plan establishes an intensity range of 0.30 to 1.0
A-54
11086-019112074636v2.doc
for the floor to area ratio (FAR) for the PO designation, with a target net FAR of 0.35.
' Under the target net FAR of 0.35, this alternative would develop approximately 307,600
square feet of office space on the Project Site. This alternative would also include
landscaping and the required parking spaces per the City's Municipal Code. The site
would also be served by bus and shuttle services.
2. Reason for Reiectino 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, a similar amount of construction-related emissions (from
construction activities, vehicles and equipment) would occur as compared to the
proposed Project. However, operational emissions (associated with increased traffic)
would increase under Alternative 2 because office uses would generate more traffic
than residential uses. Under Alternative 2, operation of the office buildings would
generate approximately 3,393 daily trips, which results in 1 ,677 more daily trips than the
proposed Project. Thus, Alternative 2 would result in greater air quality impacts than the
proposed Project due to the increase traffic volumes during operation.
' Alternative 2 would result in a similar amount of emissions from construction-related
activities. However, operation of Alternative 2 would generate almost double the amount
of daily trips as the proposed Project, which would result in greater effects related to
global warming and climate change than the proposed Project. Because the Alternative
2 would generate more traffic, it would have a greater impact than the proposed Project.
Hazardous materials used in construction and operation of the Project Site would be
similar under Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have similar impacts related
to hazards and hazardous materials as the proposed Project.
Under this alternative, the Project Site would be developed with office uses, which is
currently allowed under the existing General Plan designation and zoning. The
proposed Project would require a General Plan Amendment and zoning change, but
would otherwise be consistent with planning documents and policies. This alternative
would also be consistent, and thus, land use effects would be similar.
Like the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would increase ambient noise levels and would
introduce a new source of noise at the Project Site. Alternative 2 would also have a
significant and unavoidable temporary construction-noise impact. Both this alternative
and the proposed Project would result in increased traffic-related noise. However, traffic
would increase by about twice as much under Alternative 2 than it would under the
proposed Project. Therefore, noise impacts would be greater for Alternative 2 than the
proposed Project.
A-55
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
Effects associated with population growth would be less under Alternative 2 than under
the proposed Project. Alternative 2 would not result in an increase in residential
population as it would develop an office use building. Although the proposed Project
would not induce greater population growth than what is already forecasted for the City,
Alternative 2's effects would be reduced.
Because Alternative 2 would not generate population growth, Alternative 2 would not
result in student generation and would result in fewer effects related to schools. In
addition, because the site would include office space, it would not generate population
growth in the city and, as such, would not increase demand for police, fire, and medical
emergency services. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in fewer effects related to
public services.
The proposed Project would result in 3,393 daily trips and Alternative 2 would increase
the number of vehicles using the surrounding circulation system and result in more
congestion. Thus, Alternative 2 results in greater impacts related to traffic and
circulation and would also require the implementation of several limited intersection
improvements.
Because there would be no permanent residents under Alternative 2, there would be
less water consumed and less wastewater generated than the proposed Project. Thus,
under Alternative 2, effects related to utilities and service systems would be less than
the proposed Project.
' Overall, Alternative 2 would result in increased impacts in areas such as air quality,
GHG emissions, noise, and traffic and circulation as compared to the proposed Project.
It would somewhat reduce impacts related to population and housing and public
services. Thus, Alternative 2 would overall result in greater environment impacts,
particularly in areas that require mitigation and in areas where impacts are unavoidable.
In addition, Alternative 2 fails to satisfy the Project Objectives. It would not develop a
high-quality residential community with a variety of medium-density housing types to
serve various age groups and household types and it would not provide a competitive
housing product. Moreover, it would be less compatible in density and character to the
surrounding residential communities.
Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 2 would not fully meet the Project
Objectives; it is not the environmentally superior alternative; and does not avoid
significant environmental impacts.
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.
A-56
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
C. ALTERNATIVE 3—REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
' 1. Summary of Alternative
Under Alternative 3, a residential project would be developed that would include similar
components as the proposed Project, but would involve a smaller version. Specifically,
this Alternative 3 would include development of approximately 59 single family homes
and 125 townhouses, which represents an approximate 25 percent reduction from the
proposed Project. While this alternative would reduce the number of dwelling units
developed, site amenities, such as a clubhouse with a swimming pool, would still be
provided.
