HomeMy WebLinkAbout17-86 CC Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 17-86
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
ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY
270 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST
OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND
VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND
MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA
MARGARITA RIVER (APN 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940-
310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310-
048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007)
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 November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities,
filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a
Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161 a Development
Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposed Project") were filed in a manner in
accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code.
B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation
on the proposed Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density
Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific
Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series
of standards and regulations that will govern all development on the property. These
standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks,
building height, and parking requirements. Together, these regulations and standards
seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance on the proposed
Project site, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a
Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement.
C. The proposed 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.
Resos 17-86 1
D. Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project
because it is the public agency with the authority and principal responsibility for reviewing,
considering, and potentially approving the proposed Project.
E. On November 5, 2014, 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 proposed Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning
and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2014111029). The NOP was circulated from
November 14, 2014, through December 15, 2014, 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 proposed Project. On December 3, 2014 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, 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 proposed Project, including preparation of review, as applicable, of all
necessary technical studies and reports in support of the Draft EIR. In accordance with
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City analyzed the proposed Project's potential
impacts on the environment, potential mitigation, and potential alternatives to the
proposed Project.
H. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in April 2016, the City initiated a public
comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and
Research on Friday, April 28, 2016. 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 May 2, 2016 through
June 17, 2016. 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; and
the City of Temecula website.
J. In response to the Draft EIR, 26 written comments were received from
various agencies, individuals, and organizations. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments. None of the
comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted
significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5..
Resos 17-86 2
K. The"Final EIR"consists of the Draft EIR and all of its appendices, the Errata
to the Draft EIR, the comments and responses to comments on the Draft EIR, Appendix
A to the Final EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Final EIR
was made available to the public and to all commenting agencies on November 3, 2017,
which is at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR, in compliance with Public
Resources Code Section 21092.5(a).
L. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission, at its regularly
scheduled and duly noticed meeting, considered the proposed 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 proposed 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. 17-43 recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR
prepared for the Altair Project, adopt Findings pursuant to the CEQA, adopt a Statement
of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the proposed Project. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution
Nos. 17-44 through 17-47, recommending that the City Council take various actions,
including adoption of a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map,
and Development Agreement related to the approval of the proposed Project.
N. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before
approving a project for which an ER 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
Resos 17-86 3
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.
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
111
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 proposed 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.
Resos 17-86 4
B. Find that agencies and interested members of the public have been
111
afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final EIR and the proposed
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 proposed Project.
D. Find and determine that the Final EIR fully analyzes and discloses the
potential impacts of the proposed Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or
avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 Altair 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.
1
Resos 17-86 5
I PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula
this 12th day of December, 2017.
S ar
Maryann Edwards, Mayor
ATTEST:
Randi J 1, ty Clerk
[SEAL]
I
I
Resos 17-86 6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
1 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. 17-86 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 12th day of December, 2017, by the following
vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Edwards
NOES: 1 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stewart
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
.stcs:e.--
Randi Johl, City Clerk
I
I
Resos 17-86 7
Altair Specific Plan EIR with South Parcel Nature Center Use
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 Altair Specific Plan project (the "project"). These findings are based
upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments
on the 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, objectives that the City seeks to achieve with this project (the
"project Objectives") are as follows:
A. Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies
of the City of Temecula General Plan [a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation
Element is needed to achieve these goals and policies].
B. Balance the need for local infrastructure improvement and demand for new
housing in and around Old Town while minimizing physical and visual impacts to the
hillside escarpment, wildlife movement and conservation areas.
C. Develop a high-quality residential component on the project site which
focuses on providing diverse housing types and a wide range of densities that would
A-1
serve a variety of age groups and household sizes, support the commercial enterprises
of Old Town Temecula, help to fulfill the City's regional housing needs, and foster a unique
community identity where each neighborhood is unique, vibrant, diverse, and inclusive.
D. Create a project that reduces dependency on the automobile and
encourages the use of an extensive multi-use trail system that would link neighborhood
villages and community-wide uses within the project and to Old Town Temecula.
E. Provide for limited/incidental neighborhood-oriented commercial uses to
serve the needs of the project's residents such as coffee shop, ice cream store, or small
restaurants.
F. Promote design that minimizes water usage by utilizing a relatively drought
tolerant landscape palette, clustered development and attractive community spaces
rather than traditional water-intensive private lawns.
G. Provide water quality management facilities that are incorporated within the
landscape features and designed to create settings that mimic the natural hillside
attributes.
H. Establish an efficient, interconnected multi-modal transportation network
that includes a Western Bypass Corridor and vehicular, transit/trolley, and
pedestrian/bikeway circulation systems that would improve center-of-city traffic
conditions.
Provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a park in
the center of the project, plazas, trails, a play field, and an elementary school
accommodating 600-730 students, which further diversify and contribute to the Old
Town's amenities.
J. Provide for a civic site of adequate size that accommodates up to 450,000
building square feet for an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit
of the public, and be integrated into the overall project design in a way that maximizes
compatibility with other proposed land uses within the Specific Plan, and provides a strong
visual connection and close access to Interstate 15.
III. Project Description
The proposed project would involve adoption of the Altair Specific Plan, which would allow
for development of a primarily residential, mixed-use community on 270 acres in the
southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula, located south of Ridge Park Drive and
westerly of Pujol Street, and west of Old Town. As well, a Nature Center and associated
facilities would be developed on the 55-acre site to the south of Temecula Parkway/Future
Western Bypass. In addition to adoption of the Specific Plan, this project would require a
General Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement, and a
certification of an environmental impact report.
A-2
The 270—acre project site consists of two portions: 215 acres comprising the primary
Specific Plan area that roughly spans the area between Ridge Park Drive on the north
and Temecula Parkway on the south, and a non-contiguous 55-acre site to the south of
Temecula Parkway/Future Western Bypass which would be designated for a civic use,
specifically a Nature Center and associated facilities. A large portion of the project site is
proposed as open space conservation along the western slope of the project. The
predominant land use would be residential mixed-use, consisting of approximately 1,750
dwelling units, comprising both attached and detached housing types. Densities would
range from 4 to 33 dwelling units per net acre, with the higher densities concentrated at
the north end of the property. Building types could include: detached housing, multiplex,
rowhouses, live/work, micro-unit, multifamily walk-up, multifamily podium, and mixed-use
that could include limited neighborhood-serving commercial. The project also proposes
development of a community center, and an approximate 5-acre site for an elementary
school and playfield. The proposed project would also include a central publicly
accessible park, plazas, and a soccer field.
The Altair Specific Plan would consist of several neighborhood "villages," each centered
on a node or focal point and separated by landscaped terrain. The open space between
the villages is intended to mimic the existing ravines extending from the hillside above
and is also intended to preserve the sculptural quality of the site. The village nodes would
be linked by a main north-south road (Altair Vista) and by a network of pedestrian/bicycle
paths, which is intended to provide cohesion to a very linear site while conserving much
of the existing land forms, allowing similar drainage patterns and maintaining views to the
hillside above.
The core village (Village C) would occupy an existing promontory with views to and from
Old Town. This area would be developed with a large park and would feature a community
center at the high point, on axis with Main Street and Temecula City Hall. A pedestrian
path would allow direct access to Main Street. This primary village would be higher in
density and scale with buildings potentially up to five stories in height.
The proposed Specific Plan would also include onsite and offsite improvements
associated with the installation of required back-bone infrastructure, including a new
storm drain system, water transmission mains, extension of the reclaiming water system,
and new sewer lift stations and pipelines.
South Parcel Nature Center Use
Following circulation of the Draft EIR for public review, the Specific Plan land use plan
has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council
project workshop (February 14, 2017) to propose a Nature/Culture/Sustainability (NCS)
Center, herein referred to as the "Nature Center," on the South Parcel in lieu of the
A-3
previously proposed more intense civic/institutional use. The Nature Center use has been
evaluated in an Environmental Assessment (refer to Appendix A of the Final EIR).
The Nature Center would consist of one or more buildings up to a maximum of building
area of 20,000 square feet and a maximum building height of two-stories. The Nature
Center land use would provide a public benefit to the City by offering educational
programs and/or exhibits related to culture, the natural environment, and sustainability of
the region, as well as provide recreational trails and facilities within the preserved area of
the site. The trail would provide access to the Santa Margarita River Canyon and the
Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, as well as provide a connection to Temecula Creek,
east of 1-15. If more than one building is proposed, the buildings would be designed to be
cohesive through orientation and architecture. The Nature Center buildings would also be
designed to be similar to other Nature Centers in the region, including compatible
materials and colors and would incorporate integrated indoor and outdoor spaces to
connect the site to the surrounding natural setting. Further, the Nature Center land use
would be designed to maintain and complement the visual character of the adjacent
natural open space and the known Temeku Village cultural resource site to the south.
One parking lot would be constructed to provide 120 parking spaces for employees and
visitors to the Nature Center in accordance with the City of Temecula's Parking
Standards. The buildings, parking lots and hardscape areas would have storm water
treatment facilities designed to remove pollutants from storm water runoff. Trails and
landscaping would be designed to minimize erosion and vegetation/habitat impacts.
Operation of the Nature Center would be limited from dawn until two hours after dusk,
and would have minimal night lighting. The expected monthly average number of visitors
is 7,213. Special events could be held at the Nature Center that could draw larger than
average crowds. Table 1-1 summarizes the land use details of the Nature Center on the
South Parcel.
' A-4
•
TABLE 1
SOUTH PARCEL NATURE CENTER LAND USE SUMMARY
Component Area (acres)
Natural Open Space Area
Undisturbed Open Space 33.84
Camino Estdbo(unimproved) 1.40
Trails 0.58
Subtotal—Natural 08-n S.ace Area 37.24
Disturbed Area
Fill Area(not including Nature Center Pad/Streets/Trails) 11.22
Nature Center Pad(including parking lot) 3.70
Trails 1.21
B8C Street 0.70
Drainage Improvements 0.85
Subtotal—Disturbed Area 17.68
Total 54.92
NOTES:
1. Fill Area:850 cubic yards(cy)cut/512.700 cy till
2. Fill area would be revegetated
3. Nature Center Parcel:16.17(includes disturbed area.1.68 acres of Natural Open Space Area)
a. Open Space Parcel:38.75
5. Total Conserved Open Space(Project with South Parcel Nature Center):87.2 acres
6. Nature Center Building:12,000 square feet(sf1 footprint/20,000 maximum-2-story
7. Nature Center Parking:120 spaces
8. Final Natural Open Space Trails to be sited in consultation with Pechanga
9. 10 percent maximum trail grade
SOURCE:Ambient,2017
The Nature Center use has been evaluated in an Environmental Assessment and is
included in Appendix A of the FEIR. Based on the Environmental Assessment, the
Specific Plan with the South Parcel Nature Center Use will result in reduced overall project
impacts and mitigation requirements as the Specific Plan with the South Parcel civic use,
and will specifically result in reduced overall impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological
resources GHG, noise, traffic, and public services/utilities. Reduced impacts and
mitigation requirement associated with the South Parcel Nature Center are documented
in these findings where applicable.
IV. Effects Determined to Be Less than Significant/No Impact in the Initial
Study/Notice of Preparation and EIR.
The City of Temecula issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") and conducted an Initial
Study to determine the potential environmental effects of the project. In the course of this
evaluation, 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 for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study and EIR. The impacts were not
analyzed in the EIR because they required no additional analysis to determine whether
the effects could be significant.
' A-5
•
A. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The proposed project would have no impact on agricultural or forestry resources.
According to Figure 0S-3 of the City of Temecula General Plan, the plan area is adjacent
to Unique Farmland in unincorporated County of Riverside. However, the plan area does
not contain existing agricultural uses nor does it contain any Forest Land, Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The project would not
result in the conversion of any land zoned for agricultural uses or land that is under a
Williamson Act contract.
B. MINERAL RESOURCES
The proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources. The plan area does
not contain significant mineral resources nor is it located within a locally important mineral
resource recovery site. The State Geologist has given the City of Temecula a
classification of MRZ-3a. MRZ-3 areas contain sedimentary deposits that have the
potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crusted stone for aggregate.
However, these areas are not considered to contain mineral resources of significant
economic value. The project would not result in the loss of any known mineral resources
or the loss of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site.
C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. The plan area is located outside of any Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture
Hazard Zone (AP Zone). While fault rupture is not necessarily confined to the boundaries
of the AP Zone, it is considered to have a very low probability to occur outside of these
areas that have been delineated by the State Geologist in accordance with the Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Fault rupture almost always follows along active
faults because of the zone of weakness that has developed from past displacements
(CGS 2015). Therefore, with the plan area located approximately 0.5 miles from the active
fault trace and well outside of the Alquist-Priolo fault zone, there would be no impact
related to fault rupture.
2. As proposed, development associated with the project would deliver
wastewater to the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) wastewater treatment plant
in Temecula and would not have use for any septic tank or other alternative wastewater
system. Therefore, this issue is not applicable to the project and no impact would occur.
D. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. The proposed project is not located within two miles of an airport or
airstrips. The closest airport is the Billy Joe Airport, which is located approximately five
miles east of the plan area, where construction and operational activities associated with
the project would not interfere with airport operations. Therefore, impacts to airports or
airstrips would not occur with implementation of the project.
' A-6
2. The project would result in an increased resident, employee and
visitor population in the area. However, the project would not alter the existing street
network, and it would comply with all emergency vehicle access requirements as a
condition of construction. Overall, the project would not impede an established
emergency access route or interfere with emergency response requirements and would
not result in permanent road closures. Therefore, the project would have no impacts to
emergency response or evacuation plans.
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. The project would not expose people to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving inundation by a seiche or tsunami because the project area is
not located immediately near a coast or large body of water. The plan area is located over
20 miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is a large enough distance to avoid tsunami
impacts and has no body of water in close proximity to the plan area. The portion of the
plan area that would be subject to mudflow is identified in the Specific Plan to remain as
open space. As a result, the proposed development areas (villages) would be protected
by the open space areas in the event of a mudflow. In addition, the project would be
subject to the City's Flood Damage Protection Ordinance which includes measures to
protect against potential mudslides. Therefore, impacts related to inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow would not occur.
F. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. The plan area is currently undeveloped. The proposed project is
intended to facilitate the development of up to 1,750 residential units into a cohesive
community connected to Old Town. The proposed project would not involve the
construction of roadways or other major structures within an established community that
would result in division of an established community. No impact would occur.
2. 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, including Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
policies, Regional Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA), and the City's General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance. No impact would occur. Discussion of the Project's consistency with
a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan is discussed in H1, below.
G. NOISE AND VIBRATION
1. The plan area is not located within any airport land use plan nor is it
located near any private airstrips. The nearest airport with an associated Comprehensive
Land Use Plan is the French Valley Airport, which is located approximately six miles north
of the plan area. Given this distance, no noise impacts are anticipated to occur at a public
or private airport as a result of the project.
' A-7
H. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1. There are no existing residential units or homes located within the
plan area; therefore, no displacement of existing housing would occur. In addition, the
project would encourage mixed-use and residential projects and would result in additional
housing opportunities. Therefore, the project would displace a substantial amount of
existing housing or people and no impact would occur.
I. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
1. The nearest airport with an associated Comprehensive Land Use
Plan is the French Valley Airport, which is located approximately six miles north of the
plan area. The project is not within the French Valley Airport influence area;therefore, the
project is not anticipated to result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of the project.
2. Since the project promotes the use of bicycles, pedestrians, and
transit, and all development projects within the plan area would be required to be
consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks), no impacts are anticipated as a result of the project.
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 incorporation 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 have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista. The site plan created for the Altair Specific Plan was developed with the intent of
respecting and preserving natural landforms and features of the plan area, such as ridges
and gullies. Development would be concentrated along the eastern edge of the parcel
boundary in order to preserve hillsides. The route and lane configuration of the Western
Bypass, which would incorporate split lanes (where southbound and northbound lanes
would be at different elevations from each other), standard lanes (where all lanes would
be at the same elevation), and landscaped medians throughout, would be designed to
respect the existing landforms and minimize the visual impacts of this major roadway.
While the proposed structures that would be developed as part of the project would
obscure the individual features (ravines and ridges) of the landform of the plan area, the
proposed site design would ensure that the majority of the hillside would still remain visible
to viewers from outside the plan area. In addition, many of the landform features would
' still be visible to viewers using publicly accessible hiking and bicycle trails within the plan
area after project implementation. Further, the Nature Center use would reduce the
A-8
' building footprint on the Civic site compared to the Civic/Institutional use. As with the
Civic/Institutional use, the Nature Center would increase the intensity of uses on the site,
introducing buildings where none currently exist which adds building height and mass in
excess of the current undeveloped site. Therefore, impacts to scenic resources, including
the hillsides and ridgelines of the Santa Rosa Plateau, would be less than significant with
implementation of the project.
2. The project is not located within a designated scenic highway
corridor. SR-74 and SR-243 are designated as State Scenic Highways in Riverside
County. These highways are located east of the plan area, more than 20 miles away and
are not visible from within the plan area or surrounding areas. The project site, including
the Civic site, is located within the viewshed from 1-15, which is designated by Caltrans
as an Eligible State Scenic Highway; however, it is not officially designated as a State
Scenic Highway by Caltrans. Views of the project area, including the Civic site, are
available from points along 1-15; however, the proposed project would be minimally visible
from 1-15 and would blend into the urban environment of Old Town and the surrounding
development. Views of the hillsides and ridgelines of the Santa Rosa Plateau from 1-15
would not be substantially affected by the proposed project, including the Nature Center.
Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state
scenic highway and impacts would be less than significant.
3. Under the proposed project, the visual character of the project site
would change substantially from undeveloped, open space to a high-density urbanized
development. However, a change in visual character or visual quality does not, by itself,
equate to a significant, adverse impact under CEQA. The evaluation should consider the
degree of impact that may result from visual change. Per the City of Temecula General
Plan, the City has planned for development at the project site and did not expect for it to
remain as undeveloped, open space. The Altair Specific Plan includes design guidelines
and development standards that are intended to achieve a community with a high
aesthetic quality. The proposed project does not dictate the number or the styles of
buildings to be developed in each village, but instead focuses on a variety of building
forms in order to create distinct neighborhoods and encourage visual interest, vibrancy,
and diversity. Design guidelines address features from building form (including how to
create visually interesting facades, rooflines, building entrances, fenestration, siding
materials, and colors), building placement on the lot, utility screening, retaining walls, and
landscaping. Adherence to the design guidelines and development standards of the
project would ensure that the proposed structures are developed to meet the goals of
high aesthetic quality and visual interest. For the Civic site, the Nature Center's footprint
would be relatively small and would retain a large amount of open space and preserve
hillsides for visual resources. The proposed Nature Center use would adhere to the
design guidelines and development standards of the project would ensure that the
proposed structures are developed to meet the goals of high aesthetic quality and visual
interest and would not result in adverse impacts related to the visual character of the
project area. In addition, specific development proposals occurring under the Specific
Plan would be reviewed by City staff to ensure that they meet the design guidelines and
development standards established by the Specific Plan. Therefore, impacts to visual
character would be less than significant.
A-9
4. Among the cumulative projects within the viewshed of the proposed
project, the 140-unit residential project would likely be the most visually prominent and
would be occurring on undeveloped land. However, it would be built on flat land adjacent
to existing urban uses and would not be located on any hillsides. In addition, like future
development proposals that would occur in the City, any cumulative developments in the
project vicinity would be subject to the City's Design Guidelines and would be required to
undergo a development review process to ensure that the proposals meet the design
standards. Temecula's City-wide Design Guidelines provide site planning, architectural
design, and landscape design criteria for commercial, industrial, and residential
development. The Guidelines also establish criteria for unique design characteristics
found within specialized development types, such as specific commercial and public uses.
The design standards and criteria contained within the Guidelines are the primary tool for
implementing the policies contained within the Community Design Element. In addition,
future development proposals in the vicinity of the project would also introduce new
sources of light and glare in the area; and the project, in combination with these projects,
could make a considerable contribution to light and glare. However, related projects would
be required to adhere to the provisions of the Riverside County's Light Pollution
Ordinance (No. 655), which reduces nighttime light pollution in the vicinity of the Palomar
Observatory, and implement measures similar to those required of the project. As such,
cumulative impacts from the project and related projects would be less than significant.
The project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact on aesthetics.
B. AIR QUALITY
1. The proposed project is consistent with the intent of General Plan
land use policies; the growth resulting from the project is anticipated to be consistent with
SCAG's regional forecast projections, which, in turn, would also be consistent with the
growth projections accounted for in the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD's) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Therefore, the project would not
conflict with, or obstruct, implementation of the AQMP and impacts would be less than
significant.
2. As shown in Table 3.2-6 in Section 3.2, Air Quality (refer to the Draft
EIR) and Tables 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 in Section 2.2, Air Quality of the Civic Site Nature Center
Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR), the maximum daily
construction emissions generated by the project's worst-case construction scenario
would not exceed SCAQMD's daily significance threshold for any criteria pollutants during
any of the modeled construction phases. Therefore, construction phase emissions would
have a less than significant impact related to regional air quality.
3. A total of 25 local intersections were analyzed as part of the TIA that
was prepared for the proposed project (Fehr & Peers 2015) and analyzed a second time
with the Nature Center use (Fehr & Peers 2017). The existing, existing plus project,
cumulative, and cumulative plus project peak hour conditions were evaluated against the
screening level threshold of 24,000 vehicles per hour. As none of the peak hour traffic at
all of the intersections would come close to 24,000 vehicles per hour, CO emissions from
these vehicles volumes would be less than significant. The Riverside County Congestion
A-10
Management Program (CMP) requires that if an EIR was prepared, new developments
analyze the project's potential impacts on CMP monitoring locations. The project's TIA
(Fehr& Peers 2017) analyzed the project impacts on nearby CMP monitoring stations for
arterial roadways. If a CMP monitoring segment falls into a Level of Service (LOS) of F,
a deficiency plan would be required. As determined in the TIA for the project, there are
no CMP arterials or roadway segments within the project study area. Therefore, the
proposed project would not conflict with the CMP due to additional growth. Given that the
project would not exceed the screening level intersection volumes, nor would it conflict
with the local CMP, impacts related to CO hotspots would be less than significant.
4. During project operations, the daily amount of localized pollutant
emissions generated onsite by the project would not be substantial. The proposed
project's onsite operational emissions are shown in Table 3.2-12 in Section 3.2, Air
Quality (refer to the Draft EIR) and Tables 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 in Section 2.2, Air Quality of
the Civic Site Nature Center Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the
FEIR). As shown, the project's total operational-related emissions generated onsite would
not exceed SCAQMD's screening operational localized significance thresholds (LSTs).
Thus, no dispersion modeling was required for the project and localized air quality impacts
during project operations would be less than significant.
5. Project construction would result in short-term emissions of diesel
PM, which is a toxic air contaminant (TACs). Diesel PM poses a carcinogenic health risk
that is measured using an exposure period of 70 years. The construction period for the
proposed project would be much less than the 70-year period used for risk determination.
Although project construction would occur over a 10-year period, construction activities
would not occur across the entire plan area during the entire duration of this period but
would occur in smaller areas over the course of construction. Project construction would
not expose any existing nearby sensitive receptors or new onsite receptors to substantial
emissions of TACs. Operation of the project would not include industrial manufacturing
processes, automotive repair facilities, and dry cleaning facilities or be located within the
buffer distance of any major TAC-emitting facilities. Project operation would not expose
any existing nearby sensitive receptors or new onsite receptors to substantial emissions
of TACs. Impacts would be less than significant.
6. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people. Development of the proposed project would not result in
exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial odorous emissions. Impacts associated
with objectionable odors would be less than significant.