2. Reason for Reiectino 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. Although Alternative 3 reduces the number of residential units, a similar
overall area would be disturbed under either Alternative 3 and the proposed Project.
Therefore, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts in these areas when compared to
the proposed Project.
For air quality, Alternative 3 would result in a similar amount of construction-related
' emissions (from construction activities, vehicles and equipment) as with the proposed
Project, but operational emissions (associated with increased traffic) would be reduced.
Under Alternative 3, traffic volumes would increase by a smaller amount than they
would under the proposed Project and, thus, air emissions would decrease under this
alternative. Overall, Alternative 3 would have fewer air quality impacts as compared to
the proposed Project.
Similarly, greenhouse gas emissions under the development in Alternative 3 would be
reduced, as would emissions from traffic, as compared to the proposed Project. Effects
related to global warming and climate change from Alternative 3 would be reduced
compared to the proposed Project.
Similar types and amounts of hazardous materials would be used in the construction
and operation of the proposed Project and Alternative 3. Although Alternative 3 would
reduce the number residential units, this reduction would not reduce is a substantial
reduction in hazardous materials, and thus, impacts would be similar.
Land use impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar because it would require the
same General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. After the implementation of the
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the proposed Project would be consistent
with planning documents and policies. This alternative would also be consistent with
these policies and, thus, effects related to land use would be similar.
' 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 noise would
A-57
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
increase in the Project area under both the proposed Project and Alternative 3, but the
' amount of construction would be reduced. Nonetheless, similar to the proposed Project,
Alternative 3 would also have a significant and unavoidable temporary construction
noise impacts. Traffic-related noise would also increase as a result of both this
alternative and the proposed Project. However, traffic would increase more under the
proposed Project than under Alternative 3. Overall, noise impacts would be reduced
under Alternative 3 construction noise would remain significant and unavoidable.
Because Alternative 3 would involve fewer residential units than the proposed Project,
this alternative would generate a smaller population increase within the City. Effects
related to population growth would be reduced under this alternative as compared to the
proposed Project.
Similarly, the increased demand on public services would be reduced due to the
reduced number of residential units under Alternative 3. The proposed Project would
result in additional population at the Project Site, and therefore, would result in an
increased demand on existing fire protection, police protection, public schools, libraries,
or hospitals. Under Alternative 3, demand for public services would not increase by as
much as compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, effects related to public services
would be reduced under Alternative 3.
As compared to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would reduce the number of trips
generated by the Project Site from 1,716 to 1,287 daily trips (25 percent reduction from
' the proposed Project trips). The proposed Project would result in an increase in traffic
congestion at nearby intersections and, under Alternative 3, traffic and circulation
impacts would be reduced to less than significant. However, cumulative impacts
associated with Future Buildout (2035) Plus Project Conditions at the 1-15 SB
Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection would remain significant and unavoidable,
operating at unacceptable LOS. Overall, Traffic and Circulation impacts would be
reduced under Alternative 3.
Overall, Alternative 3 would result not increase any impacts and would reduce impacts
related to air quality, GHG emissions, noise, population and housing, public services,
and utilities. The reduced number of residential uses results in reduced impacts
associated with the number of residents in the vicinity. All other impacts would be
similar.
Thus, Alternative 3 would result in reduced environment impacts and it is the
environmentally superior alternative. As such, the EIR identified Alternative 3 as the
environmental superior alternative after it determined that the Alternative 1 (No Project)
satisfied none of the Project Objectives.
However, the reduced number of residential units will not allow Alternative 3 to achieve
the benefits of the Project Objectives. Although residential units would be developed,
Alternative 3 would not similarly provide the variety of medium-density housing types to
' serve various age groups and household types. It also would not similarly increase the
availability of attached and detached single-family homes for purchase.
A-58
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative
' but would not fully achieve the benefits of the Project Objectives and does not avoid the
Project's significant environmental impacts.
Further, as noted above, the reduced impacts under Alternative 3 correlate with the
reduced number of new residents to the Project Site. Because the number of residential
units proposed by the Project is within the City's and the region's growth projections, it
is likely that the reduced number of residential uses would be developed elsewhere in
the City to meet growth projections. However, Alternative 3 does not reduce the
environmental impacts associated with the development of vacant land.
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.
A-59
11086-0191\2074636v2.doc
_ Mibii 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
Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1:The following light and glare Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of
standards shall be applied to all development within the project Construction/ Temecula Temecula Temecula
area: Post-Construction Building Official project approval
or other and field
• Temporary nighttime construction lighting shall be Designee verification and
shielded and directed downward such that no light sign-off by City
spillage will occur on adjacent properties. of Temecula
• The applicant shall ensure that all outdoor lighting fixtures
in public areas contain"sharp cut-off"fixtures,and shall
be fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding.
• The applicanl shall ensure that site lighting systems shall
be grouped into control zones to allow for opening,
closing,and night lighttsecurity lighting schemes.All
control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting
system utilizing a time clock, photocell,and low voltage
relays.
• The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the
development shall take advantage of landscaping,on-site
architectural massing,and off—site architectural massing
to block light sources and reflection from cars.
• The use of highly reflective construction materials on
exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited.
• Prior to the issuance of construction permits for any
phase of the project that includes outdoor lighting,the
applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and
photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City
of Temecula.The lighting plan shall be in compliance with
Ordinance No.655 as adopted by the Riverside County
Board of Supervisors and shall include,but not be limited
lo,the following information and standards:
• Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens;
• Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light
rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below
the horizontal plan passing through the lowest
point of the shield;
• A map showing all lamp locations,orientations,
and intensities,including security,roadway,and
Cypress Ridge Project ESA 1 150642
MMRP May 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
task lighting;
• Specification of each light fixture and each light
shield;
• Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint,
expressed as lumens per acre;and
• Specification of motion sensors and other
controls to be used,especially for security
lighting.
The City shall conduct a post-installation inspection to
ensure that the development is in compliance with the
design standards in Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 and
Riverside County Ordinance No.655.
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-1:All off-road construction equipment Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
with a horsepower(HP)greater than 50 shall be required to have Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit
USEPA certified Tier 4 interim engines or engines that are certified Building Official and sign-off by
to meet or exceed the emission ratings for USEPA Tier 4 engines. or other City of
Designee Temecula
Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-2:The site shall be watered four Construction City of City of Issuance of
times per day during ground disturbance(grading)activities for all Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
project development phases. During drought conditions,defined as Building Official and field
Water Shortage Stages 4 or 5 as determined by the Rancho or other verification and
California Water District,use of reclaimed water or non-water Designee sign-off by City
chemical stabilizers shall be implemented such that fugitive of Temecula
emissions reductions are Comparable. Permission to use potable
water for dust control activities during drought conditions shall be
granted by the City of Temecula Building Official if the General
Contractor shows in writing that (1)Reclaimed water is not
available in sufficient quality and quantity from recycled wastewater
treatment facilities located within 10 miles of the construction site;
and (2)Well water or groundwater is not available in sufficient
quality and quantity from wells and groundwater sources located
within 10 miles of the construction site.
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1:To the extent feasible,clearing and Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
grubbing activities shall take place outside of the avian breeding Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit
season,which occurs from February 1 to September 15. If Gearing Qualified and sign-off by
and grubbing activities are necessary during the breeding season,a Biologist City of
Cypress Ridge Project 2 ESA/150642
MMRP May 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
focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall Temecula
be conducted by a qualified biologist having demonstrated
experience conducting breeding bird and nest surveys.The survey
shall occur no more than 7 days prior to any clearing,grubbing,
construction or ground-disturbing activities.If active nest(s)(with
eggs or fledglings)are identified within the project area,the nest
shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged
(matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own and
are no longer relying on the nest for survival).A 500-foot
construction setback from any active raptor nesting location(or a
distance to be determined by the qualified biologist,based on
species,construction activity,the birds'response/habituation to
human presence,and/or topographic features that could limit
construction activity disturbance to the nest)shall be adhered to in
order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged
or the nest has failed,as determined by a qualified biologist.A 300-
foot construction setback(or a distance to be determined by the
qualified biologist, based on species,construction activity,and the
birds'response/habituation to human presence,and/or topographic
features that could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest)
shall be established for all other migratory birds. If no active nests
are identified,construction may commence.All construction
setbacks shall be clearly demarcated in the field with appropriate
material(flagging,staking,construction fencing,etc.)and verified by
a qualified biologist. Such fencing shall be maintained and
monitored until the nest is confirmed to be inactive.