7. Based on SCAQMD's cumulative air quality impact methodology,
SCAQMD recommends that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria
pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD's
recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the project
region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard. As shown in Table 3.2-6 (refer to Draft EIR), the project's construction
111
emissions would not exceed SCAQMD's daily thresholds during construction. Thus,
A-11
because the proposed project's construction-period impact would be less than significant,
the proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact in that regard,
when considered with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any
special status plants, specifically the San Diego ambrosia and paniculate tarplant. The
San Diego ambrosia and paniculate tarplant are considered adequately conserved by the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and
impacts are covered under the implementation structure of the MSHCP. Impacts to
special status species would be less than significant.
2. The project would not conflict with the City of Temecula Heritage
Tree Ordinance or the City of Temecula General Plan.
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, or seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction,
lateral spreading, or landslides. Adherence to the requirements of the California Building
Code would ensure that people, structures, and infrastructure are not adversely impacted
111
by seismic hazards. Impacts would be less than significant.
2. The proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil. Construction of the proposed project would require grading,
excavating, and other ground-disturbing activities that would expose topsoil, resulting in
soil erosion, but implementation of standard erosion control measures would ensure this
impact is less than significant.
3. Development under the proposed project would be required to
adhere to City building code requirements, which include the preparation of a design level
geotechnical investigation by a state licensed geotechnical engineer. The required
geotechnical report for any new development or redevelopment would determine the
susceptibility of the subject site to settlement and prescribe appropriate engineering
techniques for reducing its effects based on site specific data of subsurface soils. Prior to
approval of a building permit, the final design level geotechnical report with
recommendations for site preparation requirements, foundation specifications, and
structural design would be required to be in accordance with the City building code
requirements. Therefore, implementation of standard geotechnical engineering practices,
which includes a geotechnical investigation containing recommendations that would be
specific to future project sites within the plan area, and adherence to building code
requirements would reduce potential impacts from unstable soils and other adverse soil
properties to less than significant levels.
' A-12
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.
E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials. Implementation of the proposed project would involve limited transport, use,
storage, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction and operation, but
compliance with all applicable regulations would reduce impacts to less than 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. A Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared and implemented during construction to
minimize the potential for discharge of contaminants during construction. Any businesses
that would store hazardous materials and/or waste at its business site would be required
to submit a Hazardous Materials Management Plan in accordance with the County
Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Further, the project site is located more than 25
miles, but less than 50 miles, from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The facility
is currently being decommissioned and existing emergency procedures are in place in
the rare event of an emergency. Thus, impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions would be less than significant.
3. The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school. The project Site is not located within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school site.
4. The proposed project would not be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment. The project Site has not been listed as a hazardous
material release site.
5. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The project Site is located
approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the French Valley Airport, which is the only public
airport in the vicinity of the project.
6. The proposed project includes the option of constructing an
elementary school site just beyond one-quarter mile of International Rectifier Corporation
and other businesses located just east of Rancho California Road. These businesses
may have the potential to generate hazardous emissions or contain acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste that could cause an impact to sensitive receptor sites
such as the proposed school. In addition to mandatory adherence to City and County
requirements, compliance with the requirements of CCR Title 5, Section 14010,
A-13
Standards for School Site Construction, and the California Department of Education
School Facilities Planning Division (as overseen by DISC) further ensures that
hazardous materials impact on the proposed school would be less than significant.
Further, all new development under the proposed project would be required to follow
applicable regulations and guidelines regarding storage and handling of hazardous
waste. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous emissions near schools would be less
than significant.
7. According to the two different Phase I reports completed for the
project area and vicinity, there are no reported incidents of releases of hazardous
materials. In addition, review of available databases from the DTSC and SW RCB did not
identify sites within the project area or immediate vicinity that would likely indicate the
presence of contamination on the site or in subsurface materials. As a result, impacts are
considered less than significant.
8. According to the City of Temecula General Plan and GIS Map Data,
a portion of the project is adjacent to a High Fire Hazard Area. The Western Bypass will
serve as a fire break between wildland areas and proposed development. In addition, a
Fuel Modification Plan will be prepared as part of the project and incorporated into the
Altair Specific Plan to identify appropriate structure setbacks and landscape requirements
for the interior of the project to address this hazard. Further, adherence to existing Fire
Code regulatory requirements for new construction, require the preparation and
implementation of a Fuel Modification Plan. Thus, impacts related to wildfires would be
less than significant.
9. Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other
existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the city, could
cumulatively increase exposure of people, property, and the environment to hazardous
materials and interference with emergency response. However, with compliance with all
applicable regulations, the project would not contribute to the potential for hazards and
hazardous materials impacts under cumulative conditions. Therefore, the proposed
project's contribution to significant cumulative impacts to human health associated with
hazards and hazardous materials or conditions is less than cumulatively considerable.
F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. The proposed project would implement site-specific SWPPPs,
including construction best management practices (BMPs), during construction in
accordance with the Construction General Permit, which would reduce the potential for
stormwater to come into contact with pollutants and integrate it into surface water, to the
maximum extent practicable. As a result, construction activities would not result in runoff
that would exceed the capacity of the adjacent existing drainage system capacity or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The proposed project would not
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. The proposed storm
drain system would provide sufficient volume to treat storm water for water quality
purposes and is designed to properly convey the increased runoff attributable to site
A14
development. Impacts to existing stormwater drainage facilities during construction would
be less than significant.
2. The proposed project would implement site-specific SWPPPs during
construction to address site-specific conditions related to construction; identify the
sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water
discharges during construction; and describe the implementation and maintenance of
erosion control and sediment control BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment, pollutants
adhering to sediment, and other non-sediment pollutants in storm water, as well as non-
storm water discharges. Once operational, runoff from the project site would be minimized
by implementation of infiltration BMPs, such as directing roof downspouts and other
paved areas to drain to natural drainages, using natural drainage swales to convey runoff
from impervious surfaces, and landscape areas between sidewalk and curb, where
feasible. Bioretention basins are proposed throughout the site to treat runoff from the
proposed impervious areas (streets and sidewalks). Thus, implementation of the
SWPPPs and BMPs during construction and operation of the project would minimize
erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant
3. The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the project stated
while groundwater supplies from the Murrieta-Temecula Groundwater Basin would be
used during construction and operation, the Rancho California Water District (RCWD)
would have sufficient water supplies to accommodate the project's water use during
construction and operation. Therefore,the potential impact on local groundwater recharge
and supplies from development of the proposed project would be less than significant.
4. While the proposed project is not located within the 100-year flood
zone of Murrieta Creek, the flood damage prevention and floodplain management
regulations of the City Development Code (Chapter 15.12 Floodplain Management) apply
since the project area is within the western portion of Temecula, which has the potential
for mud and debris flows. Before issuance of a building permit, the City would review
development plans for future projects to ensure compliance with City and FEMA
floodplain development requirements. Therefore, impacts related to flooding and
mudflows would be less than significant.
5. A small portion of the project area closest to Murrieta Creek may be
located in a dam inundation area (City of Temecula 1993) depending on location of
proposed developments. All three dams within the vicinity of the project area—Lake
Skinner, Vail Lake, and Diamond Valley Lake—could potentially cause flooding in the
plan area should they fail. However, to address flood hazards, the City of Temecula has
developed a Dam Inundation Evacuation Plan which is updated, as needed. This Plan
would be put to use in the event of dam failure to ensure the safety of the public.
Additionally, the City coordinates with the State Office of Emergency Services to ensure
that dam safety plans reflect the level of development within the community. The rare
likelihood of such an event in combination with applicable plan and program compliance
would reduce any risks of death or loss involving flooding as a result of dam failure to less
than significant.
A-15
6. The proposed project's contribution to cumulative water quality,
runoff, groundwater supplies, and flooding impacts would be less than cumulatively
considerable.
G. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. Potential land use impacts, such as potential impacts related to
consistency with plans and policies that are intended to avoid environmental effects,
would be project-specific and require evaluation on a case-by-case basis. This is also
true with regard to land use compatibility impacts, which are generally a function of the
relationship between the interactive effects of a specific development site and those of its
immediate environment. Therefore, cumulative impacts to land use would be less than
significant.
H. NOISE AND VIBRATION
1. Operation of the proposed project would not expose persons to or
generate groundborne vibration levels in excess of the adopted guidelines and
recommendations established by the Federal Transit Administration. Impacts associated
with groundborne vibration levels during operation would be less than significant.
2. Operation of the proposed project would not generate traffic noise
which would exceed the identified thresholds of significance for all studied roadway
segments. Impacts associated with permanent increases in ambient noise related to
traffic noise would be less than significant.
3. The proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts
associated with mobile source noise would be less than cumulatively considerable.
I. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1. In general, the project would accommodate predicted growth, and
would not result in a substantial increase in population. The project's residential units
would help to meet housing demands from projected population growth in the City and
the region. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to
population and housing.
2. Project development in combination with cumulative projects within
the City would result in a cumulative increase in population. The proposed project would
represent approximately 20 percent of the population increase that would be generated
under cumulative conditions. This would exceed the projected 2035 population by
Southern California Council of Governments (SCAG) by approximately 10,400 residents.
However, growth would be within the population anticipated by the City's General Plan
projected development capacity of 166,250 residents. Impacts related to thresholds
established by resource agencies that rely on SCAG population projections, such as
SCAQMD, are analyzed in the appropriate sections of the Draft ER. However, given that
this growth has been anticipated by the City, the proposed project would not considerably
A-16
contribute to population and housing impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than
significant.
J. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. The City's fire department would be able to accommodate the
anticipated growth of the project and already owns the necessary equipment to
accommodate the increase in building heights. Further, the proposed project would pay
development impact fees to enable the expansion of fire protection facilities, the addition
of fire protection personnel, and the acquisition of additional fire equipment, as needed to
maintain performance standards. Therefore, impacts to fire protection services would be
less than significant.
2. The proposed project would pay the appropriate development impact
fees, which would allow the police department to add additional staff to provide services
to accommodate the growth anticipated with the development of the project. Thus,
impacts to police services would be less than significant.
3. The proposed project would pay the developer fees established by
the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD), which are established at $3.36 per
square foot of residential development and $0.54 per square foot or commercial or
industrial development. Given the payment of developer fees, existing capacity at the
schools in the project area, the construction of an elementary school as a part of the
project, and TVUSD's proposed construction of five new schools, TVUSD would be able
to accommodate the students generated by the project and would not require further
expansion of facilities. Therefore, project impacts to schools are considered to be less
than significant.
4. The project would add an estimated 4,603 residents which would
increase demand for City-owned park and recreational facilities. New development is
required to dedicated park land, pay a fee in-lieu, or a combination, thereof, to provide for
the recreational needs of its residents (City of Temecula, Ord. 99-23). Based on the City's
formula for park land dedication, and knowing the project could produce a range of
dwelling units (870 to 1,750 units), the project, at buildout, would be required to dedicate
an estimated 10 to 22 acres of park land, depending on the total number of dwelling units
constructed. The required park land dedication, payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination
thereof, would offset any adverse impacts associated with the construction of new or
expansion of existing recreational facilities to meet the City's General Plan standard of
five acres of park land for every 1,000 residents. With payment of the in-lieu fees,
dedication of parkland, or a combination of both, the proposed project would result in less
than significant impacts to parks.
5. While the project would increase the demand for library services over
the buildout timeframe of 10 years, the population increase generated by the project
(approximately 4,603 people max) is accounted for in the City's anticipated population
growth forecast of 118,900 people by 2035. The project is anticipated to have minimal
impacts on library services and would not affect the County's ability to provide library
A-17
services or create the need to construct new library facilities or expand existing facilities.
Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts to library services.
6. Given the capacity of the existing healthcare facilities, the population
of 4,603 new residents (maximum) generated by the project would be adequately served
by the existing facilities. Impacts related to the expansion or provision of additional
healthcare facilities would be less than significant.
7. The proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to impacts related to fire protection, police protection, schools, or other public
facilities.
K. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
1. ' All development within the Specific Plan area would be required to
be designed consistent with City standards, including street design, emergency access,
and compatibility of proposed uses. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would
result in less than significant impacts related to hazardous design features or emergency
access.
L. UTITILIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
1. The residential and commercial land uses proposed by the project
would generally not discharge wastewater that contains harmful levels of toxins that are
regulated by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) (such as
large quantities of pesticides, herbicides, oil, grease, and other chemicals that are more
typical in agricultural and industrial uses) and all effluent would comply with the
wastewater treatment standards of the SDRWQCB. The project would result in less than
significant impacts related to the wastewater treatment requirements of the SDRWQCB.
2. The Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Plan would have sufficient
capacity to process the additional average wastewater flow that would be generated by
the project at build out. In addition, each project-specific development within in the
Specific Plan would be required to pay a sewer service charge to RCWD to maintain and
upgrade its system. Therefore, the proposed 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.
3. The construction of the future individual development within the
Specific Plan would be required to comply with the development planning requirements
of the SDRWQCB MS4 permit and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance. Each
future development project would be required to generate a project-specific Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance
and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan,which would ensure
that the project implements specific drainage features in order to meet the City's MS4
Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Therefore, impacts to the environment
from the construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities would be less
than significant.
A-18
4. The WSA identified a sufficient and reliable water supply for RCWD,
now and into the future, including a sufficient water supply for the project (RWCD, 2015b).
Therefore, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources and new or expanded entitlements would not be required.
5. The proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs during
construction and operation. Solid waste disposed of during construction activities for the
new residential and commercial development would represent 0.004 percent of the
remaining capacity (in tons). Solid waste disposed of during operation activities for the
new residential and commercial development would represent 0.07 percent of the daily
disposal rate (in tons). The existing capacity of the El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill would be
sufficient to accommodate solid waste generation from project implementation and
impacts would be less than significant.
6. The proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to impacts related to water supply or quality, wastewater, stormwater
drainage, or solid waste.
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 and Paleontological
Resources, Greenhouse Gas (GHGs) Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials,
Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise and Vibration, and
Transportation and Traffic. Measures have been identified that would mitigate the
specified impacts in each 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 those
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. Create a new source of light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views.
Impact AES-1: 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 new
A-19
sources of light or glare. Specifically, the following measures have been included to
ensure that the project's potential aesthetic impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1: The following light and glare standards
shall be applied to all development within the project area:
• Temporary nighttime construction lighting shall be shielded and directed
downward such that no light spillage will occur on adjacent properties.
• The applicant shall ensure that all outdoor lighting fixtures in public areas
contain "sharp cut-off" fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and
internal and external shielding.
• The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped
into control zones to allow for opening, closing, and night light/security
lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic
lighting system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays.
• The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the development
shall take advantage of landscaping, 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.
111 • Prior to the issuance of construction permits for any phase of the project
that includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an outdoor
lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the
City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, the following
information and standards:
o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens.
o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the
fixtures are projected below the horizontal plan passing through the
lowest point of the shield.
o A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and intensities,
including security, roadway, and task lighting.
o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield.
oTotal estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per
acre.
o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used,
especially for security lighting.
' A-20
• The City shall conduct a post-installation inspection to ensure that the
development is in compliance with the design standards in Altair Specific
Plan, Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 and Riverside County Ordinance
No. 655.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed project would introduce a new source of light and glare to the project site
from lighting for residential and Nature Center, plazas, and streets as well as from cars
traveling through the project site. Also, temporary nighttime construction lighting may be
required near the intersection of Vincent Moraga and Rancho California Road (due to
traffic on Rancho California Road). There are no sensitive receptors near this intersection;
nonetheless, Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 would ensure nighttime construction lighting
is shielded and directed downward to avoid light spillage on adjacent properties.
The proposed project is located approximately 20 miles from the Palomar Observatory.
The project would be required to comply with the Palomar Observatory Light Pollution
Ordinance (Riverside County's Light Pollution Ordinance No. 655), which requires a
variety of measures, as outlined in Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1, including the
preparation of an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan, to reduce the effects of light
pollution from nighttime light sources. However, given the proposed density and intensity
of the project, new development would increase nighttime light sources. According to
111
Ordinance No. 655, the project site is located in Zone B (45-mile Radius Lighting Impact
Zone). Ordinance No. 655 includes requirements for lessening "sky glow" from nighttime
light sources and identifies specific measures for projects within Zone B, including lighting
from parking lots and advertising displays being fully shielded to lessen light that is
omitted within the vicinity of the Palomar Observatory. Additionally, application of the
design guidelines outlined in Chapter 9, Design Guidelines, of the Specific Plan include
variations in street materials and outdoor lighting controls. For example, light fixtures shall
incorporate cut-offs and appropriate lenses to eliminate glare and light spillover to
adjacent properties to reduce potential impacts associated with light and glare. Along with
compliance with Ordinance No. 665, Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 would ensure that
new sources of light and glare would be designed and installed to minimize light pollution
and to reduce effects of light pollution to sensitive receptors.
B. AIR QUALITY
1. Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations
During Construction.
Impact AQ-2: Emissions of localized criteria pollutants from construction of the
project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
' A-21
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 localized
construction criteria air 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-AO-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.
111
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Daily onsite construction emissions generated by the project were evaluated against
SCAQMD's LSTs for a 3.5-acre site to determine whether the emissions would cause or
• contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts.1 The nearest offsite sensitive receptors
are the multi-family residential dwelling units located directly adjacent to the project site
on the east. Additionally, the project itself would also introduce sensitive receptors (e.g.,
residential and school uses) once the individual development phases are completed.
Daily unmitigated, localized onsite emissions anticipated to occur during the project's
worst-case construction scenario were estimated and are shown in Table 3.2-10 (refer to
the Draft EIR).
As summarized in Table 2.2-2 in Section 2.2, Air Quality of the Civic Site Nature Center
Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR), daily unmitigated
emissions generated onsite by the proposed project's worst-case construction scenario
would exceed the applicable SCAQMD LST for PM2.5 for a 3.5-acre site in SRA 26, during
the site preparation sub-phase. The emissions for the remaining pollutants of concern
(NOx and PMio) would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs in any construction
year. As the project's worst-case construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD's
According to SCAQMD's LST methodology,LSTs are only applicable to the onsite construction emissions that are generated
' by a project and do not apply to emissions generated offsite such as mobile emissions on roadways from worker,vendor,and
haul truck trips.
A-22
111 applicable LST for PM2.5,the localized air quality impacts associated with PM2.5 would be
potentially significant. Localized impacts for NOx and PM,o would be less-than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2 would require the use water or reclaimed
water and/or non-water chemical stabilizers during drought conditions to reduce fugitive
dust emissions during ground disturbance activities for all project development phases.
The General Contractor shall obtain permission from the City of Temecula Building
Official to use potable water if reclaimed water or well water/groundwater is not available
for fugitive dust control activities during drought conditions. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2, the total onsite emissions of PM2.5 generated during the
site preparation sub-phase would be reduced to below the SCAQMD's applicable LST for
a 3.5-acre site. The total mitigated PM2.s emissions that would result from implementation
of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2 during project construction in 2016 are shown in Table
3.2-11 (refer to the Draft EIR). While only the reduction of PM2.5 for 2016 is shown,
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2 would also reduce PMio and PM2.5 emissions from all site
preparation and grading construction sub-phases. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM-
AQ-2 would ensure that localized air quality impacts associated with PM2.5 would be
reduced to below the established LST.
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Impacts to Migratory Birds and Special-Status Wildlife
Impacts BIO-1: Activities associated with construction of the project could
have a significant impact on special status avian wildlife and migratory birds
including Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and California
horned lark.
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 migratory
birds and special status species. Specifically, the following measures have been included
to ensure that the project's potential impacts are 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
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
A-23
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.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Activities associated with construction of the project may potentially impact special
status wildlife and migratory birds including Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed
kite, California gnatcatcher, and California horned lark, which were observed or
recorded on or near the Project. Direct and indirect impacts to nesting raptors and
migratory birds could occur during construction through the removal of suitable habitat,
including mature trees and shrubs if habitat clearing were to occur during breeding
season. Potential direct impacts include the destruction of active nests; potential indirect
impacts include interference with reproductive success due to noise, vibration, and/or
visual disturbances. The MTBA and the CFGC (3503 and 3503.5) consider the loss of
active nests (nests with eggs or young) of all native bird species unlawful.
Consequently, the potential loss or abandonment of nests of bird species as a result of
construction-related activities would be considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure MM-BI0-1 would minimize clearing and grubbing activities within the
avian breeding season (February 1 to September 15) to the extent feasible. If clearing
and grubbing activities have to occur during the breeding season, Mitigation Measure
MM-BIO-1 requires the retention of a qualified biologist and establishes the appropriate
protocol for focused surveys of active nests as well as the various construction buffers
required based on nests' conditions. While avoidance of the active nest during
construction is the ideal condition, if avoidance is not feasible, Mitigation Measure MM-
BIO-1 requires the installation of noise walls or other noise attenuation devices to prevent
disturbance to any active nest during construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
MM-BIO-1 would ensure that any potentially significant impacts to migratory birds or
special-status species, specifically Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and
California horned lark, would be reduced to a less than significant level.
A-24
2. Facts to Burrowing Owls
Impact BIO-2: The project could have a significant impact on burrowing owl
or suitable burrowing owl habitat during construction.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to burrowing owls
or suitable burrowing owl habitat during construction. Specifically, the following measures
have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are reduced to less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2: Suitable burrowing owl habitat identified
on the project site shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist using the
methods described in the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area(EPD, 2006) no more than 30 days
prior to initial ground disturbing activities to determine presence or absence
of burrowing owl. If no burrowing owls are identified, no additional mitigation
is necessary and activities may commence. If a burrowing owl is detected,
the City of Temecula and the RCA will be notified.
If burrowing owls are found on the project site, the applicant shall implement
the following measure:
• Take of active nests shall be avoided. Passive or active relocation
(use of one way doors and collapse of burrows), as approved by the
RCA, may occur when owls are present outside the nesting season
(March 1 - August 31). If active relocation is selected, translocation
sites for the burrowing owl shall be created in the MSHCP
Conservation Area for the establishment of new colonies.
Translocation sites will be identified, taking into consideration
unoccupied habitat areas, presence of burrowing mammals, existing
colonies and effects to other MSHCP covered species. Selected
translocation sites shall be coordinated with California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) prior to translocation site development.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The project falls within a Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area (CASSA) per Sections
6.1.3 and 3.3.2 of the MSHCP for burrowing owl, thus a protocol-level survey was
performed for burrowing owl. No burrowing owls were detected or observed during the
focused surveys. However, suitable habitat occurs within the upland vegetation
communities and disturbed habitat across the project site. Burrowing owls may colonize
the project site between the completion of focused surveys and the start of construction.
Individuals present during ground disturbing activities have the potential to be killed
A-25
through burrow collapse from construction equipment or vehicles. MSHCP protocol within
the CASSA for burrowing owl requires a pre-construction clearance survey if burrows or
suitable habitat exist regardless of positive or negative finding.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2 requires that a qualified biologist conduct surveys of all
suitable burrowing owl habitat identified on within the project area no more than 30 days
prior to initial ground disturbing activities to determine the presence or absence of
burrowing owls. If active nest are identified during surveys, take of active nest shall be
avoided and passive or active relocation, as approved by the Regional Conservation
Authority, may occur when owls are present outside the nesting season (March 1 -August
31). Coordination with CDFW and USFWS shall occur prior to translocation of burrowing
owls. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2 would ensure that any potentially
significant impact to burrowing owls or suitable burrowing owl habitat would be minimized
to the extent feasible and impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
3. Impacts to Mountain Lions
Impact BIO-3: The urban/wildland interface associated with the
construction and operation of the project could have a significant effect on
mountain lions and other wildlife.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to mountain lions.
Specifically,the following measure as well as the mitigation measures established in other
sections or for other issue topics (MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-6b, MM-BIO-7a, MM-BIO-7b, MM-
BIO-7c, MM-N01-1a and MM-N01-1b) have been included to ensure that the project's
potential impacts are reduced to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3: The following Best Management Practices
shall be adhered to:
• Prior to the issuance of any clearing, grubbing, or grading permit for
the project, a qualified biologist (Project Biologist) with a minimum of
3 years of experience in field supervision on construction sites, shall
be retained by the applicant to oversee compliance with the
protection and avoidance measures for biological issues associated
with the project. The Project Biologist shall have the authority to halt
construction activities in the event of non-compliance.