If an avoidance buffer is not feasible,as determined by a qualified
biologist in consultation with the City,noise walls or other noise
attenuation devices may be installed as needed to prevent
disturbance to the nest.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2:A pre-construction survey for Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
burrowing owl shall be conducted within 30 days of ground Temecula Temecula grading permit
disturbing activities in accordance with the Western Riverside Qualified and sign-off by
County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(WRC MSHCP). Biologist City of
The one-day survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist Temecula
within all suitable habitat areas on the project site,and will focus on
areas previously identified as containing suitable habitat and
potentially suitable burrows.A qualified biologist is one who has the
appropriate education and experience to accomplish pre-
construction burrowing owl surveys. If no burrowing owls are
observed construction may commence.If burrowing owls are
observed, the Regional Conservation Authority and the City will be
notified and additional measures,such as avoidance or installation
Cypress Ridge Proleoi 3 ESA 1 150642
MMRP n May 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
of exclusion devices to evict the owls,will be required to
demonstrate compliance with the WRC MSHCP.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3:The applicant shall pay applicable Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
Local Development Mitigation fees,as established and required by Temecula Temecula grading permit
the Regional Conservation Authority and City of Temecula,for Qualified and sign-off by
continued implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Biologist City of
Temecula
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1:Prior to the issuance of a grading Pre-Construction City of City of City of
permit and prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity,the Temecula Temecula Temecula
applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist,defined as an qualified Project
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Archaeologist Approval
Qualification Standards for archaeology(U.S.Department of the
Interior 2012)and as approved by the City of Temecula to provide
archaeological expertise in carrying out all mitigation measures
related to archaeological resources(Mitigation Measures CUL-2,-3
and-5).
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2:The qualified archeologist,or an Pre-Construction City of City of City of
archaeologist working under the direction of the qualified Temecula Temecula Temecula
archaeologist,along with a representative designated by the qualified Project
Pechanga Tribe,shall conduct pre-construction cultural resources Archaeologist Approval;
worker sensitivity training to inform construction personnel of the and Pechanga verification by
types of cultural resources that may be encountered,and to bring tribal City of
awareness to personnel of actions to be taken in the event of a representatives Temecula in
cultural resources discovery.The applicant shall ensure that consultation
Construction personnel are made available for and attend the with Pechanga
training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance. Tribe
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3: Prior to the start of ground- Pre-Construction City of City of City of
disturbing activities,the qualified archaeologist shall designate an Temecula Temecula Temecula
archaeological monitor to observe ground-disturbing activities, qualified Project
including but not limited to, brush clearance and grubbing,grading, Archaeologist Approval;
trenching,excavation,and the construction of fencing and access and Pechanga verification by
roads,in consultation with the Pechanga monitor. If ground- tribal City of
disturbing activities occur simultaneously in two or more areas representatives Temecula in
located more than 500 feet apart,additional archaeological monitors consultation
may be required.The archaeological monitor shall keep daily logs. with Pechanga
After monitoring has been completed,the qualified archaeologist Tribe
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 of California, Riverside.
Cypress Ridge Project 4 ESA/150642
MMRP May 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-CUL-4:At least 30 days prior to issuance Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of
of a grading permit and prior to the start of any ground-disturbing Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula
activity,the applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the qualified Project
Pechanga Tribe of grading,excavation and the monitoring program, Archaeologist Approval;
and to coordinate with the Pechanga Tribe to develop a Cultural and Pechanga verification by
Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement(Agreement).The tribal City of
Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources; representatives Temecula in
the designation,responsibilities,and participation of Native consultation
American Tribal monitors during grading,excavation and all ground with Pechanga
disturbing activities;project grading and development scheduling; Tribe
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 and
access roads,as specified in the Agreement,in consultation with
the project archaeologist. If ground-disturbing activities occur
simultaneously in two or more locations,additional Native American
monitors may be required.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-S: If inadvertent discoveries of Construction City of City of Verification by
subsurface archaeological/cultural resources are made during Temecula Temecula City of
ground-disturbing activities,the applicant,the qualified qualified Temecula in
archaeologist,and the Pechanga Tribe shall assess the significance Archaeologist consultation
of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the and Pechanga with Pechanga
mitigation for such resources. Pursuant to PRC Section 21063.2(b) tribal Tribe
avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for representatives
archaeological resources. If the applicant,the qualified
archaeologist,and the Pechanga Tribe cannot agree on the
significance or the mitigation for such resources,these issues will
be presented to the City Planning Director for decision.The City
Planning Director shall make the determination based on the
provisions of the CEOA with respect to archaeological resources
and shall take into account the religious beliefs,customs,and
practices of the Pechanga Tribe.Notwithstanding any other rights
available under the law,the decision of the City Planning Director
shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City
Council.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-6:The landowner shall relinquish Pre-Construction/ City of City of Verification by
ownership of all cultural resources,including sacred items, burial Construction Temecula Temecula City of
goods and all archaeological artifacts that are recovered as a result qualified Temecula in
of project implementation to the Pechanga Tribe for proper consultation
Cypress Ridge Project 5 ESA 1 150642
MMRP n May 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
treatment and disposition as outlined in the Agreement(Mitigation Archaeologist with Pechanga
Measure CUL-4). Tribe
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-7:All sacred sites,should they be Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of
encountered within the project area,shall be avoided and preserved Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula
as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. qualified Project
Archaeologist Approval
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-B: Prior to construction,a training Pre-Construction City of City of City of
session on the recognition of the types of paleontological resources Temecula Temecula Temecula
that could be encountered within the project area and the qualified Project
procedures to be followed if they are found shall be presented to Paleontologist Approval
project construction personnel by a qualified cultural resources
professional.This training may be conducted concurrently with the
cultural resources training required in Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-
2.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-9: During construction,should Construction City of City of Verification by
excavations be greater than 10 feet in depth,a qualified Temecula Temecula City of
paleontologist shall be retained and shall designate a qualified Temecula
paleontological monitor to observe the sediments.Should these Paleontologist
sediments appear to have a greater potential for fossils,
paleontological monitoring of ground disturbing activities below 10
feet shall commence until such a time as the excavation of these
sediments has ceased,or upon determination by the qualified
paleontologist that the likelihood of encountering paleontological
resources is unlikely.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-10: If construction or other project Construction City of City of Verification by
personnel discover any potential fossils during construction,or Temecula Temecula City of
project operations and maintenance,regardless of the depth of qualified Temecula
work,work within 100 feet of the discovery location should cease Paleontologist
and a qualified paleontologist should be called to further assess the
discovery and make further recommendations as necessary.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-11: If human remains are Pre-Construction/ City of City of Verification by
encountered,California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 Construction Temecula Temecula City of
states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside qualified Temecula
County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Paleontologist
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 MLD shall then make recommendations within 48
Cypress Ridge Project 6 ESA I 150642
MMRP May2017
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
hours,and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the
remains as provided in PRC Section 5097.98 and the Agreement
described in Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-4.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-12:The applicant shall provide open Construction City of City of Verification by
space area(s)for the congregation of participants during the Temecula Temecula City of
Pechanga Tribe's"Trail of Tears"commemorative eviction walk, qualified Temecula in
which shall consist of the area near the corner of Pechanga Archaeologist consultation
Parkway and Loma Linda Road and the sidewalk along Loma Linda and Pechanga with Pechanga
Road,near the intersection with Temecula Lane;both areas shall tribal Tribe
be outside the walls of the community,and be designated by an representatives
exhibit as part of the construction plans,on the dates described in
the access agreement.The applicant and the Pechanga Tribe shall
develop and enter into an access agreement formalizing the
Pechanga Tribe's right to access the open space area and upon
which days and times,permitted and unpermitted activities within
the open space area,donation by applicant of a temporary shade
structure for use by the Pechanga Tribe,as necessary,provisions
for the transfer of rights and obligations under the access
agreement to future owners,including any Home Owner's
Association or similar entity,and any other provisions deemed
necessary to carry out the purpose of accessing the open space.