• The Project Biologist shall be onsite during initial ground disturbing
activities, including, but not limited to: vegetation removal, tree
removal or trimming, grading, and restoration landscaping to ensure
project activities remain in compliance with all applicable biological
resource permits.
A-26
• Intentional killing or unauthorized collection of plant and wildlife
species shall be prohibited.
• Workers shall be prohibited from bringing pets and firearms to the
project site, and from feeding wildlife.
• Proposed and existing MSHCP Conservation Areas shall be
protected in place by the installation of orange silt fencing. Fencing
shall be maintained in working order and inspected weekly. Fencing
repair shall occur within 2 working days following inspection.
• All trash and food items shall be contained in closed containers and
trash removed daily to reduce the attractiveness to opportunistic
predators such as common ravens and feral cats and dogs.
• All fueling of construction vehicles shall be within designated areas
beyond 100 feet of any drainage course, and be contained using
appropriate protection measures.
• Nighttime construction shall be prohibited in areas directly abutting
or within 200 feet of existing or project-proposed MSHCP
Conservation Areas. Nighttime construction which does occur
outside these areas shall use directional lighting to minimize the
impacts of increased artificial nighttime lighting.
• All construction equipment and vehicles shall not idle for more than
45 minutes to minimize ambient noise produced by the project.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The MSHCP promotes the conservation and recovery of biological resources in western
Riverside County and provides coverage for Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA)
and California Endangered Species Act (CESA) incidental take for listed species. Project
impacts to the mountain lion and other wildlife are mitigated through the existing MSHCP
under an existing incidental take permit. The project is subject to the Urban/Wildland
Interface Guidelines in the MSHCP, Section 6.1.4. In addition to compliance with the
MSHCP, Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3 would require that the best management
practices listed above are implemented to minimize impacts to mountain lions and other
wildlife during construction. Consistency with the MSHCP Guidelines and implementation
of the Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3 would ensure that the project would result in less
than significant impacts on mountain lions and other wildlife.
' A-27
•
4. Impacts to Riparian or Riverine Habitat
Impact BIO-4: Implementation of the project could have a substantial
adverse effect on riparian/riverine habitat and federally protected wetlands.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to riparian/riverine
habitat and federally protected wetlands. Specifically, the following measures have been
included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are reduced to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-4a: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
for the project, the applicant shall obtain all necessary agency permits for
impacts to jurisdictional waters, wetlands and riparian resources, including
USACE, CDFW, and SDRWQCB. Impacts to riparian habitat shall be
mitigated at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio. Impacts to unvegetated channel shall
be mitigated at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio. Mitigation for both temporary and
permanent impacts shall be accomplished by one or more of following
options: on- or off-site habitat restoration; purchase of credits from an in-
lieu fee program; and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank. If a
Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is required by any of the respective
U resource agencies (USAGE, SDRWQCB, and CDFW), it shall be prepared
according to agency requirements and shall include, at a minimum, the
following information:
• Location and detailed maps of the mitigation and revegetation areas
• An evaluation of the existing function and values, and a description
of the function and values to be achieved through compensatory
mitigation
• Detailed plant and seed mix requirements
• Detailed planting plan
• Specific and measurable five-year success criteria
• Five-year maintenance and monitoring requirements
• Invasive species management
• Irrigation requirements including the requirement to be off of
irrigation for at least two years prior to final sign-off
• Securing of a bond or line of credit to guarantee success of the
compensatory mitigation
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-4b: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
for the project, a DBESP shall be approved by the RCA to address impacts
to 1.24 acres of riparian/riverine habitat. The DBESP shall include the
following information:
' A-28
• Definition of the project area
• A written project description, demonstrating why an avoidance
alternative is not possible
• A written description of biological information available for the project
site including the results of resource mapping
• Quantification of unavoidable impacts to riparian/riverine areas and
vernal pools associated with the project, including direct and indirect
effects
• A written description of project design features and mitigation
measures that reduce indirect effects, such as edge treatments,
landscaping, elevation difference, minimization and/or compensation
through restoration or enhancement
• A baseline biological assessment of the resources being impacted,
used for comparison of biological equivalency
• A written description of the proposed habitat mitigation, including
habitat type, location, functional lift, and long-term stewardship
responsibility
• A finding demonstrating that although the proposed project would not
avoid impacts, the habitat mitigation would be biologically equivalent
or superior to that which is being impacted and would result in a net
equivalent or superior ecological condition
b. Facts in Support of Findings
As outlined in Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-4a, the project is required to compensate for
impacts to riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio and impacts to unvegetated channel at a 1 :1 ratio.
The mitigation ratio and method will ultimately be determined during the wetland
permitting process through the USACE, SDRWQCB, and CDFW, as applicable. In
addition, Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-4b requires a Determination of Biological
Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) be prepared in accordance with the
guidelines established above and approved by the RCA to address project impacts to
1.24 acres of riparian/riverine habitat. Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-
BIO-4a and MM-BIO-4b would ensure project impacts to riparian/riverine and federally
protected wetlands would be in compliance with state and federal regulatory agency
requirements and would be adequately mitigated to a less than significant level.
5. Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities and Habitat
Impact BIO-6: Implementation of the proposed project could have a
substantial adverse effect on sensitive natural communities identified in
local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.
1 A-29
111 a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to sensitive
vegetation communities and habitat. Specifically, the following measure and Mitigation
Measures MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-4b, and MM-BIO-7c have been included to ensure that
the project's potential impacts are reduced to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-6a: Prior to the issuance of a building permit
for the project, or any phase thereof, the applicant shall pay Local
Development Mitigation fees, as determined by the City of Temecula
Municipal Code Chapter 15, to offset impacts to sensitive habitat and
covered sensitive species. As provided for in the RCA's applicable fee
ordinance and/or adopted resolutions, the applicant may request
discretionary approval from the RCA fee credits for land conserved onsite
that contributes toward the Reserve Assembly of the MSHCP. Any such
request and approval shall not otherwise diminish or void the applicant's
obligation to pay the required Local Development Mitigation fees.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO 6b: At the time of final map recordation for
the project, or any phase thereof, lands identified to contribute to Linkage
Areas and open space areas of the project (Conserved Lands) and included
on the final map shall be conserved in perpetuity through the recordation of
conservation easements in favor of the RCA or deed transfer of said parcels
to the RCA. Conserved Lands shall include all areas identified for the
continued preservation and functionality of Proposed Linkage 10 and
Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. The project shall conserve onsite a
minimum of 87.2 acres, which have been identified at a Criteria Cell level to
include Cells 7077, 7161, 7078, 7164, 7258, 7264, 7355 and 7356.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-6a and MM-BIO-6b require the payment of development
mitigation fees and the conservation of lands in favor of the Western Riverside RCA,
which would ensure that the project has adequately mitigated for impacts to sensitive
habitat covered under the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
6. Impacts to Wildlife Corridors
Impacts BIO-7 and BIO-8: The project could interfere with the movement
of wildlife species, and with established migratory wildlife corridors. The
project could have direct and indirect impacts to the movement of mountain
lion and other wildlife in Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained
Linkage 13.
A-30
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to wildlife corridors,
including Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Specifically, the
following measures and Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-6b, MM-
N01-1a, MM-N01-1b and MM-N01-3 have been included to ensure that the project's
potential impacts are reduced to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-7a: The portion of Camino Estribo that lies
between the South Parcel and the main development area within the project
footprint shall remain as a dirt road to minimize vehicular speeds.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-7b: The applicant shall install permanent
fencing along the Western Bypass where the Bypass right-of-way is
contiguous with existing or proposed MSHCP Conserved Lands, to keep
animals within the wildlife corridor. Prior to the issuance of any construction
permits for the project, the applicant shall prepare and submit a detailed
fencing plan for review and approval by the City Community Development
Department, RCA, CDFW, and USFWS. The fencing plan shall include, at
a minimum, the fencing location, fencing specifications, plant list, and
method and timing of installation.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-7c: A Slope Revegetation Plan shall be
prepared by the project applicant. The Plan shall be submitted for approval
to the City Community Development Department prior to the construction of
the Western Bypass. The Plan shall include, at a minimum:
• The requirement to salvage and stockpile excavated topsoil up to
the first six inches along selected portions of the ground disturbance
area for use in spreading as the top layer of soil in restoring
disturbed areas
• Equipment and methods for planting
• A planting plan, including the amount and species of seed
necessary to revegetate the target habitat types
• Success criteria for the revegetated areas over a five-year period
following installation
• Specific Best Management Practices for erosion control during and
after revegetation
• A requirement for five years of maintenance of the revegetated
areas, including removal of invasive species and irrigation (if
necessary)
A-31
• A requirement for five years of monitoring to evaluate compliance
with the success criteria and to adjust maintenance activities using
an adaptive management approach
• Identification of entity responsible for installation, maintenance, and
monitoring
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-7a through MM-BIO-7c would reduce impacts to Linkage
10 by conserving approximately 83 acres of land onsite within Linkage 10; retaining
Camino Estribo as a dirt road to slow any traffic; installing permanent fencing between
Conserved Lands and the Western Bypass to reduce potential human/wildlife interaction;
and revegetating graded slopes along the Western Bypass abutting existing or proposed
MSHCP Conservation Areas within Proposed Linkage 10 to maximize the wildlife corridor
width and functionality. The project would also be required to adhere to the
Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines in the Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Application of
project design features that include locating the proposed Western Bypass as far to the
east as feasible, consistency with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines as required in
Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, and implementation of the Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-7a
through MM-BIO-7c would ensure that the project would result in less than significant
impacts to wildlife movement within Proposed Linkage 10.
Project features that would buffer wildlife activity along Proposed Constrained Linkage 13
include dense plantings on top of an approximately 10-foot high berm on the southern
side of the building area of the South Parcel, and the installation of 'living walls" (green
walls or modular vegetated walls) on the south and west sides of buildings located on
perimeter lots associated with the South Parcel. The project would also be required to
adhere to the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines in the Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-6b, MM-N01-1a,
MM-N01-1b and MM-N01-3 would safeguard and minimize impacts to wildlife movement
within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Application of project features, consistency
with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines as required in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP,
and implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures would result in less than
significant impacts to wildlife movement within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13.
7. Conflicts with Provisions of Local Policies and Conservation Plans
Western Riverside County MSHCP
Impact BIO-9: The project would have an onsite shortfall of conserved
acres for impacts to riparian and grassland habitat.
Impact BIO-10: Project impacts to riparian/riverine habitat could result in
the project being inconsistent with the MSHCP.
' A-32
Impact BIO-11: Project impacts at urban/wildland interface areas could
result in the project being inconsistent with the Urban/Wildland Interface
Guidelines.
Impact 13I0-12: The project could have a significant effect on Proposed
Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, and, therefore, could be
inconsistent with the MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors.
Impact BIO-13: Project design and construction of the Western Bypass, a
Covered Activity, could result in the project being inconsistent with the
Planned Roadway Criteria of the MSHCP.
a. Findings
The project has a potential to conflict with the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to the
potential conflicts stated above with the MSHCP. Specifically, implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-4b, MM-
BIO-6a through MM-BIO-7c, MM-N01-1a, MM-N01-1b, MM-N01-3, MM-HYD-1, MM-
HYD-2, and MM-HYD-3 are imposed on the project to ensure that project impacts are
less than significant.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The MSHCP protects and preserves certain habitats and species in the region. The
project falls within the jurisdiction of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The project
is consistent with the MSHCP reserve assembly goals as determined by the Area Plan
Subregional analysis contained in the Draft EIR, in conjunction with the proposed Project
Conservation Features. Implementation of the mitigation measures above would ensure
that the project is consistent with the MSHCP as the project would be in Rough Step with
the MSHCP reserve goals; implement mitigation for impacts to riparian and riverine
habitat; and would be consistent with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines (Impacts
BIO 9-11).
In regards to consistency with the MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors, Proposed Linkage
10 and Propose Constrained Linkage 13, application of project features and
implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures would require the such
things as light and glare standards for the development; permanent fencing between
Proposed Linkage 10 and the proposed Western Bypass; conservation of land within
Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13; noise reduction measures and
application of BMPs during construction; slope revegetation for manufactured slopes
along the edge of Proposed Linkage 10 and the proposed Western Bypass; and
adherence to operational exterior noise standards. Incorporation of the above referenced
mitigation measures would align the project with the goals and requirements of the
MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors (Impact BIO-12).
' A-33
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-4b, MM-
BIO-6b, MM-BIO-7c, the project would be consistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria,
Section 7.5.1 of the MSHCP, as shown in the consistency analysis on page 3.3-65 and
3.3-66 in Section 3.3, Biological Resources (see Draft EIR). Therefore, implementation of
the referenced above mitigation measures would allow for the redesign of the Western
Bypass to be consistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria and impacts would be less
than significant (Impact BIO-12).
8. Cumulative Biological Impacts
a. Findings
The proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably
foreseeable development within the jurisdiction of the MSHCP, could result in potentially
significant cumulative impacts to biological resources, especially special status wildlife
species, sensitive vegetation communities and wildlife corridors. Changes or alterations
have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen
the potentially significant environmental effects related to biological resources.
Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-4a,
MM-BIO-4b, MM-BIO-6a, MM-BIO-6b, MM-BIO-7a, MM-BIO-7b, and MM-BIO-7c would
reduce impacts to less than significant.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Development of the proposed project would contribute to the urbanization of the City of
Temecula. The City, along with other jurisdictions in western Riverside County,
participates in the MSHCP. The MSHCP is designed to protect over 150 species and
conserve over 500,000 acres in western Riverside County. Project compliance with the
MSHCP fully mitigates for impacts on covered species and ensures large segments of
natural communities in western Riverside County will be preserved. As such, participation
in and compliance with the MSHCP ensures the project's contribution to cumulative
impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
D. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Historical and Archaeological Resources
Impact CUL-1: The project area is considered moderately to highly
sensitive for cultural resources. In addition, a portion of the project area is
within the Origin Landscape Traditional Cultural Property (TCP), one of the
most sacred areas for the Pechanga Tribe. The lack of identified intact
subsurface archaeological materials reduces the likelihood of encountering
buried archaeological resources during project implementation, but does
not preclude the possibility that archaeological resources may be present in
areas not subject to archaeological investigation. In the event that
archaeological resources are inadvertently encountered during project
implementation, disturbances to such resources could result in a substantial
adverse change to historical resources as defined by CEQA. Disturbances
A-34
to archaeological resources would require consideration of impacts to any
archaeological resources individually and as contributors to the larger
National Register-listed archaeological district (P-33-11443 — MCAA), as
well as consideration as contributors to the National Register-listed Origin
Landscape TCP.
a. Findings
The proposed project has a potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of historical and archaeological resources. Changes or alterations have been
required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant effects to historical and archaeological resources. The project
applicant shall be responsible for the implementation of the required mitigation measures
and the City shall ensure applicant compliance with the measures. Specifically, the
following measures have been included to ensure that the project's impacts are less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-la — Retention of a Qualified
Archaeologist: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start
of any ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain a qualified
archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the
Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (Department
of the Interior, 2012), and as approved by the City of Temecula, to carry out
all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources and to
coordinate the archaeological program with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno
Indians (Pechanga Tribe). The Project archaeologist will have the authority
to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to
evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation
with the Pechanga Tribal Monitor.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-lb - Retention of a Professional
Pechanga Tribal Monitor: At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading
permit, the project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the
Tribe of their intent to pull permits for the proposed grading and excavation,
and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment
and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of
known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation
of professional Pechanga Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and
ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling;
terms of compensation for the monitors, including overtime and weekend
rates, in addition to mileage reimbursement; and treatment and final
disposition of any cultural resource , sacred sites, and human remains
discovered on the site. The Pechanga Tribal Monitor will have the authority
to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to
evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation
with the Project archaeologist. Such evaluation shall include culturally
A-35
appropriate temporary and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement
which may include avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation
and/or re-burial on the project property in an area that will not be subject to
future disturbances for preservation in perpetuity.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-lc — Cultural Resources Sensitivity
Training: The qualified archeologist or an archaeologist working under the
direction of the qualified archaeologist, and a representative of the
Pechanga Tribe shall conduct preconstruction cultural resources sensitivity
training which will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the
project and the surrounding area to inform construction personnel of the
types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper
procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of
archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant shall ensure
that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training
and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance. All new
construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial
training must take the cultural resources sensitivity training prior to
beginning work and the project archaeologist and Pechanga Tribe shall
make themselves available to provide the training on an as-needed basis.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1d — Archaeological and Native
American Monitoring and Resurvey of the South Parcel: Prior to
issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation removal
or ground disturbing activity, a qualified archaeological monitor and
Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be retained by the applicant to monitor
ground disturbing activities including, but not limited to, brush clearance and
grubbing, grading, trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing
and access roads as indicated in MM-CUL-la and lb. The archaeological
and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall re-survey the South Parcel involving
ground disturbance, after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to
other ground disturbing activities. This will ensure that previously
undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified and
appropriate treatment measures for the resources can be developed.
Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar
with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be
encountered within the project, and under direct supervision of the qualified
archaeologist. If ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or
more locations located more than 500 feet apart, additional archaeological
and Pechanga Tribal monitors may be required.
The archaeological and Native American Pechanga Tribal monitors shall
keep daily and/or weekly logs. After monitoring has been completed, the
qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the
A-36
results of monitoring, which shall be submitted to the City, Pechanga, and
to the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-le — Unanticipated Discovery: If cultural
resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbing activities,
the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of
the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist, who shall
inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery, during normal working hours.
The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the
Pechanga Tribe, shall assess the significance of discovered resources and
shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the
Pechanga Tribe. Avoidance shall be the preferred manner of mitigation
pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b). Preservation in place may
be accomplished by, but is not limited to, complete avoidance, incorporating
the resource into open space or deeding the site into a permanent
conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is
demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is
determined to be the only feasible mitigation option, a treatment plan shall
be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist, in consultation
with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe. The treatment plan shall provide
for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information
contained in the archaeological resource. The Pechanga Tribe shall be
consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond
that which is scientifically important, are considered and additional
appropriate mitigation to address the cultural values is applied. The
treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis, reporting, and
curation/disposition of resources in accordance with the Treatment
Agreement required in MM-CUL-lb.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-If - Completed Avoidance of Impacts to
the TCP: The City and the Project Applicant/Land Owner shall ensure that
no impacts occur to the Traditional Cultural Property south of the proposed
South Parcel Area. This includes, but is not limited to off-site improvements,
staging activities, trenching, geotechnical work, Riverside County Flood
Control improvements, Water Department impacts, Public Works projects,
biological and fire control programs, and any other program or project that
would affect the integrity of the TCP. Should any of these activities, or others
as indicated, be proposed, the City and the Applicant/Land Owner shall
contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation and review.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The project area was investigated by a professional archaeologist, who concluded that
seven known cultural resources are located within the project area. Ground-disturbing
, activities during construction and development of the project would have the potential to
uncover previously unidentified archaeological resources within the project area.
A-37
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1a through MM-CUL-1d
requires the retention of a qualified archaeologist and a professional Pechanga Tribal
monitor, completion of preconstruction cultural resources training, archaeological and
Pechanga Tribal monitoring during ground-disturbing activities, and the resurvey of the
South Parcel after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing
activities. Also, Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1e establishes the appropriate protocol in
the event of an inadvertent discovery of buried cultural resource. If cultural resources are
discovered, work must halt immediately within 100 feet of the discovery and avoidance or
mitigation is required as appropriate based on a determination of the Tribe member and
archaeologist. Specific to the Origin Landscape TCP, Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1f
mandates that the City and the Project Application shall ensure that no impacts occur to
the Origin Landscape TCP south of the proposed Civic Nature Center area. If activities
which could affect the integrity of the TCP should be proposed, the City and the Project
Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation. As
such, this mitigation measure would ensure that any potential unanticipated impacts to
historical and archaeological resources are reduced to less than significant.
2. Impacts to Paleontological Resources
Impact CUL-2: The potential exists for unique paleontological
resources to be located beneath the ground surface in the project
area, specifically within the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation
111
(Qp), which has high sensitivity for paleontological resources.
Construction activities could result in the inadvertent discovery and
damage of these paleontological resources, which would be a
significant impact.
a. Findings
The proposed project has a potential to result in impacts to a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature. Changes or alterations have been required in
or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially
significant environmental effects to paleontological resources. Specifically, the following
measures have been included to ensure that the project's potential cultural and
paleontological resource impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2a — Paleontological Resource Impact
Mitigation Program (PRIMP): The applicant shall implement the
paleontological mitigation program outlined in the PRIMP (Kennedy and
Wirths, 2013) during project implementation. The PRIMP requires
paleontological monitoring of mapped exposures of the sandstone facies of
the Pauba Formation (Qp) as shown on Attachment 3a of the PRIMP. In
addition, because the fanglomerate facies of the Pauba Formation is
considered to have undetermined potential to yield significant
paleontological resources, initial excavations into the unit shall be spot-
checked by a qualified paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist meeting
the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology Standards, 2010) to determine if
A-38
the lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the preservation of unique
paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist shall also contribute
to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training, either in
person or via a module provided to the qualified archaeologist.
Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist, or a monitor
working under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist. Monitors
shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed
fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. The qualified paleontologist,
based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors, may
reduce or discontinue monitoring, as warranted, if the qualified
paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous
deposits is low. Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of
activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. Any fossils recovered
shall be prepared to the point of identification and curated at an accredited
facility. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and
mitigation report to be submitted to the City and filed with the local
repository.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2b — Unanticipated Paleontological
Resources Discoveries: If construction or other project personnel discover
any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work,
work at the discovery location shall cease until the qualified paleontologist
has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the
appropriate treatment.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The project area is underlain by Jurassic to Cretaceous metavolcanic and
metasedimentary rocks, Cretaceous granodiorites, and the Pauba Formation (both the
fanglomerate and sandstone facies). Although the Jurassic to Cretaceous metavolcanic
and metasedimentary rocks, Cretaceous granodiorite of Rainbow, and Pauba Formation
fanglomerate have a low sensitivity for paleontological resources, the Pauba Formation
sandstone facies is considered to have high sensitivity and the Pauba Formation
fanglomerate is considered to have undetermined sensitivity per the Society for
Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) guidelines. The paleontological records search (see
Kennedy and Wirths 2013) and the research conducted for this analysis indicate that
fossil localities have been documented in the vicinity of the project area.
In accordance with the City's General Plan (Implementation Program OS-26), Mitigation
Measures MM-CUL-2a and MM-CUL-2b would require the preparation and
implementation of a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP)during
project implementation as well as establishes the appropriate protocol in the event of an
inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources. As such, if project construction
uncovers any unanticipated paleontological resources, these mitigation measures would
ensure that impacts are reduced to less than significant.
111 A-39
3. Impacts to 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
Construction of the proposed project has a potential to disturb human remains. Changes
or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to human remains.
Specifically,the following measure has been included to ensure that the project's potential
impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3— Human Remains: If human remains are
uncovered during project construction, the applicant shall immediately halt
work and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section
15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, which require compliance with Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section
5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The applicant shall immediately contact
the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate the remains. If the County
Coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not subject
to his or her authority, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall designate
a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the remains, who shall have 48 hours
from the time of being granted access to the site to provide
recommendations to the landowner for the means of treating or disposing
of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave
goods. Until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD, the
landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery
occurred is not subject to further disturbances, is adequately protected
according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and
that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. In
the event that no MLD is identified, or if the MLD fails to make a
recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the
recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide
measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner may reinter the
remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the
property in a location not subject to further disturbance.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Although no human remains have been identified on the project Site, implementation of
the proposed project would include ground-disturbing construction activities that could
result in the inadvertent disturbance of currently undiscovered human remains.
Procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains on non-federal lands
A-40
are mandated by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, by Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98, and by CEQA in California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e).
According to these provisions, should human remains be encountered, all work in the
immediate vicinity of the burial must cease, and any necessary steps to ensure the
integrity of the immediate area must be taken. The remains are required to be left in place
and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and their disposition
has been made. The Riverside County Coroner would be immediately notified, and the
coroner would then determine whether the remains are Native American. Any discovery
of human remains within the project Site would be subject to these procedural
requirements. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3 expressly requires that construction work
halt if human remains are identified. Compliance with these requirements and
implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3 would ensure impacts to human
remains would be less than significant.
4. Cumulative Cultural Resources Impacts
a. Findings
The proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably
foreseeable development within the City of Temecula, could result in potentially significant
cumulative impacts to cultural resources and buried human remains. Changes or
alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to cultural
resources. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1 a through MM-
CUL-1f, MM-CUL-2a, MM-CUL-2b, and MM-CUL-3 would reduce impacts to less than
significant.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Cumulative impacts to cultural resources in the City of Temecula could occur if the project
and other cumulative projects had or would have impacts on cultural resources that,when
considered together, would be cumulatively significant. The project vicinity contains a
significant archaeological and historical record that, in many cases, has not been well
documented or recorded. Thus, there is the potential for ongoing and future development
projects in the vicinity to disturb known or unknown cultural resources, including
archaeological sites, historic-period built resources, and resources of traditional and
cultural significance to Native American tribes. However, implementation of Mitigation
Measures MM-CUL-1 a through MM-CUL-1e would ensure that any potentially significant
impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to a less than significant level by
implementing the appropriate archaeological protocols and methods.
Three of the identified cumulative projects (refer to Table 4-1 in the Draft EIR) are within
the Origin Landscape TCP. The majority of the Origin Landscape TCP is located within
the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, which is protected from significant development;
therefore, most of the Origin Landscape TCP would not be impacted by past, present, or
future development. The three cumulative projects within the Origin Landscape TCP
A-41
would be expected to have similar impacts on the TCP, and would likely incorporate
similar mitigation measures as the proposed project (Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1f).
The proposed project includes several mitigation measures that reduce potential impacts
to the TCP to less than significant, at the project level. With implementation of these
mitigation measures, the project's contribution to a cumulative impact would less than
cumulatively considerable.
Excavation activities associated with the project and cumulative projects could contribute
to the progressive loss of fossil remains, at-yet unrecorded fossil sites, associated
geological and geographic data, and fossil bearing strata. The project would have a less
than significant impact to paleontological resources with incorporation of mitigation
measures (MM-CUL-2a and MM-CUL-2b). With the implementation of these measures,
the projects contribution to cumulative impacts on paleontological resources would be
less than cumulatively considerable.
Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3 would mitigate the
project's potential to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries, and the project's contribution to a cumulative impact to human remains would
less than cumulatively considerable.
E. GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS
1. Consistency with GHG Emissions Reduction Plans or Policies
Impact GHG-2: The project could potentially conflict with the goals of the
City of Temecula's Sustainability Plan to reduce GHG emissions.
a. Findings
Implementation of the proposed project could potentially conflict with the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan and the Temecula Sustainability Plan. 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 a GHG Reduction Plan or Policy to less than significant. Specifically, the following
measure as well as Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1a through MM-AQ-1e have been
included to ensure that the project's potential impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1: Upon full entitlement of the project and
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project, the project
applicant shall submit an application for a Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan
through the U.S. Green Building Council. If the application meets the LEED-
ND prerequisites, the project applicant shall continue with the certification,
and the project shall receive a minimum base-level LEED-ND certification
within two years of project build-out. If Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan approval
is denied, the project applicant shall nevertheless incorporate the following
measures in the project design that are normally scored to achieve LEED
A-42
111
standards and shall achieve a fifteen-percent (15%) reduction in energy use
beyond 2016 Title 24 building standards by undertaking the following:
1) Provide parking associated with electrical charging stations;
2) Subsidize public transit and expand transit network (e.g., help fund
Riverside Transportation Authority and City smart shuttle or bike share
programs);
3) Provide an enhanced pedestrian network, including pedestrian
connections to the local community;
4) Provide traffic calming measures and urban non-motorized zones;
5) Install bicycle parking and storage, as well as dedicated bike lanes or
trails with connectivity to the local community and recreation areas;
6) Prohibit wood-burning fireplaces;
7) Where practicable, install or ensure facilities are compatible with
renewable energy (e.g. solar photovoltaics);
8) Install energy efficient boilers and appliances, including programmable
thermostat timers;
9) Install energy efficient street and area lighting, including LED traffic lights,
motion detection lighting, and limited outdoor lighting for security and safety
purposes;
10) Install electrical outlets compatible with electric yard equipment;
11) Provide for use of reclaimed water;
12) Install low-flow bathroom and kitchen fixtures (e.g., faucets, toilets, and
showers);
13) Install water efficient irrigation systems;
14) Where practicable, reuse or recycle materials from operation and
construction activities.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Out of the Recommended Actions contained in CARB's Scoping Plan, the actions that
are most applicable to the project would be Actions E-1 (increased Utility Energy
efficiency programs including more stringent building and appliance standards), GB-1
1 (Green building), and W-1 (Increased water use efficiency). CARB Scoping Plan Action
E-1, together with Action GB-1 (Green Building), aims to reduce electricity demand by
A-43
111
increased efficiency of Utility Energy Programs and adoption of more stringent building
and appliance standards, while Action W-1 aims to promote water use efficiency. The
project would be designed to comply with the CALGreen Code to ensure that the new
residential and non-residential uses would use resources (energy, water, etc.) efficiently
and significantly reduce pollution and waste. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-
AQ-1d would further require that buildings implement energy efficiency standards that
exceed the 2016 Title 24 standards by 15 percent or include onsite renewable energy,
such as the incorporation of solar panels into project development, such that 9 percent
of the onsite energy consumption is offset, both of which are reflected in the emission
inventory for the project presented in Table 3.6-2 (refer to the Draft EIR). Therefore, the
project would be consistent with the Scoping Plan measures through incorporation of
stricter building and appliance standards.
The Sustainability Plan is designed as a blueprint by which the City of Temecula can
address sustainability and climate change by setting targets for GHG reductions, energy
and water use,growth planning, reducing waste and championing emerging technologies.
The initiatives contained in the Sustainability Plan include a variety of goals aimed at
reducing GHG emissions city-wide and advancing development that enhances the
pedestrian and transit environment. The project, which would be subject to the building
requirements of the CALGreen Code, would support the City's effort of reducing GHG
emissions related to energy demand. Also, the Specific Plan includes many elements that
would serve to promote alternatives to vehicle use or otherwise reduce operational GHG
emissions consistent with the Sustainability Plan. Additionally, eliminating hearths will
also reduce GHG emissions. Increasing energy efficiency over Title 24 or incorporating,
renewable energy sources onsite, as identified in Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1d, will also
provide a reduction in GHG emissions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-
lwould require the Project Applicant to apply to obtain at minimum base-level LEED-ND
certification within two years of project build-out; if the project is denied the LEED-ND
certification, the Project Applicant shall nevertheless incorporate the measures stated in
MM-GHG-1 into the project design that are normally scored to achieve LEED standards
and shall achieve a fifteen-percent reduction in energy use beyond 2016 Title 24 building
standards. With incorporation of the mentioned above mitigation measures, the project
would include to the maximum extent feasible technologies and means to reduce GHG
emissions and would be consistent with all applicable GHG emission reduction plans.
F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1. Hazards associated with Wildfires
Impact HAZ-1: The project site is near a high fire hazard area which could
increase the threat of wildfire on human populations and property.
a. Findings
A-44
The project site is near a high fire hazard area, where development and residents could
be at an increased risk of damage from wildfires. Changes or alterations have been
required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant environmental effects from wildfires to less than significant.
Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that development of the
project would result in less than significant impacts related to wildfires.
Measure MM-HAZ-1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
project, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Fire Modification Plan
(FMP) for the project to the City Community Development and Fire
Departments for review and approval. The FMP shall address areas within
the project boundary that are adjacent to a proposed Western Riverside
County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation
Area. The FMP shall include, without limitation, the following information
and standards:
• Environmental setting that describes the topography and geology,
climate, flammable vegetation in and around the project site, water
supply for fire protection, fire access roads, and fire protection
systems and equipment
• General description of fire behavior in the project area based on such
factors as predominant fuel types, topography and climate
• The establishment of a 100-foot wide fuel modification area located
within the project boundary for land adjacent to a proposed MSHCP
Conservation Area
• A fuel modification area shall have two distinct fuel modification
zones: Zone 1 and Zone 2
• A site plan identifying the location of the fuel modification area and
zones
• Zone 1 shall extend 30 feet from any habitable structure;Zone 2 shall
extend 70 feet beyond Zone 1
• Zone 1 shall include the following minimum standards:
o No habitable structures
o New construction (i.e. fences, walls, gazebos) must be non-
combustible and/or have a minimum 1-hour fire rating
o Plants should be primarily low growing (less than 4 feet in
height), low-fuel, and fire resistant
' A-45
' o Regular Maintenance to include thinning and pruning of trees
and plants
• Zone 2 shall include the following minimum standards:
o Regular maintenance to include selective thinning and
pruning of native and nonnative plants to reduce fuel load
• A list of plants not recommended to be used within the fuel modification
zones
• Identification of entity responsible for regular maintenance
b. Facts in Support of Findings
According to the City of Temecula General Plan and GIS Map Data, a portion of the
project is near a High Fire Hazard Area. The Western Bypass will serve as a fire break
between wildland areas and proposed development. In addition, mitigation measure HAZ-
1 requires that a Fuel Modification Plan be prepared as part of the project and
incorporated into the Altair Specific Plan to identify appropriate structure setbacks and
landscape requirements for the interior of the project to address this hazard. Also, the
project would be required to adhere to all fire suppression requirements in accordance
with the most recent Uniform Fire Code, which provides minimum fire safety measures
that would be incorporated into all building designs. Specifically, the following measure
has been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts remain less than
significant.
G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Operational Impacts to Stormwater Runoff and Drainage System
Capacity
Impact HYD-1: Future development occurring under the proposed Specific
Plan could result in impacts to hydrology.
a. Findings
Operation of the proposed project has a potential to affect stormwater runoff and drainage
system capacity. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects
to hydrological impacts to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure has
been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a
final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer in
accordance with the Riverside County Hydrology Manual and submitted to
Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City,
Riverside County, and engineering standards. The final study shall identify
A-46
storm water runoff quantities from the development of this site, and shall
identify all existing or proposed drainage facilities intended to discharge this
runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving
the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property or any
substantial adverse change in receiving water quality or habitat values; the
final study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all
facilities and any features to include in the design to minimize or avoid runoff
impacts. Features to be included in the site design shall conform with the
City of Temecula MS4 permit and Stormwater Ordinance, and may include,
for example:
1) Non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control BMPs;
2) Infiltration basins, detention basins, vegetated swales, and media filters;
3) Pervious concrete, storm drain stenciling or signage, protection of
material and trash storage areas from rainfall; and
4) Other low impact development (LID) BMPs, including measures to
reduce increases in runoff through hydromodification and infiltration
protection.
If the receiving facilities are determined to be under capacity, then onsite
detention and/or alternative drainage facilities and outfalls shall be required
as needed to avoid damage to public or private property and alterations in
water quality or habitat values.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The project proposes an onsite storm drainage system to collect and transfer storm flows
through the site as required by the City of Temecula. The onsite storm drainage system
would be a dual system that would minimize the potential comingling of runoff from the
developed and non-developed areas of the project as urban stormwater would be
required to be treated while runoff from non-developed areas would not. This secondary
system would collect and carry storm flows from the natural open spaces west of the
proposed Western Bypass, through the project site, and directly into Murrieta Creek. The
other storm drain system would collect and treat surface runoff from the proposed
development, before exiting the site. The presence of new development within the project
area and changes in the extent of permeable or impermeable surfaces would alter the
direction and volume of overland flows during both wet and dry periods.
A preliminary drainage study has already been prepared for the site to determine the peak
post-developed onsite 100-year flow rates for the site. Preliminary hydrologic analyses
have been performed for Altair. The analyses determined since the majority of the project
discharges directly into Murrieta Creek, detention should not be required. However,
existing condition analyses have not been performed. Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1
requires that a final drainage study be prepared by an engineer that will identify existing
A-47
conditions and will verify the capacity of the existing receiving drainage facilities. If the
receiving facilities are determined to under capacity, then detention would be considered.
Further, overland flows and drainage at each development would be assessed and
drainage facilities designed such that development project within the project site would
be required to implement low impact design (LID) BMPs that are designed to retain onsite
the pollutants contained in the volume of storm water runoff produced from a 24-hour,
85th percentile storm event; and post-project runoff conditions would not exceed pre-
development runoff conditions by more than 10 percent. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure MM-HYD-1 and adherence to the requirements found in the MS4 permit would
ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff would occur and that the existing
capacity of storm water drainage systems would not be exceeded. Impacts would be less
than significant.
2. Construction Impacts to Water Quality and Water Quality Standards
Impact HYD-2: Construction of future development occurring under the
proposed Specific Plan could result in impacts to water quality.
a. Findings
Construction of the proposed project has a potential to violate water quality standards or
otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Changes or alterations have been required
in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially
significant environmental effects to water quality and water quality impacts to less than
significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that operation
of the project would result in less than significant impacts to water quality.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-2: The developer shall obtain coverage
under the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit. When the
anticipated total construction disturbance would be greater than one acre,
the Construction General Permit requires the preparation and
implementation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer, which
would examine existing site conditions, identify the sources of sediment and
other pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water discharges during
construction and would describe the implementation and maintenance of
erosion control, sediment control, waste management and good
housekeeping BMPs to reduce or eliminate the potential for sediment or
other pollutants to mix with storm water runoff during construction.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The project would be developed in three phases over an approximate 10-year time frame,
with the phased construction of streets, utilities and other infrastructure, as needed, for
each respective phase. Construction of each phase is estimated to take approximately
three years to complete. Construction activities associated with new development would
' involve earthwork activities, including grading and stockpiling of soils. Disturbance of soils
formerly protected with vegetation or covered by asphalt or concrete could become
A-48
exposed to winds or water flows that could result in the discharge of sedimentation and/or
pollutants which would degrade surface water quality. Furthermore, construction would
require the use of heavy equipment and construction-related building materials and
chemicals, such as concrete, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease,
solvents and paints. These potentially harmful materials could be accidentally spilled or
improperly disposed of during construction and could wash into and pollute surface
waters or groundwater, which would result in a significant impact to surface water quality.
However, according to Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-2, when the anticipated total
construction disturbance would be greater than one acre,the developer would be required
to obtain coverage under the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit. The
Construction General Permit requires the development to prepare and implement a
SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). The QSD prepared SWPPP would
identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of
stormwater discharges during construction and describe the implementation and
maintenance various BMPs to reduce or eliminate the potential for sediment or pollutants
to come into contact with stormwater runoff during construction. The common types of
construction BMPs that would likely be included in the project-specific SWPPP include
sediment, erosion, and waste management BMPs, as described further in Table 3.8-5
(refer to the Draft EIR). The QSD would ensure the SWPPP is designed such that the
environment is protected to the maximum extent practicable throughout the entirety of
construction. In addition, the Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) would ensure
compliance with the SWPPP through regular monitoring and visual inspections during
construction activities, as required by the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP
would be amended and BMPs revised, as determined necessary through field
inspections, to protect against substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite.
Developments disturbing less than one acre would not be required to comply with the
Construction General Permit, but would be required to submit a facility construction BMP
plan per SDWQCB MS4 Permit requirements at the time of construction. The construction
BMP plan would detail seasonally appropriate and effective BMPs for construction of
individual projects and would require approval from the City of Temecula.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-2 and compliance with the above
referenced regulations, construction-related impacts to water quality from the project
would be less than significant.
3. Operation Impacts to Water Quality and Water Quality Standards
Impact HYD-3: Operation of future development occurring under the
proposed Specific Plan could result in impacts to water quality.
a. Findings
Operation of the proposed project has a potential to violate water quality standards or
otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Changes or alterations have been
required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
A-49
potentially significant environmental effects to water quality and water quality impacts to
less than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure
that operation of the project would result in less than significant impacts to water quality.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-3: As a condition of approval, each future
development project will be required to generate a project-specific Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula
Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff
Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements specific
water quality features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater
Ordinance requirements. Each project-specific WQMP shall be reviewed
and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building
or grading permit.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The project would include a residential mixed-use development with a Nature Center
and associated facilities and dedicated open space. The introduction of residential and
commercial uses to an area previously containing open space uses would introduce the
potential for new pollutants associated with residential and commercial uses to be
generated in the area. These pollutants could potentially discharge into surface waters
either directly or during storm water runoff events, resulting in degradation of surface
111
water quality. The waterbody near the project area (Murrieta Creek) is currently listed as
impaired on the EPA's 303(d) list by point, nonpoint and urban runoff sources, including
metals/metalloids, nutrients, pesticides and toxicity. Operation of the project could
create new or exacerbate existing impairments within this waterbodies, which would
result in a significant impact related to water quality.
However, operation of future developments within the project site would be required to
comply with the development planning requirements of the SDRWQCB MS4 permit in
effect at the time of construction and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance. These
include implementation of non-structural, structural, and source control and treatment
control BMPs during the planning process prior to project approval for development
projects. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared that
identifies the BMP5 for stormwater treatment facilities, source control, and site design
(Appendix G of the Draft EIR). The Preliminary WQMP addresses the project-specific
constraints of the site and proposed treatment and filtration of storm water runoff. The
runoff from the proposed developed surfaces would be treated for water quality purposes.
The proposed treatment train would incorporate a variety of biofiltration and bioretention
facilities along with bioswales where feasible to reduce any potential water quality impacts
on Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River Watershed.
In addition, Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-3 would require each future development
proposed under the Specific Plan to prepare and implement a project-specific WQMP to
ensure that the project implements specific water quality features to meet the City's MS4
Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Each future development proposal
A-50
occurring under the proposed Specific Plan would be assessed individually to ensure
compliance with applicable NPDES requirements. Implementation of site-specific source
control and treatment control BMPs in accordance with the SDRWQCB MS4 permit in
effect at the time of construction and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance, per
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-3, would remove potential pollutants from runoff and would
not contribute additional pollutant loads into receiving waters. The SDRWQCB MS4
permit and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance require that each project-specific
WQMP shall include a drainage hydrologic/hydraulic analysis that details the site's
anticipated runoff calculations. With implementation of these requirements, the individual
development projects that would be implemented by the proposed Specific Plan would
not result in adverse impacts to water quality during project operation. Impacts would be
less than significant.
H. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. Conflicts with Provisions of an HCP or NCCP
Impact LU-1: The project could be inconsistent with the MSHCP goals and
objectives governing the assembly of conservation lands, wildlife linkages,
and riparian/riverine resources.
The project's potential impacts to or conflicts with the Western Riverside County MSHCP
are discussed in the Biological Resources section above to address the CEQA
Guidelines, Appendix G standard of whether the project would conflict with the provisions
of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Nonetheless, the EIR restates this standard of
significance in its Land Use and Planning analysis without additional discussion. As such,
the project's potential impacts to or conflicts with the Western Riverside County MSHCP
are presented again here.
a. Findings
The project has a potential to be inconsistent with the MSHCP goals and objectives
governing the assembly of conservation lands, wildlife linkages, and riparian/riverine
resources. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related
to conflicts with a habitat conservation plan. Specifically, Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-
1, MM-BIO-2, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-4b, MM-BIO-6a, MM-BIO-6b, MM-BIO-
7a, MM-BIO-7b, MM-BIO-7c, AES-1, NOI-1 a, NOI-1b, and NOI-31b, described in the
Aesthetics, Biological Resources, and Noise and Vibration sections, would ensure that
the project would be consistent with all applicable guidelines of the MSHCP and impacts
would be less than significant.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The MSHCP protects and preserves certain habitats and species in the region. The
project falls within the jurisdiction of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The project
is consistent with the MSHCP reserve assembly goals as determined by the Area Plan
A-51
Subregional analysis contained in the Draft EIR, in conjunction with the proposed Project
Conservation Features. Implementation of the mitigation measures above would ensure
that the project is consistent with the MSHCP as the project would be in Rough Step with
the MSHCP reserve goals; implement mitigation for impacts to riparian and riverine
habitat; and would be consistent with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines.
In regards to consistency with the MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors, Proposed Linkage
10 and Propose Constrained Linkage 13, application of project features and
implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures would require the such
things as light and glare standards for the development; permanent fencing between
Proposed Linkage 10 and the proposed Western Bypass; conservation of land within
Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13; noise reduction measures and
application of BMPs during construction; slope revegetation for manufactured slopes
along the edge of Proposed Linkage 10 and the proposed Western Bypass; and
adherence to operational exterior noise standards. Incorporation of the above referenced
mitigation measures would align the project with the goals and requirements of the
MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-4b, MM-
BIO-6b, MM-BIO-7c, the project would be consistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria,
Section 7.5.1 of the MSHCP, as shown in the consistency analysis on page 3.3-65 and
3.3-66 in Section 3.3, Biological Resources (see Draft EIR). Therefore, implementation of
the referenced above mitigation measures would allow for the redesign of the Western •
111
Bypass to be consistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria and impacts would be less
than significant. The project would be consistent with the MSHCP with implementation of
the mitigation measures referenced above and would result in less than significant
impacts associated with consistency with habitat conservation plans or natural community
conservation plans.
I. NOISE AND VIBRATION
1. Violation of City Exterior Noise Standards during Operation
Impact NOI-3: New developments within the project area may introduce
noise levels that could exceed the City's exterior noise standards at
adjacent properties to and/or near the new development sites.
a. Findings
Operation of the proposed project has the potential to violate the City's exterior noise
standards at the adjacent properties and/or near the new development sites. Changes or
alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects from operational
noise levels to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included
to ensure that operation of the project would result in less than significant impacts related
to operational noise levels.
' A-52
Mitigation Measure MM-N01-3: Prior to the issuance of a building permit
for future developments in the project, the applicant shall provide evidence
to the City that operational noise levels generated by the proposed
development would not exceed the City's permissible exterior noise
standards that are applicable to adjacent properties. If City noise standards
at the adjacent properties would be exceeded, design measures shall be
taken to ensure that operational noise levels associated with the proposed
development would be reduced to levels that comply with the permissible
City noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to,
the erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, and/or the design of
adequate setback distances for the new developments.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The City has established exterior noise standards that correlate with land use zoning
classifications and represent the maximum acceptable exterior noise level, as measured
at the property boundary (refer to Table 3.10-5 of the Draft EIR). Under the project, new
land uses that would occur in the project area include residential, commercial,
institutional, primary education, community recreation, open space/parks, roadways and
mixed-use developments. The nearest offsite land uses that would be exposed to
operational noise levels generated by the project's new land uses would be those that are
111
currently located along and immediately adjacent to the project site's eastern boundary.
However, because open space areas are proposed to be located between the adjacent
offsite land uses to the east and the new neighborhood villages within the project site, it
is not anticipated that operational noise levels generated by the new onsite land uses
would result in violations of the City's exterior noise standards at the existing offsite land
uses.