The applicant shall insert language into the Covenants,Conditions,
and Restrictions(CC&Rs)allowing the Tribe access to the
designated space(s)during this annual two-day event and
incorporating into its terms the access agreement. Both the access
agreement and CC&Rs shall include an exhibit designating the
open space(s)area for use by the Pechanga Tribe during the
commemorative eviction walk.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-13:The applicant shall consult with Construction City of City of Verification by
the Pechanga Tribe on the creation and installation of Temecula Temecula City of
commemorative public art(e.g.,plaques,signage,patterned pavers, qualified Temecula in
etc.)related to the eviction of the Terri peoples.The public art Archaeologist consultation
shall commemorate the eviction and"Trail of Tears,"and shall be and Pechanga with Pechanga
designed in collaboration with the Pechanga Tribe.The applicant tribal Tribe
shall be responsible for the costs associated with providing and representatives
installing the commemorative public art.The dedication and the cost
of the public art shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula's
public art dedication process and cost estimating per Municipal
Code,Title 5 Business Licenses and Regulations, Section 5.08.070,
Procedure for donation or installation of public artwork.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
cypress Ridge Project ] ESA 1 150642
MMRP n May 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-HAZ-1:As a condition of approval for a Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
grading permit,the use of construction best management practices Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
(BMPs)shall be implemented as part of construction to minimize the Building Official and field
potential negative effects of accidental release of hazardous or other verification and
materials to groundwater and soils.These shall include the Designee sign-off by City
following: of Temecula
• Follow manufacturer's recommendations on use,storage and
disposal of chemical products used in construction;
• Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel gas tanks;
• 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(CASOA)BMP
Handbook for construction and included in contract specifications.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measure MM-HYDRO-1:The applicant shall retain a Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
Qualified Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) Construction Temecula Temecula Building Permit,
Developer to prepare a SWPPP in accordance with Construction Building Official review of plans,
General Permit requirements.The SWPPP must be completed prior or other field verification
to fling a Notice of Intent(NOI)to apply for coverage under the Designee and sign-off by
Construction General Permit.The SWPPP shall contain a detailed City of
project description and best management practices(BMPs)to be Temecula
implemented onsite during and post-construction;BMP Categories
are expected to include,but are not limited to erosion control,
sediment control,waste management and good housekeeping
BMPs. Examples of BMPs include:
• Revegetation of landscaped areas;
• Hydro-seeding,mulching,or other erosion controls for inactive
exposed areas;
• Sediment controls such as check dams,desilting basins,fiber
rolls,and silt fencing;
• Catch basin inlet protection;
Cypress Ridge Project $ ESA/150642
MMRP May 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
• Construction materials management;and
• Cover and containment of Construction materials and wastes.
The project operator shall also submit an Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan(ESCP)to the City of Temecula Department of Public
Works for approval as part of the project's grading permit application
process.The ESCP shall detail planned erosion control measures
on the Construction site including but not limited to filtration of runoff,
erosion Controls,sediment controls,site perimeter protection,
stabilization of construction access points,and slope protection.The
ESCP shall be approved by the City prior to the start of construction
activities.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYDRO-2:The applicant shall implement Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
the best management practices(BMPs)contained in the Water Construction/ Temecula Temecula Building Permit,
Quality Management Plan(WQMP)prepared for the project in Post-Construction Building Official review of plans,
March 2016.The project WQMP proposes implementation of or other field verification
various Structural Source Control BMPs(permanent,structural Designee and sign-off by
features),Operational Source Control BMPs(implemented by the City of
site's occupant or users),and Low Impact Development(LID) Temecula
BMPs.Source Control BMPs specified in the WQMP include,but
are not limited to,marking all inlets to indicate that they drain to the
ocean,designing landscaping to minimize irrigation and runoff,
minimizing fertilizer and pesticide use,designating of trash
receptacle areas,and avoiding the use of unprotected metals that
could leach into runoff.Operational BMPs specified in the WQMP
include,but are not limited to,repainting or replacing inlet markings,
providing Integrated Pest Management plan information to owners,
tenants,and employees,and inspecting and maintaining drains to
prevent blockages and overflow. LID BMPs include a large
infiltration basin,encouragement of natural infiltration,and
Conversion of a concrete-lined flood Control channel to an infiltration
Swale.
NOISE
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1: Prior to the issuance of a certificate Construction City of City of Issuance of
of occupancy,the applicant shall ensure that all new HVAC or Temecula Temecula Certificate of
mechanical equipment associated with the proposed project be Building Official Occupancy by
designed with adequate shielding(e.g.,via rooftop parapet or or other City of
enclosure)or noise muffling devices to ensure that noise levels Designee Temecula
would not exceed the ambient noise level on the premises of other
occupied residential properties located offsite by more than 5 dBA
CNEL.
Cypress Ridge Project 9 ESA 1 150642
MMRP
n May 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-2: Prior to the issuance of a certificate Construction City of City of Issuance of
of occupancy,the applicant shall ensure that all exterior windows Temecula Temecula Certificate of
associated with the proposed residential uses at the project site Building Official Occupancy by
along Pechanga Parkway,west of Loma Linda Road shall be or other City of
constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to Designee Temecula
ensure that interior noise levels would be below 45 dB Ldn or CNEL
in any habitable room.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3:The operation of construction Construction City of City of Issuance of
equipment that generates high levels of vibration,such as large Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
bulldozers, large excavator,and large grader,shall be prohibited Building Official and field
within 45 feet of existing nearby residential structures during or other verification and
construction of the proposed project. Instead,small rubber-tired Designee sign-off by City
bulldozers shall be used within this area during grading and of Temecula
excavation operations.The use of small rubber-tired bulldozers
would result in vibration levels of 0.002 in/sec PPV and 57 VdB at
the residences to the west of the project site,which would not
exceed the FTA's vibration criteria for building damage and human
annoyance,respectively.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI4:Noise-generating equipment Construction City of City of Issuance of
operated at the project site shall be equipped with the most effective Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
noise Control devices,i.e.,mufflers,lagging,and/or motor Building Official and field
enclosures. All equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained or other verification and
in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-5:The Construction contractor shall Construction City of City of Issuance of
locate portable equipment and store and maintain equipment as far Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
as possible from the off-site residents and other sensitive receptors. Building Official and field
or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-6:Construction activities associated Construction City of City of Issuance of
with the proposed project shall,to the extent feasible,be scheduled Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
so as to avoid operating more than 3 pieces of equipment Building Official and field
simultaneously,which causes high noise levels. or other verification and
Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-7:Temporary noise barriers shall be Construction City of City of Issuance of
used to block the line-of-site between the construction site and the Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
noise-sensitive receptors during project construction,as follows: Building Official and field
or other verification and
a Provide a temporary noise barrier with the provision of a
Cypress Mcge Project 10 ESA 1 150642
MMRP May 2017
Mitigation Monitonng 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
minimum of 15 dBA reduction noise between the project Designee sign-off by City
construction site and the existing residential uses west of the of Temecula
project site across the concrete-lined flood channel.
b)Provide a minimum of 10 dBA reduction noise barrier
between the project construction site and the residential uses
northeast of the project site across Temecula Lane.
c) Provide a minimum of 7 dBA reduction noise barrier
between the project construction site and the residential uses
southeast of the project site across Temecula Lane.
d)Provide a minimum of 3 dBA reduction noise barrier between
the project construction site and the community park north of
the project site across Temecula Lane.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-8:The project proponent/developer Construction City of City of Issuance of
shall ensure that signs shall be posted at the construction sites that Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
include permitted construction days and hours,and a contact Building Official and field
number for the job site. or other verification and
Although the above mitigation measures would reduce the project's Designee sign-off by City
of Temecula
construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible,it is
anticipated that the nearest offsite sensitive receptors west of the
proposed project site across the concrete-lined flood channel would
continue to experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels during project construction.Therefore,the
project's construction noise would be a temporary significant and
unavoidable impact on the nearest offsite sensitive receptors.
Traffic and Circulation
Mitigation Measure MM-CIRC-1:To mitigate the project impact, Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
the following improvements are required: Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
Engineer or and Issuance of
Optimize the AM and PM peak hour traffic signal cycle lengths other Designee a Certificate of
and splits within the coordinated timing plan for the 1-15 SB Occupancy
Ramps&Temecula Parkway and 1-15 NB Ramps&
Temecula Parkway intersections.