As development of new land uses gradually occur within the project area over the 10-year
buildout period, operational noise levels could potentially exceed the City's exterior noise
standards at an adjacent land use which has already been development within the project
area. The determination of operational noise impacts associated with any violation of the
City's exterior noise standards at the future properties within the project area would be
too speculative at this point in the planning process, as the specific location of individual
projects and their distances from each other is currently unknown. However, for the
purpose of conducting a conservative analysis in the ER, it is anticipated that there would
be scenarios in the future where the operation of a future individual development project
within the project area would result in the violation of the City's exterior noise standards
at an adjacent or nearby land use. These impacts are considered to be potentially
significant.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-N01-3 would require applicants of
future developments in the project area to demonstrate compliance with the City's
permissible exterior noise standards prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City.
Where the City's exterior noise standards would be exceeded for a new development,
A-53
adequate design measures would need to be incorporated into the new development
(e.g., noise walls, landscaping, setbacks) such that the noise standards can be achieved.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-N01-3 would ensure that future development
under the Specific Plan would not exceed the City's exterior noise standards and impacts
related to operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
2. Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels
Impact NOI-4: New development within the project area could expose
nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels exceeding 5 dBA over ambient
levels due to operation of HVAC equipment; or to noise levels from the
operation of mechanical equipment such that interior noise residential noise
levels could exceed 45 dBA Ldn.
a. Findings
Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to permanently increase ambient
noise levels due to operation of HVAC equipment or other mechanical equipment.
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects from an increase
in ambient noise levels to less than significant. Specifically, the following measures have
been included to ensure that operation of the project would result in less than significant
impacts related to an increase in ambient noise levels due to operation of mechanical
equipment.
Mitigation Measure MM-N01-4a: The applicant of individual development
projects within the project area shall minimize noise impacts from
mechanical equipment, such as ventilation and air conditioning units, by
locating equipment away from receptor areas, installing proper acoustical
shielding for the equipment, and incorporating the use of parapets into
building design to ensure that noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise
level on the premises of existing development by more than five decibels.
Mitigation Measure MM-N01-4b: Prior to City approval of a residential
development project within the project area, the applicant shall provide
documentation to the City that all exterior windows associated with a
proposed residential development will be constructed to provide a sufficient
amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels would be
below an Ldn or CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed project could introduce new noise sources that would result in a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project. Typically, a permanent increase in ambient noise levels can result
from the operation of a stationary noise source that generates constant noise levels. Upon
A-54
completion and operation of the various new developments that would occur under the
project, these stationary noise sources would consist predominantly of mechanical
equipment such as heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) units and exhaust
fans. As an industry practice, the design of the onsite HVAC units and other noise-
generating mechanical equipment associated with the new developments in the project
area would typically be installed on the rooftops of residential, commercial, institutional,
and mixed-use buildings and located either within an enclosure or behind other
intervening structures that would provide a level of noise shielding for nearby noise-
sensitive uses. With implementation of these standard design measures, the noise
generated from the HVAC units at the new development sites would likely not be
perceptible at adjacent or nearby uses.
However, to ensure that nearby noise-sensitive uses to the project site would not be
adversely affected by any HVAC equipment noise, Mitigation Measure MM-N01-4a would
be implemented, which prohibits noise from HVAC equipment from exceeding the
ambient noise level on the premises of other occupied properties by more than 5 dBA.
Specifically, Mitigation Measure MM-N01-4a would require future development projects
to locate their HVAC equipment away from receptor areas, install proper acoustical
shielding for their HVAC equipment, and incorporate the use of parapets into their building
design to ensure that noise levels generated from the HVAC equipment would not be
audibly perceptible on the premises of other existing developments. Thus, although noise
from HVAC equipment is exempt from the City's noise standards, implementation of
Mitigation Measure MM-N01-4a would ensure that the potential for HVAC-related noise
from new developments to be audibly perceptible at existing neighboring developments
would minimized and impacts would be less than significant.
In addition, the maximum of 1,750 multi-family dwelling units proposed in the project area
are also sensitive receptors that could be affected by the operation of mechanical
equipment on adjacent properties. In order to ensure that the future residents in the
project area would not be adversely affected by operational noise associated with
mechanical equipment from adjacent properties, Mitigation Measure MM-N01-4b would
be implemented to ensure that all exterior windows associated with the proposed
residential uses would be constructed such that sufficient sound insulation is provided to
ensure that interior noise levels would be below a Ldn or CNEL of 45 dBA in any
residential unit, which would comply with Title 24 standards of the California Building
Code. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-N01-4b, the interior noise limit of
45 dBA Ldn or CNEL would be achieved at all proposed residential uses and any potential
noise impacts on the future residential uses in the project area from mechanical
equipment from adjacent properties would be less than significant.
3. Noise and Land Use Compatibility
Impact NOI-5: With addition of the Western Bypass that would run along
the western boundary of the project area, new development projects
proposed in the project area adjacent to the Western Bypass may not meet
A-55
111
the applicable noise/land use compatibility noise standards established by
the City.
a. Findings
Development under the Specific Plan located along the western boundary of the project
area may not meet the applicable noise/land compatibility noise standards established by
the City with the addition of the Western Bypass. Changes or alterations have been
required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant environmental effects from exceeding the noise/land use
compatibility noise standards to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure
has been included to ensure that operation of the project would result in less than
significant impacts related to noise/land use compatibility.
Mitigation Measure MM-N01-5: All future residential developments located
adjacent to the proposed Western Bypass in the project area shall be set
back a minimum of 45 feet from the centerline of the Western Bypass. If this
minimum setback distance cannot be achieved, other measures shall be
taken to ensure compliance with the City's noise/land use compatibility
standard of 70 dBA Ldn, including, but not limited to, greater setback
distances, the erection of noise walls or use of landscaping.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
111 Based on the City's noise/land use compatibility matrix shown in Table 3.10-6 (refer to
the Draft EIR), the City allows new residences to be constructed where the average noise
environment in outdoor activity areas is up to 70 dBA Ldn, while new commercial and
office buildings may be constructed in areas where the average outdoor noise level is up
to 75 dBA Ldn. The project area currently consists of 270 acres of undeveloped open
space, where the current noise environment is relatively low when compared to the offsite
areas located adjacent to the project site's eastern boundary that are occupied by existing
developments. Thus, the relatively quiet noise environment within the currently
undeveloped project area would be compatible with the new land uses proposed (i.e.,
residential, commercial, school, etc.) as part of the project.
In addition, development under the project would also entail construction of the Western
Bypass, which is a proposed four-lane thoroughfare that would run along the western
boundary of the project area, to link Temecula Parkway to Rancho California Road via
Vincent Moraga Road. Traffic noise levels generated on the Western Bypass could be
audible at the new land uses that are proposed along the western boundary of the project
area. As shown in Table 3.10-12 (refer to Draft EIR), future traffic noise levels along the
segment of the Western Bypass between A Street and Pujol Street would reach 66.5 dBA
Ldn at 100 feet from its centerline. As shown, the 75 dBA Ldn noise contour for this
segment of the Western Bypass, which runs along the entire western boundary of the
project area, would be located within the roadway lanes, while the distance from the 60,
A-56
65, and 70 dBA Ldn noise contours would be 442, 140, and 44 feet, respectively. As new
commercial and office buildings may be constructed in areas where the average outdoor
noise level is up to 75 dBA Ldn, and given that the 75 dBA Ldn noise contour for the
Western Bypass would be located within the roadway lanes, all future commercial- and
office-related developments that would be developed along the Western Bypass in the
project area would meet the noise/land use compatibility guidelines as shown in Table
3.10-6.
With respect to residential uses, the City allows new residences to be constructed where
the average noise environment in outdoor activity areas is up to 70 dBA Ldn. As shown
in Table 3.10-12, the distance from the 70 dBA Ldn noise contour for the Western Bypass
would be 44 feet from the centerline. Because the exact locations of future residential
developments located along the western boundary of the project area and their specific
setback distances from roadways have not been determined at this time, the
determination of noise/land use compatibility impacts for each individual residential
development project, or a combination of these projects, would be too speculative at this
point in the planning process. As such, for the purposes of conducting a conservative
analysis, it is anticipated that there would be future residential developments proposed in
the project area along the Western Bypass that would not meet the City's noise/land use
compatibility standards. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-N01-5 would require all future
residential developments associated with the project to be set back at distances greater
than 45 feet from the centerline of the Western Bypass or to implement other measures
to ensure that the City's noise/land use compatibility standard of 70 dBA Ldn for
residential uses would be achieved. The location of future residential developments
beyond this distance would ensure that these new developments would be exposed to
noise levels less of less than 70 dBA Ldn from the Western Bypass, which would meet
the City's noise/land use compatibility guidelines for residential uses. Therefore,
implementation Mitigation Measure MM-N01-5 would ensure the noise/land use
consistency of future residential uses adjacent to the Western Bypass and would reduce
this impact a less than significant level.
4. Cumulative Vibration Impacts
a. Findings
The proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably
foreseeable development within the vicinity of the project area could result in potentially
significant cumulative impacts to groundborne vibration. Changes or alterations have
been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
potentially significant cumulative impacts associated with groundborne vibration levels
during construction. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-N01-2a and
A-57
MM-N01-2b, described below, would ensure that cumulative vibration impacts would be
less than significant.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Cumulative development in the City may result in the exposure of people to or the
generation of excessive groundborne vibration. The nearest related project to the
proposed project is the proposed townhouse development located adjacent to the project
site. Due to this distance, the proposed project and this cumulative project are in close
enough proximity to each other such that vibration levels generated during construction
could potentially affect the same sensitive receptors should construction occur
simultaneously. The nearest sensitive receptors that would be affected by the concurrent
construction are the existing single- and multi-family residential uses located along and
adjacent to Pujol Street near the southern portion of the project area. Thus, this
cumulative impact would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation
Measures MM-N01-2a and MM-N01-2b would require specific buffer distances between
construction equipment and sensitive receptors, which would reduce potentially
significant cumulative impacts from construction-related groundborne vibration on these
nearest offsite sensitive uses to a less than significant level. Thus, with implementation
of these mitigation measures, the project would not contribute considerably to cumulative
vibration impacts, even if concurrent construction occurs for the project and the related
project. As such, cumulative impacts associated with groundborne vibration from
construction activities would be less than significant.
J. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
1. Traffic Impacts on Local Roadways in Existing (2015) plus Proiect
Conditions
Impacts TRA-1 through TRA-6: When considered the addition of project-
generated traffic volumes to existing (2015) traffic conditions, the proposed
project would degrade the level of service (LOS) at six intersections to
unacceptable levels (LOS E or F). Impacts would be potentially significant
in Existing plus Project conditions.
a. Findings
Traffic generated by the proposed project in Existing plus Project conditions would
degrade the LOS at six intersections to unacceptable levels, which would result in
potentially significant impacts. Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the
project which avoid or substantially lessen traffic impacts to local roadways in Existing
plus Project conditions. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been
included to ensure that traffic impacts in Existing plus Project conditions would be reduced
to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-1: Prior to the issuance of the first building
permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide
A-58
funding for system-wide signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle
length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Rancho California
Road and Jefferson Avenue operate on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing
Program, the developer shall be responsible for system-wide optimization
along both corridors to mitigate impacts.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-2: Prior to the completion of Phase 1 of the
project, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for
system-wide signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Ynez Road and Rancho
California Road operate on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the
developer shall be responsible for system-wide optimization along both
corridors to mitigate impacts.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-3: Prior to the first building permit in Phase
3, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for signal
timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) at the intersection of I-
15 Northbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway to proportion more time to
the heavier traffic volumes, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The
project proponent/developer shall coordinate implementation of this
improvement with Caltrans.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-4: Prior to the issuance of the first building
permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide
funding for system-wide signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle
length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Margarita Road and
Temecula Parkway operate an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the
developer shall be responsible for system-wide optimization along both
corridors to mitigate impacts.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-5: Prior to the issuance of the first building
permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall install stop signs
on the Pujol Street approaches at the intersection of Pujol Street and First
Street, converting the intersection from side-street stop-control to all-way
stop control.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-6: Prior to the issuance of the first building
permit in Phase 2, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide
funding for one additional exclusive eastbound left turn lane and signal
timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) at the intersection of
Ynez Road and Santiago Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Intersection operations forecasted for Existing plus Project conditions are shown in Table
3.13-8 (refer to Draft EIR). Six study intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient
A-59
level of service (LOS E or worse) under Existing plus Project conditions with the proposed
project:
• Int. 2 — Jefferson Avenue/Rancho California Road (PM peak hours only)
• Int. 5 — Ynez Road/ Rancho California Road (PM peak hour only)
• Int. 10— 1-15 Northbound Ramps/Temecula Parkway (PM peak hour only)
• Int. 14— Margarita Road/Temecula Parkway (both AM and PM peak hours)
• Int. 15 — Pujol Street/First Street (PM peak hours only)
• Int. 17 —Ynez Road/Santiago Road (PM peak hours only)
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-TRA-1 through MM-TRA-6 would be required
to address and minimize impacts related to the specific roadway operating conditions at
each identified intersection above under Existing plus Project conditions. Implementation
of Mitigation Measures MM-TRA-1 through MM-TRA-6 would improve conditions to
acceptable LOS levels at each of the above-referenced intersections as described more
fully in the EIR and would ensure that project impacts to the six identified intersections
would be less than significant.
2. Traffic Impacts to Local Roadways under Cumulative (2025)
Conditions
Impacts TRA-9: When considered existing, proposed, planned, and
approved development in the region through 2025, the addition of project-
generated traffic volumes to cumulative traffic conditions would degrade the
LOS at one intersection to an unacceptable level (LOS E or F). A potentially
significant impact in cumulative (2025) traffic conditions would occur.
a. Findings
Traffic generated by the proposed project in combination with traffic generated by other
development within the region under Cumulative Traffic conditions would degrade the
LOS at one intersection to unacceptable which would result in a potentially significant
impact. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project
which avoid or substantially lessen cumulative traffic impacts to local roadways in 2025
conditions. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been included to ensure that
the impact remains less than cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-9: Prior to the issuance of the first building
permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 20
percent of the cost for the construction of a fourth through lane for
eastbound and westbound Temecula Parkway at La Paz Road, for
acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities
at the intersection.
A-60
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Intersection operations forecasted for Cumulative (2025) Traffic conditions are shown in
Table 2.13-3 in Section 2.13, Transportation, Traffic, Parking, and Circulation, of the Civic
Site Nature Center Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR). One
study intersection is forecasted to operate at a deficient level of service (LOS E or worse)
with the proposed project:
• Int. 11 — La Paz Road/Temecula Parkway (both AM and PM peak hours)
The addition of project-generated trips in combination with cumulative development within
the region is forecasted to result in significant impacts at the above study intersection.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-9 would improve conditions to acceptable
LOS levels at the above-referenced intersection as described more fully in the Civic Site
Nature Center Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR) and
would ensure that all potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the
project under cumulative (2025) conditions would be reduce to less than significant levels.
3. Traffic Impacts to Local Roadways under Cumulative (2025)
Conditions
Impacts TRA-12 and TRA-13: When considered the addition of project-
generated traffic volumes to General Plan Build Out (2035) traffic
conditions, the proposed project would degrade the LOS at two
intersections to unacceptable levels (LOS E or F). Impacts would be
potentially significant in General Plan Build Out conditions.
a. Findings
Traffic generated by the proposed project in Existing plus Project conditions would
degrade the LOS at two intersections to unacceptable levels, which would result in
potentially significant impacts. Changes or alterations have been required in or
incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen traffic impacts to local
roadways in General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions. Specifically, the following
mitigation measures have been included to ensure that the impacts remain less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-12: Prior to the issuance of the first building
permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 43
percent of the cost to construct improvements at the west Ridge Park Drive
leg to allow for right-in / right-out turn movements only at the intersection of
Vincent Moraga Drive and Ridge Park Drive, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. This improvement would prohibit vehicles from making
northbound left and westbound left turning movements at the intersection.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-13: Prior to the issuance of the first building
permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 17
A-61
percent of the cost to install traffic signals at the intersection of Pujol Street
and First Street.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Intersection operations forecasted for General Plan Build Out (2035) traffic conditions are
shown in Table 3.13-13 (refer to Draft EIR). Two study intersections are forecast to
operate at a deficient level of service (LOS E or worse) with the proposed project:
• Int. 6 — Vincent Moraga Drive/Ridge Park Drive (both AM and PM peak hours)
• Int. 15 — Pujol Street/First Street (PM peak hour only)
The addition of project-generated trips in combination with increased traffic volumes
anticipated with General Plan Build Out conditions is forecasted to result in significant
impacts at the above two study intersections. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-
TRA-12 through MM-TRA-13 would improve conditions to acceptable LOS levels at each
of the above-referenced intersections as described more fully in the EIR and would
ensure that all potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the project
under General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions would be reduce to less than significant
levels.
4. Conflicts with an Applicable Congestion Management Program
Impact TRA-14: The proposed project may conflict with applicable plans
and congestion management programs by resulting in temporary but
prolonged adverse effects on intersection LOS during project construction.
a. Findings
Construction of the proposed project would generate a variety of truck and employee trips
during site grading and construction of the proposed Specific Plan, which has the potential
to cause a temporary but prolonged impact due to lane closures, need for temporary
signals, traffic hazards to bikes/pedestrians, damage to roadbed, or truck traffic on
roadways not designated as truck routes. Changes or alterations have been required in
or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen impacts related to
conflicts with an applicable congestion management programs. Specifically, the following
mitigation measure has been included to ensure that impacts remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-14: Prior to the issuance of any grading
permit or any permit that authorizes construction activities within the
Specific Plan area, or at offsite locations for improvements associated with
the Specific Plan, the project applicant(s) shall prepare a Construction
Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) for review and approval by the City of Temecula
as part of the permit application. The Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s)
shall include measures to minimize the construction traffic volumes entering
the roadway system (including local roads) during AM and PM peak hours.
A-62
At a minimum, the Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) shall include the
following implementation measures:
• Construction truck routes shall be prepared to designate principal
haul routes for trucks delivering materials to and from the
construction site.
• Should a temporary road and/or lane closure be necessary during
construction, the project applicant shall provide traffic control
activities and personnel, as necessary, to minimize traffic impacts.
This may include detour signage, cones, construction area signage,
flagmen, and other measures as required for safe traffic handling in
the construction zone.
• The project applicant shall keep a minimum of one lane in each
direction free from encumbrances at all times on perimeter roads
accessing the project site. In the event a full road closure is required,
the contractor shall coordinate with the City of Temecula and other
affected jurisdictions (i.e., Caltrans, and/or County of Riverside) to
designate proper detour routes and signage to appropriate proper
access routes.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Construction of the proposed project would generate a variety of truck and employee trips
during site grading and construction of the proposed Specific Plan. Since the magnitude
of these trips during peak hours would be less than that of the proposed project, absolute
impacts (in terms of delay and queuing) when compared to project operations would not
be significant. However, construction staging and lane closures could cause adverse
effects if not carefully planned. Thus, the proposed project could potentially cause a
temporary but prolonged impact due to lane closures, need for temporary signals, traffic
hazards to bikes/pedestrians, damage to roadbed, or truck traffic on roadways not
designated as truck routes. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM-TRA-14
would require the preparation of Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) to minimize the
effects of construction traffic on the surrounding roadways as well as to incorporate the
appropriate protocols for road closures, lane closures, or other typical construction
activities which affect the local roadway network. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM-
TRA-14 would ensure that impacts associated with construction-generated traffic would
not conflict with applicable congestion management programs or plans and impacts would
be less than significant.
A-63
111
VII. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After
Mitigation
In the environmental topical areas of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs),
Noise, and Transportation and Circulation, there are instances where potential
environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, despite the inclusion of
all feasible mitigation, as discussed below:
A. AIR QUALITY
1. Violation of Air Quality Standards— Operation
Impact AQ-1: Operational activities occurring after the buildout of the
project would violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to
existing or projected air quality violations.
a. Findings
Operation of the project would result in long-term regional emissions of ROG, NOx, and
CO that would exceed the SCAQMD's applicable threshold, which would result in or
substantially contribute to emissions concentrations that exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS.
While Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1a through MM-AQ-1e would help to reduce
operational emissions, operational emissions generated under the proposed project
would not be reduced to below SCAQMD's applicable regional thresholds. While several
of the mitigation measures are unquantifiable, it is not likely that even with their full
implementation all emissions would be reduced to below the SCAQMD thresholds, and
there is no additional feasible mitigation that would reduce these impacts to less than
significant. Therefore, the project's impacts related to regional operational emissions will
be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1 a: No wood burning fireplaces shall be
included in the residential units.
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1 b: The lease or purchase agreements for all
non-residential units shall include the following:
a) Required use of low VOC cleaning supplies in all buildings.
b) Required use of low VOC architectural coatings. Architectural
coatings shall be 150 grams per liter or less for both interior and
exterior coatings applied as part of building maintenance and
upkeep.
c) Employers shall allow alternative work weeks, flextime,
telecommuting, and/or work-at-home programs as appropriate to the
business developed. (non-quantifiable)
A-64
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1c: All residential and non-residential
properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets such that a
minimum of 10 percent of landscape equipment can be electrically
operated. Landscape contracts for all multi-family residential and non-
residential buildings shall include a mandatory requirement stipulating that
a minimum of 10 percent of all landscape equipment used onsite would be
electrically operated.
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1d: All residential and non-residential
buildings shall be constructed such that they meet one of the following
conditions:
a) Buildings shall implement energy efficiency standards that exceed
the 2016 Title 24 standards by 15 percent; or
b) Project design shall include onsite renewable energy, for example
the incorporation of solar panels into project development, such that
9 percent of the onsite energy consumption is offset.
Mitigation Measure MM-AO-le: The lease or purchase agreements for all
multi-family residential and non-residential units shall:
a) Require that transit routes be posted in common areas of multi-
family residential buildings and employee/student areas for non-
residential buildings. Additionally, building management shall
encourage a ride-share program within the specific plan area such
that employees as well as residents have more access to car-
pooling opportunities. (non-quantifiable)
b) Shall encourage the use of alternative vehicles by providing
incentives such as, but not limited to, special parking for alternative
fueled vehicles and/or parking cost reduction for alternative fueled
vehicles. (non-quantifiable)
c) Require that 5 percent of all available off-street parking spaces (per
multi-family and non-residential development) shall be equipped
with charging stations to encourage the use of electric vehicles.
(non-quantifiable)
b. Facts in Support of Findings
As shown in Table 3.2-7 (refer to Draft EIR) and Table 2.2-3 in Section 2.2, Air Quality of
the Civic Site Nature Center Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the
FEIR), the maximum unmitigated daily operational emissions generated by the project
would result in long-term regional emissions of ROG, NOx, and CO that would exceed
the SCAQMD's applicable thresholds. The majority of the emissions are from either
A-65
mobile sources or area sources related to hearth and consumer product usage.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-la through MM-AQ-1e will reduce the
project's operational emissions of criteria pollutants (as shown in Table 3.2-8 of the Draft
EIR). However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1a through
MM-AQ-le, operational emissions generated under the proposed project would not be
reduced to below SCAQMD's applicable regional thresholds. While several of the
mitigation measures are unquantifiable, it is not likely that even with their full
implementation all emissions would be reduced to below the SCAQMD thresholds.
Therefore, the project's impacts related to regional operational emissions would remain
significant and unavoidable.
In addition, as indicated in Table 3.2-1, applicable ozone standards have regularly been
exceeded at the nearest (Lake Elsinore) monitoring station between 2011 and 2013 and
the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is designated as a non-attainment region for ozone.
The proposed project's ROG and NOx emission increases could contribute to additional
air quality violations in the SCAB region by contributing to more days of ozone
exceedance or result in air quality index levels that are unhealthy for sensitive groups and
other populations. On unhealthy days, persons are recommended to avoid both
prolonged outdoor activities and activities requiring heavy exertion outdoors. Short-term
exposure to ozone can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. In addition
to causing shortness of breath, ozone can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such
as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema.
2. Cumulative Air Quality Impacts - Operation
a. Findings
Operation of the proposed project would generate long-term emissions, which would
exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance for ROG and NOx, which would result
in significant impacts to air quality. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified
to reduce the project's potential operational impacts related to air quality because the
proposed project could conflict with SCAQMD's air quality planning efforts for
nonattainment pollutants and result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in
nonattainment pollutants during operations. Cumulative impacts associated with
operational emissions would be significant and unavoidable.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The SCAB is currently classified as a state nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and
PM2.5, where cumulative development consisting of the project and cumulative projects
could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality
violation. Based on SCAQMD's cumulative air quality impact methodology, SCAQMD
recommends that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants
(ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD's recommended
A-66
daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Operational
emissions associated with the proposed project, as shown in Tables 3.2-7 and 3.2-8 (refer
to Draft EIR), would exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance for ROG and NOx.
Even though the proposed project would be consistent with SCAQMD's Air Quality
Management Plan, the proposed project could conflict with SCAQMD's air quality
planning efforts for nonattainment pollutants, which would result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase in nonattainment pollutants during operations, particularly
ozone precursors ROG and NOx. Therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative
impacts associated with operational emissions would be cumulatively considerable.
B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1. Generation of GHG Emissions
Impact GHG-1: The project could generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment.
a. Findings
The proposed project would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation
which would exceed the SCAQMD considered bright-line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per
year maximum project emissions. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-
AQ-la through MM-AQ-le and MM-GHG-land project design features aimed to reduce
GHG emissions, the net increase in GHG emissions resulting from project implementation
is considered to be significant and unavoidable.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
As shown in Table 3.6-2 (refer to Draft EIR) and Table 2.6-2 in Section 2.2, Air Quality of
the Civic Site Nature Center Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the
FEIR), the project's total net annual GHG emissions after the incorporation of MM-AQ-la
through MM-AQ-1e would be approximately 24,953 MTCO2e per year which would
exceed the SCAQMD considered bright-line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year
maximum project emissions. This would result in a potentially significant impact.
The proposed project incorporates many elements that would serve to promote
alternatives to vehicle use or otherwise reduce operational GHG emissions and these
elements are consistent with standards identified in the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND). LEED-ND
credits are awarded for access to transit, housing-jobs proximity and provision of bicycle
facilities, to name a few. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1 requires the project
sponsor to strive to achieve LEED-ND certification for the Altair Specific Plan. LEED-ND
111
certification requires a project to receive 40 points out of a total of 110 total possible
A-67
points. If the LEED-ND certification is denied, the applicant is required to incorporate a
list of measures in the project design that are normally scored to achieve LEED standards
and shall achieve a fifteen-percent (15%) reduction in energy use beyond 2016 Title 24
building standards. This project is transit-oriented and incorporates a lengthy list of "smart
growth" principles, all of which aim reduce vehicle miles travelled and the accompanying
GHG emissions. The project incorporates a mixture of land uses, including homes, retail,
and recreational opportunities, increasing walkability and reducing the need for transit in
single-occupancy vehicles. The project design incorporates infrastructure for alternative
transportation, including complete streets that equally accommodate pedestrians,
bicycles, public transit, and vehicles.
Despite the fact that the project incorporates all of the design elements described above,
project-level emissions would still likely exceed the 3,000 MTECO2e per year threshold
even with LEED-ND certification. Therefore, the net increase in GHG emissions resulting
from project implementation is considered to be significant and unavoidable.
2. Cumulative GHG Emission Impacts
a. Findings
Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions that
exceed the SCAQMD's considered bright-line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year
maximum project emissions. No mitigation measures are feasible to reduce cumulative
impacts related to GHG emissions to a less than significant level. Implementation of the
project would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts related to GHG
emissions.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
As discussed in Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, CEQA
considers a project's impacts related to GHG emissions to be inherently cumulative. As
concluded in Section 3.6, the project's total net annual GHG emissions after the
incorporation of MM-AQ-1 a through MM-AQ-1e would be approximately 24,953 MTCO2e
per year which would exceed the SCAQMD considered bright-line threshold of 3,000
MTCO2e per year maximum project emissions. This would result in a significant impact.
While incorporation of the additional mitigation measure MM-GHG-1 would reduce the
amount of GHG emissions generated, the level of GHG emissions would not be reduced
below a level of significance. Therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts
associated with GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable.
C. NOISE AND VIBRATION
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-68
a. Findings
During construction, the proposed project would temporarily generate noise levels that
may result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable
local standards and 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 which would reduce impacts related
to construction noise. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1 a and
MM-N01-1b, the nearest existing land uses to each of the proposed development sites in
the project area would continue to experience a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels during construction activities. Therefore, construction
noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure MM-N01-1a: Prior to the issuance any grading or
building permits for a phase or sub phase (project-specific future
development within a construction phase), the applicant shall provide
evidence to the City that the development will not exceed the City's exterior
noise standards for construction (see Table 3.10-5). If it is determined that
City noise standards for construction activities would be exceeded, the
applicant shall submit a construction-related exception request to the City
Manager at least one week in advance of the project's scheduled
construction activities, along with the appropriate inspection fee(s), to
ensure that the project's construction noise levels would be granted an
exception from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City
of Temecula Municipal Code. Factors the City shall consider when granting
a noise exception include, but are not limited to, the consideration of the
level of noise, duration of noise, constancy or intermittency of noise, time of
day or night, place, proximity to sensitive receptors, nature and
circumstances of the emission or transmission of any such loud noise. If a
construction-related exception request is not approved by the City, design
measures shall be taken to reduce the construction noise levels to the
maximum extent feasible to achieve compliance with the City's construction
noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the
erection of noise barriers/curtains, use of advanced or state-of-the-art
mufflers on construction equipment, and/or reduction in the amount of
equipment that would operate concurrently at the development site.
Mitigation Measure MM-N01-1b: The applicant shall comply with the
following noise reduction measures during construction:
• Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction activities
whose specific location on a construction site may be flexible (e.g.,
operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general
truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest
noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses.
• Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction
methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential will be
A-69
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.
• Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors and the
general contractor or onsite project manager to confirm that noise
and vibration mitigation and practices (including construction hours,
sound buffers, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are
implemented.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
As shown in Table 3.10-1 (refer to Draft EIR), the existing daytime noise levels measured
at locations surrounding the project site range from approximately 52 dBA to 65 dBA Leq.
As construction noise levels associated with new developments in the project area could
reach as high as 89 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from a construction site, an increase
in noise levels of 20 to 30 dBA could potentially occur at a neighboring receptor to a
construction site. This increase in the ambient noise levels at a neighboring receptor
would be considered to be substantial, since, for the purpose of providing perspective, a
change in noise levels of 10 dBA is subjectively heard as doubling of the perceived
' loudness. Consequently, Mitigation Measure MM-N01-1b, which would require the
A-70
implementation of noise reduction devices and techniques during construction activities
for the new developments occurring under the project, would be implemented to reduce
the construction-related noise levels at nearby receptors to the maximum extent feasible.
Nonetheless, under circumstances where future construction sites within the project area
are located immediately adjacent to other land uses, the noise impacts related to a
substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing
without the proposed project would remain significant as the noise reduction devices and
techniques prescribed under Mitigation Measure MM-N01-1b would not be able to fully
attenuate construction noise levels.
Although Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-ib would reduce the project's construction noise
levels to the maximum extent feasible, there is no other feasible mitigation that would
reduce these impacts to less than significant and it is anticipated that the nearest existing
land uses to each of the proposed developments in the project area would continue to
experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during
construction activities. Therefore, the project's construction noise would be a temporary
significant and unavoidable impact on the nearby existing land uses.
2. Construction Vibration Impacts
Impact NOI-2: Construction activities in the project area may expose their
respective onsite and/or offsite sensitive land uses to vibration levels that
exceed applicable FTA vibration thresholds for building damage and human
annoyance.
a. Findings
During construction, the proposed project would temporarily generate noise levels that
may result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable
local standards and 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 which would reduce impacts related
to construction noise. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-N01-2a and
MM-N01-2b, the nearest existing land uses to each of the proposed developments in the
project area would continue to experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels during construction activities. Therefore, impacts would be
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure MM-N01-2a: The operation of construction equipment
that generates high levels of vibration, such as large bulldozers, loaded
trucks, and caisson drills, shall be prohibited within 45 feet of residential
structures and 35 feet of institutional structures during construction activities
to the extent feasible. Small, rubber-tired construction equipment shall be
used within this area during demolition and/or grading operations to reduce
vibration effects, where feasible.
A-71
Mitigation Measure MM-N01-2b: The operation of jackhammers shall be
prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures and 20 feet of
institutional structures during construction activities, to the extent feasible.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
As future project-specific developments would be spread over the designated
neighborhood villages within the project area and construction events would be short-
term in nature, it is anticipated that there would be an infrequent amount of vibration
events per day at sensitive land use receptors resulting from the construction of individual
development projects. However, depending on how close an actual receptor location is
to a construction site and the type of building the receptor is (e.g., non-engineered timber
and masonry building, historical building, etc.), the vibration levels at a receptor location
could exceed the FTA's vibration thresholds for building damage and human annoyance.
As such, vibration impacts during construction associated with the project could be
potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-N01-2a and MM-NOI-
2b would reduce the possibility of exposing sensitive land uses to excessive vibration
level as they require setback distances for various types of construction equipment from
adjacent structures. However, while implementation of MM-N01-2a and MM-N01-2b
would reduce vibration levels, the type of residential development allowed under the
Specific Plan may make it difficult to achieve the desired distance between these existing
land uses and active construction. As such, Mitigation Measures MM-N01-2a and MM-
NOI-2b cannot guarantee that construction vibration levels will be reduced below
establish thresholds and there is no other feasible mitigation that would do so. Impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable.
3. Cumulative Noise Impacts — Construction
a. Findings
Construction of the proposed project would generate substantial temporary or periodic
increases in ambient noise levels at surrounding existing noise-sensitive land uses.While
Mitigation Measures MM-N01-1a and MM-N01-1b would reduce impacts related to
construction noise, these measures would not reduce these impacts to a less than
significant level. Thus, implementation of the project would result in significant and
unavoidable cumulative impacts related to construction noise.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Development of the project in combination with other projects in the cumulative scenario
would result in an increase in construction-related and traffic-related noise in the City.
However, each of the cumulative projects would be subject to Section 9.20.040 of the City
Municipal Code, which establishes the allowable interior and exterior noise standards for
various types of land uses in the City. In addition, Section 9.20.070 (Exceptions) of the
City Municipal Code allows for construction-related exceptions from the noise standards
set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the Code to be requested from the City Manager.
Furthermore, the construction activities associated with past, present, and reasonably
A-72
foreseeable projects would also be subject to Section 9.20.060(D) of the City Municipal
Code, which establishes the permitted hours for construction.
Construction noise is localized in nature and decreases substantially with distance.
Consequently, in order to achieve a substantial cumulative increase in construction noise
levels, more than one source emitting high levels of construction noise would need to be
in close proximity to the proposed project. The nearest anticipated project to the project
site is the proposed townhomes development (#PA 13-0155), which is located adjacent
to the southern portion of the project site in the vicinity of Pujol Street. Due to this distance,
a substantial increase in the ambient noise levels of the existing single- and multi-family
residential uses located along and adjacent to Pujol Street would occur should
construction of this cumulative project occur at the same time as the proposed project.
As such, the cumulative noise impact related to a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels at these existing noise-sensitive land uses would be
potentially significant. During construction of the proposed project, implementation of
Mitigation Measures MM-N01-1a and MM-N01-1b would reduce construction noise levels
for nearby offsite residents to the maximum extent feasible. However, due to the proximity
of the proposed project to these existing offsite sensitive uses, it is anticipated that these
offsite land uses would still experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels during the project's construction activities. Therefore, the project's
contribution to this construction-related noise impact would be cumulatively considerable
and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
1. Traffic Impacts on Local Roadways in Existing (2015) plus Proiect
Conditions
Impact TRA-7: Development of the Specific Plan will cause the level of
service at the existing 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway
(Intersection #25) to degrade from an acceptable LOS D or better to an
unacceptable LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours.
a. Findings
As shown in Table 3.13-8 (refer to Draft EIR), implementation of the proposed project
would generate traffic volumes which would degrade the LOS at the intersection of the
existing 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway under Existing plus Project
conditions. There are no feasible mitigation measures which would reduce this potentially
significant impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
While the project would generate traffic which would degrade the LOS at the intersection
of the existing 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway, it is acknowledged under
the Existing plus Project scenario that a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) by the City of
A-73
Temecula, entitled "1-15 / SR 79 South (Temecula Parkway) Ultimate Interchange", has
been permitted and fully funded. The CIP is scheduled to start construction, well ahead
of the first building permit being issued for the project. The intersection is within Caltrans'
jurisdiction and requires Caltrans approval. Scheduled improvements to this intersection
will remove this intersection; replacing it with a reconfigured intersection of Old Town
Front Street and Temecula Parkway to accommodate a southbound loop off-ramp and
southbound on-ramp for 1-15. These improvements would reduce project impacts at this
intersection to below a level of significance.
However, the schedule for the improvements is outside the control of the City of
Temecula, and it cannot be guaranteed that the improvements will be completed prior to
the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the project. Based on this information,
and to exercise a conservative approach to impact assessment, it is possible that there
could be a potentially significant impact at this intersection and there is no feasible
mitigation to reduce this potential impact to less than significant. For these reasons,
impacts to the intersection at the existing 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula
Parkway under Existing plus Project conditions would be significant and unavoidable.
VIII. Project Alternatives
The EIR considered and analyzed three alternatives to the proposed project:
Alternative 1—No project/No Development; Alternative 2—No project/Existing Specific
Plan; and Alternative 3—Relocate Civic Use. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6, the EIR analyzed and considered two "No Project" alternatives because there
are two possible outcomes if the City does not approve the Project: either the "No
Development" alternative or the "Existing Specific Plan" alternative. In addition, no
alternative sites were considered in the Alternatives analysis as objectives of the project
rely on proximity to Old Town for providing a residential community within walking
distance and for development of the Western Bypass, which is intended to alleviate traffic
congestion that currently exists within Old Town. Therefore, it would not be feasible to
consider other site locations for this project, as further described in section 5.1.3 of the
EIR.
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 and Table 5-3 of the EIR. Each alternative's environmental impacts are
considered and analyzed, along with an analysis of whether it achieves any of the
project's objectives as shown below.
• Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the
City of Temecula General Plan. (A General Plan Amendment to the Circulation
Element is needed to achieve these goals and policies.)
• Balance the need for local infrastructure improvement and demand for new
housing in and around Old Town while minimizing physical and visual impacts to
the hillside escarpment, wildlife movement, and conservation areas.
A-74
' • Develop a high-quality residential component on the project site that focuses on
providing diverse housing types and a wide range of densities that would serve a
variety of age groups and household sizes, support the commercial enterprises of
Old Town Temecula, help to fulfill the city's regional housing needs, and foster a
unique community identity where each neighborhood is unique, vibrant, diverse,
and inclusive.
• Create a project that reduces dependency on the automobile and encourages the
use of an extensive multi-use trail system that would link neighborhood villages
and community-wide uses within the project and to Old Town Temecula.
• Provide for limited/incidental neighborhood-oriented commercial uses to serve the
needs of the project's residents, such as coffee shop, ice cream store, or small
restaurants.
• Promote design that minimizes water usage by using a relatively drought-tolerant
landscape palette, clustered development, and attractive community spaces rather
than traditional water-intensive private lawns.
• Provide water quality management facilities that are incorporated within the
landscape features and designed to create settings that mimic the natural hillside
attributes.
• Establish an efficient, interconnected multi-modal transportation network that
' includes a Western Bypass Corridor and vehicular, transit/trolley, and
pedestrian/bikeway circulation systems that would improve center-of-city traffic
conditions.
• Provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a park in the
center of the project, plazas, trails, a play field, and an elementary school
accommodating 600-730 students, which further diversify and contribute to the
Old Town's amenities.
• Provide for a civic site of adequate size that accommodates up to 450,000 building
square feet for an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit
of the public, and be integrated into the overall project design in a way that
maximizes compatibility with other proposed land uses within the Specific Plan,
and provides a strong visual connection and close access to Interstate 15.
A. ALTERNATIVE ONE— NO PROJECT/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 No Project/No Development
Alternative assumes that the Altair Specific Plan would not be adopted and implemented.
Instead, the planning area would be left in its current undeveloped and mostly undisturbed
state.
A-75
Under Alternative 1, no development would occur on the project Site for the foreseeable
future and the Site would remain in its current graded and undeveloped condition.
Although Alternative 1 could occur if the City does not approve the project, it is not what
can most reasonably be expected to occur on the Site if the project is not approved
because development is permitted on the Site as discussed and analyzed under
Alternative 2.
2. Reason for Rejecting Alternative
Alternative 1 is the "No Development" alternative in which no development would occur
on the project site. The site would remain undeveloped and mostly undisturbed land.
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. The project's impacts in these categories are all less than significant or
mitigated to less than significant. Nonetheless, Alternative 1 would result in reduced
impacts in these impact categories (Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology
and Soils, and Hydrology and Water Resources) because the project site would remain
undeveloped and undisturbed.
For aesthetic impacts, Alternative 1 would also not impact views, scenic resources, or the
visual character and quality of the 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. Nonetheless, Alternative 1 would have no impacts to
aesthetics and therefore would reduce impacts compared to the proposed project.
Air quality impacts would be reduced under Alternative 1 as there would be no
construction-related emissions (from construction activities, vehicles and equipment), and
no operational emissions (associated with increased traffic and consumer usage) as is
associated with the proposed project. The project would result in significant and
unavoidable impacts related to air quality. Since Alternative 1 would result in no
development, it would have no impacts to air quality and would therefore reduce impacts
compared to the proposed project.
Similar to air quality impacts, GHG emissions would similarly be reduced under
Alternative 1. Because no development would occur on the site, it would not result in any
stationary or mobile-source GHG emissions. The proposed project's GHG emissions are
significant and unavoidable, primarily due to mobile-source emissions arising from
vehicles to and from the project. Alternative 1 would reduce these impacts, as no
development would occur at the site.
No hazardous material or spill sites were identified on the project site. As compared to
the proposed project, Alternative 1 would have a lower potential to release unknown and
unanticipated hazardous materials as it includes no development and no storage of
hazardous materials on-site. As such, Alternative 1 would have no impact to hazards and
hazardous materials and impacts would be further reduced from the proposed project's
A-76
less than significant impacts. Impacts related to airport and wildfire hazards would be
similar because the project site remains the same.
For land use impacts, under Alternative 1, no development would occur and the onsite
open space would remain in its current state. As such, this alternative would not change
existing land use or have an effect on land use plans and policies related to the project
site. The proposed project would be consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan
upon adoption of the General Plan Amendment. In addition, with implementation of
mitigation measures that address urban/wildlands interface, noise, and conservation of
land in Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of the EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with
goals and objectives of the MSHCP. While the proposed project would result in less than
significant impacts to land use with mitigation incorporated, Alternative 1would result in
fewer effects on adopted land use plans and policies compared to the project.
The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts from temporary
construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the project area
which could potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to
substantial increases in ambient noise levels and vibration. Under Alternative 1, there
would be no change to existing ambient noise levels or introduction of a new source of
noise, or an increase in vibration. The significant construction noise and vibration under
the proposed project would not occur. This alternative would result in fewer impacts from
noise and vibration compared to the project.
Population and housing impacts would not occur under Alternative 1 because no
development of the site would occur. As such, Alternative 1 would not result in population
growth. Neither the proposed project nor Alternative 1 would remove housing or displace
persons, as there are no housing units on the project site. Alternative 1 would have no
impact regarding population and housing and therefore would have less impact than the
proposed project, which already has a less than significant impact.
Impacts to public services and utilizes would be less under Alternative 1 due to the lack
of development. Although the fire department and police department would respond to
the site in case of a fire or a crime committed on the site, the demand for public services
and utilities would be the same as it exists currently. Implementation of the proposed
project would result in less than significant impacts to law enforcement, fire protection,
schools, libraries, hospitals, and parks and recreation. Additionally, the proposed project
would result in less than significant impacts to water, wastewater, stormwater drainage,
and solid waste capacity and facilities. While none of the proposed project's impacts
would require new or expanded facilities, the proposed project would increase the
demand for all of the public services and utility facilities in the City. As such, Alternative 1
would have no impact to public services and utilities, compared to the less than significant
impacts under the proposed project.
Alternative 1 would result in no increases in traffic or demand for public transit or
bicycle/pedestrian facilities. Alternative 1 would not result in additional pedestrian facilities
or to existing roadways and would not increase the demand for public transportation. The
111
proposed project would result in the addition of sidewalks/walking paths that do not
A-77
currently exist on the project Site and would not result in significant impacts to public
transit or bicycle/pedestrian facilities. However, the proposed project would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts to various intersections in the project area in the
Cumulative (2025) Traffic and General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions. As such,
Alternative 1 would have fewer impacts when compared to the proposed project regarding
transportation and circulation.
Overall, Alternative 1 would reduce environmental impacts compared to the proposed
project. However, Alternative 1 does not satisfy any of the ten project objectives. Since
Alternative 1 would not develop the site, it would fail to provide the following: diverse
housing types and a wide range of densities that would serve a variety of age groups and
household sizes; alternative transportation options and a network of trails;
limited/incidental commercial uses to serve the project area; water quality management
facilities that are incorporated within the landscape features and designed to create
settings that mimic the natural hillside; an efficient, interconnected multi-modal
transportation network that includes a Western Bypass Corridor and vehicular,
transit/trolley, and pedestrian/bikeway circulation systems that would improve center-of-
city traffic conditions; public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a central
park, plazas, trails, a play field, and elementary school; and a civic site of adequate size
to accommodate an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the
public. 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 — NO PROJECT/ESTABLISHED SPECIFIC PLAN
1. Summary of Alternative
Alternative 2 provides the comparison of the proposed project versus what can
reasonably be expected to occur on the sites should the proposed project not be approved
but future development occurs under the existing land use and zoning designations.
This "No project/Established Specific Plan"alternative does not necessarily mean the site
will remain undeveloped; as currently entitled per the existing zoning designation, the site
could be developed with the approved Westside Villages Specific Plan (SP-8). The
Westside Villages Specific Plan would involve development of a 154.1-acre area, which
is a smaller area than the project site for the proposed project and would not include the
55-acre South Parcel that is located roughly to the south of Camino Estribo. Under this
alternative, the project site would be bisected by the Western Bypass and divided into five
separate planning areas (A through E), where each has a separate land use; however, it
would not be developed with the "villages" concept that is proposed under the proposed
project. Planning Area A is located in the center of the project site, closest to Old Town.
This area would allow for a "Wild West," open-air arena and a hotel. Planning Area B,
A-78
which is located at the intersection of First Street and the Western Bypass, and is
designated for neighborhood commercial uses, would allow for local-serving retail uses,
such as a small market or drug store. Planning Area C, which is located in the southern
portion of the project site, would allow for high-density residential uses. The Mixed Use
designation of Planning Area D, which is located in the northern section of the Specific
Plan area, is intended to act as a transitional area between the special event uses of the
Specific Plan and the existing office and business park uses located to the north of the
Specific Plan area. As such, Planning Area D would allow for service commercial, office,
and light industrial uses. Planning Area E, which would be west of the Western Bypass
would be designated for 80 gross acres of open space and would remain undeveloped.
The project would also provide for pedestrian connectivity between the various planning
areas and Old Town.
Table 5-1 (refer to Draft EIR) outlines the land uses and amount of development for each
planning area under this alternative. Although this alternative would allow for more
commercial development (120,000 square feet versus the maximum 22,000 square feet
proposed as part of the project), overall, it would represent a reduced project alternative
to the proposed project due to the significantly fewer residential units that would be
developed, and the absence of the civic use and elementary school.