Optimize the AM and PM peak hour traffic signal cycle lengths and
splits within the coordinated timing plan for the Loma Linda Road&
Pechanga Parkway intersection.Since Pechanga Parkway operates
an Adaptive Traffic Signal System,the entire corridor will need to be
optimized.
Mitigation Measure MM-CIRC-2: To mitigate the project impact, Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
Cypress Ridge Project 11 ESA 1 150642
MMRP n May 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 project proponent/developer is required to pay a fair-share Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
contribution for the following additional improvements: Engineer or and Issuance of
other Designee a Certificate of
Modify the southbound approach to add a right-turn overlap phase. Occupancy
Mitigation Measure MM-CIRC-3: To mitigate the project impact, Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
the project proponent/developer is required to pay a fair-share Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
contribution for the following additional improvements: Engineer or and Issuance of
• Optimize the AM and PM peak hour traffic signal cycle lengths other Designee a certificate of
Occupancy
and splits within the coordinated timing plan.Since Temecula
Parkway operates an Adaptive Traffic Signal System,the
entire corridor will need to be optimized.
Modify the westbound approach to provide a right turn lane with 300
feet of storage.
Mitigation Measure MM CUM-CIRC-1:To mitigate the project Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
impact,the improvements are required: Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
Engineer or and Issuance of
• Modify the northbound approach from one left-turn lane,one other Designee a Certificate of
through lane,one shared through/right lane and one right-turn Occupancy
lane to one left-turn lane,one through lane and three right-
turn lanes with a right-turn overlap phase.
• Modify the eastbound approach from one left-turn lane,one
through lane and one shared through/right-turn lane to one
left-turn lane,two through lanes and two right-turn lanes with
a right-turn overlap phase.
• Modify the southbound approach from one left-turn lane,one
through lane and one shared through/right lane to two left-turn
lanes,one through lane and one shared through/right lane.
Optimize the AM and PM peak hour traffic signal cycle lengths and
splits within the coordinated timing plan.
Mitigation Measure MM CUM-CIRC-2:To mitigate the project Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
impact,the improvements are required: Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
•
Engineer and Issuance Modify the northbound approach to add a second right-
of
turn lane. other Designee a certificate of f
Occupancy
• Modify the eastbound approach to add a third right-turn
lane.
Modify the westbound approach to add a third left-turn
Cypress Ridge Wolect 12 ESA/150642
MMRP - May 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
lane.
Optimize the AM and PM peak hour traffic signal cycle lengths and
splits within the coordinated timing plan.Since the Temecula
Parkway and Pechanga Parkway intersection operates Adaptive
Traffic Signal Systems,both corridors will require optimization.
Cypress Rtdge Project 13 ESA 1150642
MMRP n May 2017
Exhibit C
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the
proposed approval of the Cypress Ridge Residential 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 risks when
determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the
agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project
acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on
substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for
proceeding with this Project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are
provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh
the significant and unavoidable impacts to noise generated by temporary construction activities,
and the significant and unavoidable traffic impacts to the 1-15 SB Ramps/Temecula Parkway
intersection under Future Buildout (2035) Conditions. In making this finding, the City Council
has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its
willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the
following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of
' the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project.
A. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either
lessen Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that
alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they generally have similar 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.
B. The Project will provide high quality housing with various options to serve housing needs
in the City, including available options that are advantageous to assisting special needs
residents with their day-to-day living.
C. The Project will include an enhancement to Pala Park, which will include special-needs
compatible playground equipment, refurbishing the existing restrooms, and providing the
appropriate number of disabled parking spaces and related signage.
D. The Project will install off-site landscaping along Pechanga Parkway, north of the project
site. This area is located at the beginning of the western most portion of the project site and
extends north along Pechanga Parkway for approximately 1,050 feet. The placement of
landscaping along this stretch of road will beautify an area that currently contains no
landscaping. Additional landscape improvements include replacing the concrete in the existing
drainage located north of the project site with landscaping.
E. A public trail installed as part of the Project along the northwestern project boundary will
provide an access point from Pechanga Parkway to Temecula Lane and Pala Park. This trail
will be accessible to both the residents of the Project and surrounding communities.
The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the Project
outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds
that each of the Project benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be
acceptable. The City Council further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone,
is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental
impacts.