Many environmental impacts analyzed in an EIR are related to the project's location, such
as such as biological, cultural, geologic, and visual impacts. However, some
environmental impacts are related to the type of project, such as traffic and traffic's effects
on air quality, GHG emissions, and noise. This is because different uses produce different
amounts of traffic.
2. Reason for Resecting Alternative
For aesthetic impacts, under Alternative 2, a 120,000-square-foot entertainment and
tourist retail shopping area would be developed as compared to the maximum 22,000
square feet of neighborhood commercial under the proposed project. This entertainment
area would include retail commercial buildings, an open-air, tented arena, and a hotel.
Development standards allow a maximum building height of 150 feet (approximately five
stories). High density multi-family residential with active and passive open space would
be located at the southeastern portion of the project, and mixed-use (commercial, office,
business park) located at the northeastern portion of the project site. While Alternative 2
would have less building square footage than the proposed project, the height and mass
of individual buildings could have similar visual impact on the landscape. Overall,
aesthetic impacts of Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project.
Air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable with implementation of the
proposed project as long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone
precursors, primarily from mobile sources, would exceed applicable thresholds.
According to the traffic study prepared for the project, development of the project would
result in a net increase of 19,232 vehicle trips per day. Implementation of Alternative 2
would result in a conservative estimate of 7,446 vehicle trips per day. This reduction in
A-79
vehicle trips and related mobile-source emissions would result in Alternative 2 having
fewer impacts to air quality than the proposed project.
In regards to biological resources, the project would result in permanent impacts to
approximately 181 acres of upland habitat and approximately 1.2 acres of riparian/riverine
habitat. With mitigation, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact
on adjacent wildlife corridors. Under Alternative 2, the 55-acre South Parcel would not be
developed as it would not be part of the project site. This would reduce impacts to wildlife
corridors that occur under the proposed project, in particular Proposed Linkage 10 and
Constrained Linkage 13. However, Alternative 2 maintains the original alignment for the
Western Bypass. This alignment is located further west of the new alignment under the
proposed project and would result in impacts to an additional 55 acres of sensitive habitat
and greater reduction in corridor width along Proposed Linkage 10 compared to the
project. As such, Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to biological resources
compared to the proposed project.
Related to cultural resources, construction of the proposed project would include soil
excavation, which has the potential to encounter historical and paleontological resources.
With mitigation, the proposed project's impact on these resources is less than significant.
Under Alternative 2, the 55-acre South Parcel at the south end of the proposed project
would not be developed, which would avoid the TCP and any potential cultural resources
that could be encounter during soil excavation at that site. As such, Alternative 2 would
have fewer impacts to cultural resource compared to the proposed project.
Geology, soils, and seismicity impacts would be less than significant with implementation
of the proposed project. Alternative 2 would have 1,449 fewer residential dwelling units
at maximum buildout, and, therefore, would expose fewer people and structures to
potential adverse effects of seismic ground shaking. However, development under
Alternative 2 would be subject to the same building codes and regulations as the
proposed project, which requires structural design that can accommodate ground
accelerations expected from known active faults. As a result, Alternative 2 would have
similar exposure to geologic hazards as the proposed project.
Greenhouse gas emissions would be less under Alternative 2 and would also result in a
cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact because Alternative 2
results in a larger development scenario. The proposed project's greenhouse gas
emissions are also cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable, with no
feasible mitigation available to reduce the impacts to less than significant. Approximately
80 percent of the proposed project's GHG emissions result from mobile source and this
percentage would be similar under Alternative 2. Therefore, impacts related to GHG
would also be significant and unavoidable under Alternative 2, but impacts would be
reduced under the alternative scenario compared to the proposed project.
Hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant with mitigation
with implementation of the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative
2 would be required to follow applicable regulations and guidelines regarding storage and
A-80
' handling of hazardous waste. As such, Alternative 2 would have similar impacts related
to hazards and hazardous materials compared to the project.
With mitigation incorporated, the proposed project would result in less than significant
impacts to hydrology and water quality. Alternative 2 would have higher intensity
commercial development (120,000 square feet versus 22,000 square feet) but lower
intensity residential development (302 dwelling units versus 1,750 dwelling units) than the
proposed project. Overall, it would represent a reduced project alternative to the proposed
project due to the significantly fewer residential units that would be developed, and the
absence of the civic use and elementary school. The reduced alternative would have less
impervious surfaces than the proposed project. As such, Alternative 2 would have fewer
effects on hydrology and water quality compared to the proposed project.
In regards to land use, the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment
which would modify the City's existing General Plan Land Use Policy Map and sections
in the Land Use and Circulation Elements to accommodate the proposed residential
villages, institutional/civic uses, and the Western Bypass alignment. In addition, with
implementation of mitigation measures that address urban/wildlands interface, noise, and
conservation of land in Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would
be consistent with goals and policies of the MSHCP. It is expected that development
under Alternative 2 would be required to adhere to similar measures. Alternative 2 would
result in a greater buffer between urban development and an area where three streams
converge (Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and Santa Margarita River) south of the
project site. This would result in a greater degree of consistency with MSHCP goals and
policies associated with wildlife corridors. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have fewer
impacts to land use and planning compared to the proposed project.
The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts from temporary
construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the project area
which could potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to
substantial increases in ambient noise levels and vibration. Under Alternative 2, it is
assumed that construction phasing would occur not unlike the proposed project and
individual lots within the project site would be developed over the course of 10 years. As
such, Alternative 2 would have similar effects on nearby receptors during construction
compared to the proposed project.
Population growth under Alternative 2 would be less than under the proposed project.
Using an average household size of 2.63 persons per household, the proposed project
could generate a new population of between 2,288 and 4,603 people. Using the same
persons per household ratio, Alternative 2 is estimated to generate a new population of
between 515 and 794 people. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts on
population and housing compared to the proposed project.
Alternative 2 would decrease demand for public services and utilities as compared to the
proposed project because it would generate considerably fewer new residential units and
would not develop the 55-acre parcel with nature center uses. As a result, there would be
A-81
•
less demand for public services and utility facilities and Alternative 2 would have fewer
impacts on public services compared to the project.
Traffic generation under Alternative 2 would be reduced because of the reduction of
building potential and decreased population growth. The project would result in a
significant cumulative impact on traffic due the unfeasibility of widening Temecula
Parkway between La Paz Road and Wabash Lane. The project would result in a net
increase of 19,232 vehicle trips per day. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a
conservative estimate of 7,446 vehicle trips per day. The reduction in daily vehicle trips
under Alternative 2 may avoid the significant cumulative impact along Temecula Parkway
that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Overall, Alternative 2
would have reduced traffic impacts when compared to the proposed project.
Overall, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to aesthetics, biological resources,
geology, soils, and seismicity, and noise and vibration as compared to the proposed
project. All other impacts would be reduced under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed
project.
However, Alternative 2 fails to satisfy four of the ten project objectives. It would not provide
diverse housing types and a wide range of densities that would serve a variety of age
groups and household sizes; provide water quality management facilities that are
incorporated within the landscape features and designed to create settings that mimic the
natural hillside; provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a
central park, plazas, trails, a play field, and elementary school; and provide for a civic site
of adequate size to accommodate an educational, institutional, or other business use for
the benefit of the public.
Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative
but would not fully achieve the benefits of the project objectives, including the linkage with
Old Town and the emphasis on pedestrian-focused development, 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.
C. ALTERNATIVE 3 — RELOCATE CIVIC USE
1. Summary of Alternative
Alternative 3 would maintain the majority of the project elements including the eight
residential villages with the proposed residential densities, a small amount of
neighborhood-serving commercial uses, the nature center use, and the extension of the
Western Bypass along the proposed alignment. However, under this alternative, the
proposed nature center use would be relocated from the South Parcel to the area of the
proposed elementary school site (Village C); and the elementary school eliminated from
' the proposed project. The intent of this alternative is to reduce potential impacts to
biological and cultural resources; namely, for biological resources, the restricted wildlife
A-82
corridor widths associated with Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13; and,
for cultural resources, the National-register-listed Origin Landscape TCP and an
archaeological site located on the South Parcel.
2. Reason for Rejecting Alternative
For aesthetics, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with
mitigation incorporated. Under Alternative 3, the nature center use would be relocated
from the 55-acre South Parcel to the elementary site, and the elementary school
eliminated from the development. The introduction of a nature center use with up to
20,000 square feet of building area and a maximum building height of two-stories would
result in similar building height and mass compared with an elementary school. However,
considering that residential structures up to five stories would occur at the perimeter of
the civic use, the visual character of Alternative 3 as viewed from nearby public roadways
would be similar to the proposed project. As such, Alternative 3 would have similar
impacts on aesthetics as the proposed project.
Air quality emissions are based on a project's size and the number of project-related daily
vehicle trips. Operation of the proposed would have a significant and unavoidable impact
on air quality. Under Alternative 3, daily vehicle trips would be reduced by an estimated
791 trips. This minor reduction in trips would be not result in a significant reduction in
mobile-source emissions. As a result, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts to air
quality compared to the project.
The proposed project would incorporate mitigation measures to reduce impacts on
adjacent wildlife corridors to less than significant. Under Alternative 3, the 55-acre South
Parcel would not be developed and the site would be conserved as open space. This
would provide greater wildlife corridor width at the southern end of the project where
Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 converge, thereby reducing
any potential effects on wildlife movement in this vicinity. As a result, Alternative 3 would
have fewer impacts to biological resources compared to the proposed project.
Similar to the proposed project, construction of Alternative 3 would include soil excavation
which has the potential to encounter historical and paleontological resources. However,
Alternative 3 would be required to incorporate similar mitigation for ground-disturbing
activities to reduce these impacts to less than significant. In addition, the 55-acre South
Parcel would not be developed under Alternative 3, which would result in the avoidance
of a TCP and potential cultural resources that could be encounter during soil excavation
at the 55-acre site. As such, Alternative 3 would have less potential to impact cultural
resource compared to the proposed project.
Alternative 3 would have a reduced development footprint with the elimination of the
elementary school compared with the proposed project; and, therefore, would expose
fewer people and structures to potential adverse effects of seismic ground shaking.
However, development under Alternative 3 would be subject to the same building codes
and regulations as the proposed project, which requires structural design that can
A-83
accommodate ground accelerations expected from known active faults. As a result,
Alternative 3 would have similar exposure to geologic hazards as the proposed project.
Greenhouse gas emissions resulting from Alternative 3 would exceed applicable
standards. Alternative 3, at buildout, would have an estimated 791 vehicular trips per day
less than the proposed project. The resulting reduction in GHG emissions when
compared with the project would be negligible. As a result, Alternative 3 would have
similar impacts compared to the proposed project.
No hazardous material or spill sites were identified on any of the project site. Similar to
the proposed project, Alternative 3 would be required to follow applicable regulations and
guidelines regarding storage and handling of hazardous waste. As such, Alternative 3
would have similar impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials compared to the
proposed project.
With mitigation, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to
hydrology and water quality. Alternative 3 would relocate the nature center use to the
elementary school site, eliminate the elementary school and leave the 55-acre South
Parcel in its existing, undeveloped condition; resulting the development of fewer
impervious surfaces compared to the project. As such, Alternative 3 would have fewer
effects on hydrology and water quality compared to the proposed project.
In regards to land use, the project would require a General Plan Amendment which would
modify the City's existing General Plan Land Use Policy Map and sections in the Land
Use and Circulation Elements to accommodate the proposed residential villages,
institutional/civic uses, and the Western Bypass alignment. In addition, with
implementation of mitigation measures that address urban/wildlands interface, noise, and
conservation of land in Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of this EIR, the proposed project would be
consistent with goals and policies of the MSHCP. It is expected that Alternative 3 would
also involve a General Plan Amendment and be required to adhere to similar mitigation
measures. Alternative 3 would have similar land uses (except for the elimination of the
elementary school) compared to the project but under a reduced density scenario that
would provide a greater buffer between urban development and an area where three
streams converge (Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and Santa Margarita River) at the
southern end of the project site. This would result in a greater degree of consistency with
MSHCP goals and policies associated with wildlife corridors and conserved lands.
However, relocating the civic use to the proposed elementary school site would introduce
a higher intensity land use that would be less compatible with the planned residential uses
for that area, and would have an adverse effect on the internal street system. Therefore,
Alternative 3 would have similar impacts to land use and planning compared to the
proposed project.
Similar to the proposed project, construction phasing would be similar to the proposed
project and individual lots within the project site would be developed over the course of
10 years. Although the development of the 55-acre site would not occur, Alternative 3
would have similar effects from noise impacts on nearby receptors during construction
compared to the proposed project.
A-84
' Population growth under Alternative 3 would be similar to the proposed project. Using an
average household size of 2.63 persons per household, the proposed project could
generate a new population of between 2,288 and 4,603 people. Alternative 3 would allow
the same range of dwelling units as the project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have
similar impacts on population and housing as the proposed project.
Demand for public services and utilities would be similar under Alternative 3 generate
similar population as the project but would not have an elementary school and would
provide additional recreation/open space with the nature center use. As such, there would
be a similar demand for public services such as public parks and open space, police and
fire protection, library services and hospital services as the proposed project. Overall,
Alternative 3 would have similar impacts on public services compared to the proposed
project.
With mitigation, the proposed project would result a less-than-significant impact on traffic,
except under the Cumulative (2025) Traffic and General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions
The proposed project would result in a significant cumulative impact on traffic due the
unfeasibility of widening Temecula Parkway between La Paz Road and Wabash Lane.
The project would result in a net increase of 19,232 vehicle trips per day. Implementation
of Alternative 3 would result in 791 less vehicle trips per day than the project, which would
be a negligible decrease in vehicle trips compared to the project. However, relocating the
nature center use to the elementary school site would shift additional trips to the north
end of the project site and throughout the site's internal network, likely having an adverse
impact on the internal street network as planned, requiring additional improvements to
intersections along Rancho California Road and the Western Bypass; specifically at
Rancho California Road and the Western Bypass, Vincent Moraga Drive and Park Ridge
Drive, and A Street and the Western Bypass. As such, Alternative 3 would have similar
impacts to traffic compared to the proposed project.
The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on utilities and water
supply). Alternative 3 would eliminate the elementary school resulting in less demand on
utilities such, as solid waste, and water supply compared to the project. As such,
Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts on utilities and water supply.
Alternative 3 will have many of the same impacts as the proposed project but would
reduce impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality,
and utilities. However, Alternative 3 fails to satisfy two of the ten the project objectives.
Alternative 3 would fail to provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that
include a central park, plazas, trails, a play field, and elementary school; and provide for
a civic site of adequate size to accommodate an educational, institutional, or other
business use for the benefit of the public.
Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 3 would not fully meet the project objectives;
it is not the environmentally superior alternative; and does not avoid significant
environmental impacts.
A-85
' 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-86
I
ATTACHMENT 5B
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (NC)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
DRAFT—NATURE CENTER
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Aesthetics
Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1:The following light and glare Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of
standards shall be applied to all future development within the Construction/ Temecula Temecula Temecula
project area: Post-Construction Building Official project approval
or other and field
• The applicant shall ensure that all outdoor lighting fixtures Designee verification and
in public areas contain"sham cutoff'fixtures,and shall be sign-off by City
fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding. of Temecula
• The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall
be grouped into control zones to allow for opening,
closing,and night light/security lighting schemes.All
control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting
system utilizing a time clock,photocell,and low voltage
relays.
• The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the
development shall take advantage of landscaping,onsite
architectural massing,and off—site architectural massing
to block fight sources and reflection from cars.
• The use of highly reflective construction materials on
exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited.
• Prior to the issuance of construction permits for any phase
of the project that includes outdoor lighting,the applicant
shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan
to be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula.
The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance
No.655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors and shall include,but not be limited to,the
following information and standards:
o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens:
o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays
emitted by the fixtures are projected below the
Cypress Ridge Project 1 ESA/150642
MMRP
July 2017
! ! !
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance initials Date Remarks
horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of
the shield;
o A map showing all lamp locations,orientations,and
intensities,including security,roadway,and task
lighting;
o Specification of each light fixture and each light
shield;
o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint,expressed
as lumens per acre;and
o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to
be used,especially for security lighting.
• The City shall conduct a post-installation inspection to
ensure that the development is in compliance with the
design standards in Altair Specific Plan,Mitigation
Measure MM-AES-1 and Riverside County Ordinance No.
655.
Air Quality
Pre-Construction City of City of City of
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-la:No fireplaces shall be included in Temecula Temecula Temecula
the residential units. Building Official project approval
or other
• Designee
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-lb:The lease or purchase agreements Post-Construction City of City of Issuance of
for all non-residential units shall include the following: Temecula Temecula Certificate of
Building Official Occupancy by
a) Required use of low VOC cleaning supplies in all or other City of
buildings. Designee Temecula
b) Required use of low VOC architectural coatings.
Architectural coatings shall be 150 grams per liter or less
for both interior and exterior coatings applied as part of
building maintenance and upkeep.
Cypress Ridge Project 2 ESA 1150642
MMRP
July 2017
111111.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance initials Date Remarks
c) Employers shall allow alternative work weeks,flextime,
telecommuting,and/or work-at-home programs as
appropriate to the business developed.(non-quantifiable)
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1c:All residential and non-residential Construction City of City of Field verification
properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets such that Temecula Temecula and sign-off by
a minimum of 10 percent of landscape equipment can be electrically Building Official City of
operated.Landscape contracts for all multi-family residential and or other Temecula
non-residential buildings shall include a mandatory requirement Designee
stipulating that a minimum of 10 percent of all landscape equipment
used onsite would be electrically operated. •
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1d:All residential and non-residential Pre-construction/ City of City of Issuance of
buildings shall be constructed such that they meet one of the Construction Temecula Temecula Building Permit
following conditions: Building Official and field
a) Buildings shall implement energy efficiency standards that or other verification and
exceed the 2013 Title 24 standards by 15 percent;or Designee sign-off by City
b) Project design shall include onsite renewable energy,for of Temecula
example the incorporation of solar panels into project
development,such that 9 percent of the onsite energy
consumption is offset.
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-le:The lease or purchase agreements Post-Construction City of City of Issuance of
for all multi-family residential and non-residential units shall: Temecula Temecula Certificate of
a) Require that transit routes be posted in common areas of Building Official Occupancy by
multi-family residential buildings and employee/student or other City of
areas for non-residential buildings.Additionally,building Designee Temecula
management shall encourage a ride-share program within
the specific plan area such that employees as well as
residents have more access to car-pooling opportunities.
(non-quantifiable)
b) Shall encourage the use of alternative vehicles by
providing incentives such as,but not limited to,special
parking for alternative fueled vehicles and/or parking cost
reduction for alternative fueled vehicles.(non-quantifiable)
Require that 5 percent of all available off-street parking spaces(per
multi-family and non-residential development)shall be equipped with
charging stations to encourage the use of electric vehicles.(non-
quantifiable)
Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2:The site shall be watered four times
per day during ground disturbance(grading)activities for all project
Cypress Ridge Project 3 ESA/150642
MMRP July 2011
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
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.
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure MM-810-1: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 clearing Qualified and sign-off by
and grubbing activities are necessary during the breeding season,a Biologist City of
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
Cypress Ridge Project 4 ESA/150642
MMRP
July 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
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-B10-2:Suitable burrowing owl habitat Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of a
identified on the project site shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist Temecula Temecula grading permit
using the methods described in the Burrowing Owl Survey Qualified and signed off
Instructions for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area Biologist by the City of
(EPD,2006)no more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbing Temecula
activities to determine presence or absence of burrowing owl.If no
burrowing owls are identified,no additional mitigation is necessary
and activities may commence.If a burrowing owl is detected,the
City of Temecula and the RCA will be notified.
If burrowing owls are found on the project site,the applicant shall
implement the following measure:
Take of active nests shall be avoided.Passive or active relocation
(use of one way doors and collapse of burrows),as approved by the
RCA,may occur when owls are present outside the nesting season
(March 1 -August 31).If active relocation is selected,translocation
sites for the burrowing owl shall be created in the MSHCP
Conservation Area for the establishment of new colonies.
Translocation sites will be identified,taking into consideration
unoccupied habitat areas,presence of burrowing mammals,existing
colonies and effects to other MSHCP covered species.Selected
translocation sites shall be coordinated with CDFW and USFWS
prior to translocation site development.
Mitigation Measure MM-0104:The following Best Management Construction City of City of Issuance of
Practices shall be adhered to: Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
• Prior to the issuance of any clearing,grubbing,or grading Qualified and signed off
permit for the project,a qualified biologist(Project Biologist by the City of
Biologist)with a minimum of 3 years of experience in field Temecula
supervision on construction sites,shall be retained by the
applicant to oversee compliance with the protection and
avoidance measures for biological issues associated with
the project.The Project Biologist shall have the authority
Cypress Ridge Project 5 ESA 1150642
MMRP
July 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance initials Date Remarks
to halt construction activities in the event of non-
compliance.
• The Project Biologist shall be onsite during initial ground
disturbing activities,including,but not limited to:
vegetation removal,tree removal or trimming,grading,
and restoration landscaping to ensure project activities
remain in compliance with all applicable biological
resource permits.
• Intentional killing or unauthorized collection of plant and
wildlife species shall be prohibited.
• Workers shall be prohibited from bringing pets and
firearms to the project site,and from feeding wildlife.
• Proposed and existing Westem Riverside Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan(MSHCP)Conservation Areas
shall be protected in place by the installation of orange silt
fencing.Fencing shall be maintained in working order and
inspected weekly.Fencing repair shall occur within 2
working days following inspection.
• All trash and food items shall be contained in closed
containers and trash removed daily to reduce the
attractiveness to opportunistic predators such as common
ravens and feral cats and dogs.
• All fueling of construction vehicles shall be within
designated areas beyond 100 feet of any drainage course,
and be contained using appropriate protection measures.
• Nighttime construction shall be prohibited in areas directly
abutting or within 200 feet of existing or project-proposed
MSHCP Conservation Areas.Nighttime construction
which does occur outside these areas shall use directional
lighting to minimize the impacts of increased artificial
nighttime lighting.
• All construction equipment and vehicles shall not idle for
more than 45 minutes to minimize ambient noise
produced by the project.
•
Cypress Ridge Project 6 ESA/150642
MMRP July 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-4a:Prior to the issuance of a grading Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of a
permit for the project,the applicant shall obtain all necessary agency Temecula Temecula grading permit
permits for impacts to jurisdictional waters,wetlands and riparian Building Official by the City of
resources,including the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(USACE), or other Temecula
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW),and the Designee
Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB).Impacts to riparian
habitat shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio.Impacts to
unvegetated channel shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio.
Mitigation for both temporary and permanent impacts shall be
accomplished by one or more of following options:on- or offsite
habitat restoration;purchase of credits from an in-lieu fee program;
and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank.If a Habitat
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is required by any of the respective
resource agencies(USACE,RWQCB.and CDFW),it shall be
prepared according to agency requirements and shall include,at a
minimum,the following information:
• Location and detailed maps of the mitigation and
revegetation areas
• An evaluation of the existing function and values,and a
description of the function and values to be achieved
through compensatory mitigation
• Detailed plant and seed mix requirements
• Detailed planting plan
• Specific and measurable five-year success criteria
• Five-year maintenance and monitoring requirements
• Invasive species management
• Irrigation requirements including the requirement to be off
of irrigation for at least two years prior to final sign-off
• Securing of a bond or line of credit to guarantee success
of the compensatory mitigation
Cypress Ridge Project 7 ESA 1150642
MMRP
July 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Mitigation Measure MM-6110.4b:Prior to the issuance of a grading Pre-construction City of City of Issuance of a
permit for the project,a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Temecula Temecula grading permit
Superior Preservation(DBESP)shall be approved by the Western Qualified by the City of
Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority to address Biologist Temecula
impacts to 1.24 acres of riparian/riverine habitat.The DBESP shall
include the following information:
• Definition of the project area
• A written project description,demonstrating why an
avoidance alternative is not possible
• A written description of biological information available for
the project site including the results of resource mapping
• Quantification of unavoidable impacts to ripariaNriverine
areas and vernal pools associated with the project,
including direct and indirect effects
• A written description of project design features and
mitigation measures that reduce indirect effects,such as
edge treatments,landscaping,elevation difference,
minimization and/or compensation through restoration or
enhancement
• A baseline biological assessment of the resources being
impacted,used for comparison of biological equivalency
• A written description of the proposed habitat mitigation,
including habitat type,location,functional lift,and long-
term stewardship responsibility
A finding demonstrating that although the proposed project would
not avoid impacts,the habitat mitigation would be biologically
equivalent or superior to that which is being impacted and would
result in a net equivalent or superior ecological condition
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-Ga:Prior to the issuance of a building Construction City of City of Issuance of a
permit for the project,or any phase thereof,the applicant shall pay Temecula Temecula building permit
Local Development Mitigation fees,as determined by the City of Building Official by the City of
or other Temecula
Designee
Cypress Ridge Project 8 ESA 1150642
MMRP
July 2017
MIN
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Temecula Municipal Code Chapter 15,to offset impacts to sensitive
habitat and covered sensitive species.
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO Sb:At the time of final map Pre-construction City of City of Approval and
recordation for the project,or any phase thereof,lands identified to Temecula Temecula Recordation of
contribute to Linkage Areas and open space areas of the project Building Official final map by the
(Conserved Lands)and included on the final map shall be or other City of
conserved in perpetuity through the recordation of conservation Designee Temecula
easements in favor of the Western Riverside County Regional
Conservation Authority(RCA)or deed transfer of said parcels to the
RCA.Conserved Lands shall include all areas identified for the
continued preservation and functionality of Proposed Linkage 10 and
Proposed Constrained Linkage 13.The project shall conserve onsite
a minimum of 82.77 acres,which have been identified at a Criteria
Cell level to include Cells 7077,7161,7078,7164,7258,7264,7355
and 7356.
Mitigation Measure MM-B10-7a:The portion of Camino Estribo that Construction City of City of Issuance of a
lies between the South Parcel and the main development area within Temecula Temecula grading permit
the project footprint shall remain as a dirt road to minimize vehicular Engineering verified and
speeds. Official or other signed off by the
Designee City of
Temecula
Mitigation Measure MM-B10.7b:The applicant shall install Construction City of City of Issuance of
permanent fencing along the Western Bypass where the Bypass Temecula Temecula Grading and
right-of-way is contiguous with existing or proposed MSHCP Building Official Building
Conserved Lands,to keep animals within the wildlife corridor.Prior or other Permits by the
to the issuance of any construction permits for the project,the Designee City of
applicant shall prepare and submit a detailed fencing plan for review Temecula
by the City of Temecula and the wildlife agencies(CDFW and
USFWS),and approval by the City.The fencing plan shall include,at
a minimum,the fencing location,fencing specifications,plant list,
and method and timing of installation.The fence shall be installed
prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project.
Cypress Ridge Project 9 ESA 1150642
MMRP
July 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-7c:A Slope Revegetation Plan shall Pre-Construction/onstruction/ City of City of Issuance of
be prepared by the project applicant.The Plan shall be submitted for Construction Temecula Temecula grading and
approval to the City prior to the construction of the Western Bypass. Building Official building permits
The Plan shall include at a minimum: or other by the City of
Designee Temecula
• The requirement to salvage and stockpile excavated topsoil up
to the first six inches along selected portions of the ground '
disturbance area for use in spreading as the top layer of soil in
restoring disturbed areas
• Equipment and methods for planting
• A planting plan,including the amount and species of seed
necessary to revegetate the target habitat types
• Success criteria for the revegetated areas over a five-year
period following installation
• Specific BMPs for erosion control during and after revegetation
• A requirement for five years of maintenance of the revegetated
areas,including removal of invasive species and irrigation(if
necessary)
A requirement for five years of monitoring to evaluate compliance
with the success criteria and to adjust maintenance activities using
an adaptive management approach
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-la—Retention of a Qualified Pre-construction City of City of Issuance of a
Archaeologist:Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the Temecula Temecularadio
9 9 permit
start of any ground disturbing activity,the applicant shall retain a Qualified and project
qualified archaeologist,defined as an archaeologist meeting the Archeologist approval by the
Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for City of
archaeology(Department of the Interior,2012),and as approved by Temecula
the City of Temecula,to carry out all mitigation measures related to
archaeological resources and to coordinate the archaeological
program with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians(Pechanga
Tribe).The Project archaeologist will have the authority to slop and
redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate
Cypress Ridge Project 10 ESA/150642
MMRP
July 2011
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
the find and determine the appropriate next steps,in consultation
with the Pechanga Tribal Monitor.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1 b-Retention of a Professional Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of
Pechanga Tribal Monitor:At least 30 days prior to seeking a Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula
grading permit,the project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga qualified Project
Tribe to notify the Tribe of their intent to pull permits for the proposed Archaeologist Approval;
grading and excavation,and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop and Pechanga verification by
a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement.The tribal City of
Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, representatives Temecula in
the designation,responsibilities,and participation of professional consultation with
Pechanga Tribe
Pechanga Tribal Monitors during grading,excavation and ground
disturbing activities;project grading and development scheduling;
terms of compensation for the monitors.including overtime and
weekend rates,in addition to mileage reimbursement;and treatment
and final disposition of any cultural resource,sacred sites,and
human remains discovered on the site.The Pechanga Tribal Monitor
will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate
area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the
appropriate next steps,in consultation with the Project
archaeologist.Such evaluation shall include culturally appropriate
temporary and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement
which may include avoidance of cultural resources,in-place
preservation and/or re-burial on the project property in an area that
will not be subject to future disturbances for preservation in
perpetuity.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-lc—Cultural Resources Sensitivity Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of
Training:The qualified archeologist,or an archaeologist working Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula
under the direction of the qualified archaeologist,and a qualified Project
representative of the Pechanga Tribe shall conduct preconstruction Archaeologist Approval;
cultural resources sensitivity training which will include a brief review and Pechanga verification by
of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area to tribal City of
in
inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that representatives cemecalioT
consultawith
ti
may be encountered,and of the proper procedures to be enacted in
Pechanga Tribe
the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or
human remains.The applicant shall ensure that construction
Cypress Ridge Project 11 ESA/150642
MMRP
July 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
•
personnel are made available for and attend the training and shall
•
retain documentation demonstrating attendance.All new
construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the
initial Training must take the cultural resources sensitivity training
prior to beginning work and the project archaeologist and Pechanga
Tribe shall make themselves available to provide the training on an
as-needed basis.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-id —Archaeological and Native Pre-construction/ City of City of Issuance of a
American Monitoring and Resurvey.cf the South Parcel:Prior:o Construction . Temecula Temecula grading permit
• issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation - qualified and project
removal or ground disturbing activity,a qualified archaeological Archaeologist approval by the
monitor and Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be retained by the and Pechanga City of
applicant to monitor ground disturbing activities including,but not tribal Temecula;
limited to,brush clearance and grubbing,grading,trenching, representatives verification by
excavation,and the construction of fencing and access roads as Ty of
Temecula in
indicated in MM-CUL-la and lb.The archaeological and Pechanga consultation with
Tribal monitors shall re-survey the South Parcel involving ground Pechanga Tribe
disturbance,after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to
other ground disturbing activities.This will ensure that previously
undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified
and appropriate treatment measures for the resources can be
developed.Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an
archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric
resources that could be encountered within the project,and under
direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist.If ground disturbing
activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more
than 500 feet apart,additional archaeological and Pechanga Tribal
monitors may be required.
The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall keep daily
and/or weekly logs.After monitoring has been completed,the
qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details
the results of monitoring,which shall be submitted to the City,
Pechanga,and to the Eastern Information Center at the University of
California,Riverside.
Cypress Ridge Projecl 12 ESA 1150642
MMRP
July 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1e—Unanticipated Discovery: If Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of
cultural resources are encountered during the course of ground Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula
disturbing activities,the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing qualified Project
activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the Archaeologist Approval:
qualified archaeologist,who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of and Pechanga verification by
discovery,during normal working hours.The qualified archaeologist, tribal City of
the archaeological monitor,and/or Native American monitor shall be representatives Temecula in
empowered to halt or redirect ground disturbing activities away from consultation with
the vicinity of the find until it has been assessed for significance.The Pechanga Tribe
qualified archaeologist,in consultation with the applicant and the
Pechanga Tribe,shall assess the significance of discovered
resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs,customs,
and practices of the Pechanga Tribe.Avoidance shall be the
preferred manner of mitigation pursuant to Calif.Pub.Res.Code§
21083.2(b).Preservation in place may be accomplished by,but is
not limited to,complete avoidance,incorporating the resource into
open space,or deeding the site into a permanent conservation
easement.In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to
be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is determined to
be the only feasible mitigation option,a treatment plan shall be
prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist,in
consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe.The
treatment plan shall provide for the adequate recovery of the
scientifically consequential information contained in the
archaeological resource.The Pechanga Tribe shall be consulted to
ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource,beyond that
which is scientifically important,are considered and additional
appropriate mitigation to address the cultural values is applied.The
treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis.reporting,and
curation/disposition of resources in accordance with the Treatment
Agreement required in MM-CUL-lb.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-if—Completed Avoidance of Pre-construction/ City of City of Verification by
Impacts to the TCP:The City and the Project Appiicant/Land Construction Temecula Temecula City of
Owner shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Traditional Cultural Qualified Temecula in
Property south of the proposed South Parcel Area.This includes, Archaeologist consultation with
but is not limited to off-site improvements,staging activities, and Pechanga Pechanga Tribe
trenching,geotechnical work, Riverside County Flood Control tribal
improvements,Water Department impacts,Public Works projects, representatives
biological and fire control programs,and any other program or
project that would affect the integrity of the TCP.Should any of
these activities,or others as indicated,be proposed,the City and the
Cypress Ridge Project 13 ESA/150642
MMRP
July 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance initials Date Remarks
Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for
additional consultation and review.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2a—Paleontological Resource Pre-Construction City of City of Verification by
Impact Mitigation Program(PRIMP):The applicant shall Temecula Temecula City of
implement the paleontological mitigation program outlined in the qualified Temecula in
PRIMP(Kennedy and Wirths,2013)during project implementation. Paleontologist consultation with
The PRIMP requires paleontological monitoring of mapped Pechanga Tribe
exposures of the sandstone fades of the Pauba Formation(Qp)as
shown on Attachment 3a of the PRIMP.in addition,because the
fangiomerate facies of the Pauba Formation is considered to have
undetermined potential to yield significant paleontological resources,
initial excavations into the unit shall be spot-checked by a qualified
paleontologist(defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for
Vertebrate Paleontology Standards,2010)to determine if the
lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the preservation of
unique paleontological resources.The qualified paleontologist shall
also contribute to any construction worker cultural resources
sensitivity training,either in person or via a module provided to the
qualified archaeologist.
Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist,or a
monitor working under the direct supervision of a qualified
paleontologist.Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt
or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the
fossil specimens.The qualified paleontologist,based on
observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors,may
reduce or discontinue monitoring,as warranted,if the qualified
paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering
fossiliferous deposits is low.Monitors shall prepare daily logs
detailing the types of activities and soils observed,and any
discoveries.Any fossils recovered shall be prepared to the point of
identification and curated at an accredited facility.The qualified
paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report
to be submitted to the City and filed with the local repository.
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2b—Unanticipated Paleontological Construction City of City of Verification by
Resources Discoveries:If construction or other project personnel Temecula Temecula City of
discover any potential fossils during construction,regardless of the
Cypress Ridge Project 14 ESA 1150642
MMRP
July 2017
Ele
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
depth of work,work at the discovery location shall cease until the qualified Temecula in
qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made Paleontologist consultation with
recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. Pechanga Tribe
•
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3—Human Remains:If human Pre-Construction/ City of City of Verification by
remains are uncovered during project construction,the applicant Construction Temecula Temecula City of
shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and protocols qualified Temecula
set forth in Section 15064.5(e)of the CEQA Guidelines,which Paleontologist
require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050,5 and
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(as amended by AB 2641).
The applicant shall immediately contact the Riverside County
Coroner to evaluate the remains.If the County Coroner determines
that the remains are Native American and not subject to his or her
authority,the County Coroner shall notify the Native American
Heritage Commission(NAHC)within 24 hours.The NAHC shall
designate a Most Likely Descendant(MLO)for the remains,who
shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site
to provide recommendations to the landowner for the means of
treating or disposing of,with appropriate dignity,the human remains
and any associated grave goods. Until the landowner has
discussed and conferred with the MLD,the landowner shall ensure
that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not
subject to further disturbances,is adequately protected according to
generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards,and that
further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials.
In the event that no MLD is identified,or if the MLD fails to make a
recommendation for disposition,or if the landowner rejects the
recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to
provide measures acceptable to the landowner,the landowner may
reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate
dignity on the property in a location not subject to further
disturbance.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1:Upon full entitlement of the project Construction/Post- City of City of Issuance of
and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project, construction Temecula Temecula Certificate of
the project sponsor shall submit an application for a Pre-Certified Building Official Occupancy by
LEED-ND Plan through the U.S.Green Building Council. If the or other the City of
application meets the LEED-ND prerequisites,the project sponsor Designee Temecula
shall continue with the certification,and the project shall receive a
minimum base-level LEED-ND certification within two years of
project build-out. If Pre-Certified LEER-ND Plan approval is denied,
the project applicant shall nevertheless incorporate the following
measures in the project design that are normally scored to achieve
Cypress Ridge Project 15 ESA 1150642
MMRP
July 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
LEE/standards and shall achieve a fifteen-percent(15%)reduction
in energy use beyond 2016 Tile 24 building standards by
undertaking the following:
1)Provide parking associated with electrical charging stations;
2)Subsidize public transit and expand transit network(e.g.,help
fund Riverside Transportation Authority and City smart shuttle or
bike share programs);
3)Provide an enhanced pedestrian network,including pedestrian
connections to the local community;
4)Provide traffic calming measures and urban non-motorized zones;
5)Install bicycle parking and storage,as well as dedicated bike
lanes or trails with connectivity to the local community and recreation
areas;
6)Prohibit wood-burning fireplaces;
7)Where practicable,install or ensure facilities are compatible with
renewable energy(e.g.solar photovoltaics);
8)Install energy efficient boilers and appliances,including
programmable thermostat timers;
9)Install energy efficient street and area lighting,induding LED
traffic lights,motion detection lighting,and limited outdoor lighting for
security and safety purposes;
10)Install electrical outlets compatible with electric yard equipment;
11)Provide for use of reclaimed water;
12)Install low-flow bathroom and kitchen fixtures(e.g.,faucets,
toilets,and showers);
13)Install water efficient irrigation systems;
14)Where practicable,reuse or recycle materials from operation
and construction activities.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1:Prior to issuance of a grading Pre-construction City of City of Issuance of
permit,a final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
engineer in accordance with the Riverside County Hydrology Manual Building Official by the City of
and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in or other Temecula
accordance with City,Riverside County and engineering Designee
standards.The final study shall identify storm water runoff quantities
from the development of this site and upstream of the site,and shall •
identify all existing or proposed drainage facilities intended to
discharge this runoff.Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate
outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to
public or private property or any substantial adverse change in
receiving water quality or habitat values;the final study shall include
a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities and any •
Cypress Ridge Project 16 ESA 1150602
MMRP July 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
features to include in the design to minimize or avoid runoff impacts.
Features to be included in the site design shall conform with the City
of Temecula MS4 permit and Stormwater Ordinance,and may
include,for example:
1)Non-structural,structural,source control and treatment control
BMP5;
2)Infiltration basins,detention basins,vegetated swales,and media
filters;
3)Pervious concrete,storm drain stenciling or signage,protection of
material and trash storage areas from rainfall;and
4)Other low impact development(LID)BMPs,including measures to
reduce increases in runoff through hydromodification and infiltration
protection.
If the receiving facilities are determined to be under capacity,then
onsite detention and/or alternative drainage facilities and outfalls
shall be required as needed to avoid damage to public or private
property and alterations in water quality or habitat values.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-3:As a condition of approval,each Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
future development project will be required to generate a project- Construction/Post- Temecula Temecula Building Permit,
specific Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP),as required by Construction Building Official review of plans,
the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the or other field verification
City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan,which will ensure that Designee and sign-off by
the project implements specific water quality features to meet the City of
City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements.Each Temecula
project-specific WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City
of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
NOISE
Mitigation Measure MM-N01-1a:Prior to the issuance any grading Construction City of City of Issuance of a
or building permits for a phase or sub phase(project-specific future Temecula Temecula grading permit
development within a construction phase),the applicant shall Building Official by the City of
provide evidence to the City that the development will not exceed or other Temecula
the City's exterior noise standards for construction(see Table 3.10- Designee
5).If it is determined that City noise standards for construction
activities would be exceeded,the applicant shall submit a
construction-related exception request to the City Manager at least
one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction
activities,along with the appropriate inspection fee(s),to ensure that
the project's construction noise levels would be granted an
Cypress Ridge Project 17 ESA 1150642
MMRP July 2011
MIN IM/
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
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 baniers/curtains,use of
advanced or state-of-the-art mufflers on construction equipment,
and/or reduction in the amount of equipment that would operate
concurrently at the development site.
Mitigation Measure MM-N01-1b:The applicant shall comply with Construction City of City of Field verification
the following noise reduction measures during construction: Temecula Temecula and sign-off by
• Ensure that noise and groundbome vibration construction or other oung TeOfficial Tey of
Temecula
activities whose specific location on a construction site Designee
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
Cypress Ridge Project 18 ESA/150642
MMRP
July 2011
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
dBA.External jackets on the tools themselves shall be
used where feasible;this could achieve a reduction of 5
dBA.Quieter procedures,such as use of drills rather than
impact tools,shall be used whenever feasible,as
determined by the City of Temecula's Building Official
based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive
receptors,type and number of equipment used,and
duration of noise.
• Locate stationary construction noise sources away from
adjacent receptors and muffled and enclosed within
temporary sheds,incorporate insulation barriers,or other
measures to the extent feasible,as determined by the
City's Building Official based on the circumstances such
as exposure to sensitive receptors,type and number of
equipment used,and duration of noise.
• Construction truck traffic shall be restricted to routes
approved by the City of Temecula,and shall avoid
residential areas and other sensitive receptors,to the
extent feasible.
• Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a
liaison with surrounding residents and property owners
who is responsible for responding to address any
concerns regarding construction noise and vibration.The
liaison's telephone number(s)shall be prominently
displayed at construction locations.
Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors and the
general contractor or onsite project manager to confirm that noise
and vibration mitigation and practices(including construction hours,
sound buffers,neighborhood notification, posted signs,etc.)are
implemented.
Mitigation Measure MM-N01-2a: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,loaded trucks,and caisson drills,shall be prohibited Building Official and field
within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of institutional or other verification and
structures during construction activities to the extent feasible.Small, Designee sign-off by City
rubber-tired construction equipment shall be used within this area of Temecula
Cypress Ridge Project 19
ESA/l
MMRP
July
alt 2011]
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
during demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration
effects,where feasible.
Mitigation Measure MM-N01-2b:The operation of jackhammers Construction City of City of Field verification
shall be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures Temecula Temecula and sign-off by
and 20 feet of institutional structures during construction activities,to Building Official City of
the extent feasible. or other Temecula
Designee
Mitigation Measure MM-N014:Prior to the issuance of a building Construction City of City of Issuance of
permit for future developments in the project,the applicant shall Temecula Temecula Building Permit
provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels generated Building Official and field
by the proposed development would not exceed the City's or other verification and
permissible exterior noise standards that are applicable to adjacent Designee sign-off by City
properties.If City noise standards at the adjacent properties would of Temecula
be exceeded,design measures shall be taken to ensure that
operational noise levels associated with the proposed development
would be reduced to levels that comply with the permissible City
noise standards.These measures may include,but are not limited
to,the erection of noise walls,use of landscaping,and/or the design
of adequate setback distances for the new developments.
Mitigation Measure MM-N01-4a:The applicant of individual Construction City of City of Issuance of
development projects within the project area shall minimize noise Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
impacts from mechanical equipment,such as ventilation and air Building Official and field
conditioning units,by locating equipment away from receptor areas, or other verification and
installing proper acoustical shielding for the equipment,and Designee sign-off by City
incorporating the use of parapets into building design to ensure that of Temecula
noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise level on the premises
of existing development by more than five decibels.
Mitigation Measure MM-NO1-4b:Prior to City approval of a Construction City of City of City of
residential development project within the project area,the applicant Temecula Temecula Temecula
shall provide documentation to the City that all exterior windows Building Official project approval;
associated with a proposed residential development will be or other and field
constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound Insulation to Designee verification and
ensure that interior noise levels would be below an Le,or CNEL of sign-off by City
45 dBA in any habitable room. of Temecula
Mitigation Measure MM-N01-5:All future residential developments Post-Construction City of City of Field verification
located adjacent to the proposed Westem Bypass in the project area Temecula Temecula and sign-off by
shall be set back a minimum of 45 feet from the centerline of the Building Official
Cypress Ridge Project 20 ESA 1150642
MMRP
July 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Western Bypass.If this minimum setback distance cannot be or other City of
achieved,other measures shall be taken to ensure compliance with Designee Temecula
the City's noise/land use compatibility standard of 70 dBA La,,
including,but not limited to,greater setback distances,the erection
of noise walls or use of landscaping.
Traffic and Circulation
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-1:Prior to the completion of Phase 1 Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
of the project,the project proponent/developer shall install or provide Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
funding for system-wide signal timing optimization(phase timings Construction Engineer or and Issuance of
and cycle length)to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.Since other Designee a Certificate of
Rancho Califomia Road and Jefferson Avenue operate on an Occupancy
Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program,the developer shall be
responsible for system-wide optimization along both corridors to
mitigate impacts..
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-2:Prior to the completion of Phase 1 Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
of the project.the project proponent/developer shall install or provide Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
funding for system-wide signal timing optimization(phase timings Engineer or and Issuance of
and cycle length)to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.Since Ynez other Designee a Certificate of
Road and Rancho Califomia Road operate on an Adaptive Traffic Occupancy
Signal Timing Program,the developer shall be responsible for
system-wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts. •
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-3:Prior to the completion of Phase 2 Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
of the project,the project proponent/developer shall install or provide Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
funding for signal timing optimization(phase timings and cycle Engineer or and Issuance of
length)at the intersection of 1-15 Northbound Ramps and Temecula other Designee a Certificate of
Parkway to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes,to Occupancy
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.The project
proponent/developer shall coordinate implementation of this
improvement with Caltrans.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-5:Prior to the completion of Phase 1 Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
of the project,the project proponent/developer shall install stop signs Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
on the Pujol Street approaches at the intersection of Pujol Street and Engineer or and Issuance of
First Street,converting the intersection from side-street stop-control other Designee a Certificate of
to all-way stop control. Occupancy
Cypress Ridge Project 21 ESA/150642
MMRP
July 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-6:Prior to the completion of Phase 2 Pre-ConstructioN City of City of Issuance of
of the project,the project proponent/developer shall install or provide Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
funding for one additional exclusive eastbound left turn lane and Engineer or and Issuance of
signal timing optimization(phase timings and cycle length)at the other Designee a Certificate of
intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road,to the satisfaction of Occupancy
the City Engineer.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-7:Prior to the issuance of a Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
certificate of occupancy for Phase 1 of the project,the City shall Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
have completed the Capital Improvement Project entitled"1-151 Engineer or and Issuance of
SR 79 South(Temecula Parkway)Ultimate Interchange". other Designee a Certificate of
Occupancy
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-9:Prior to the completion of Phase 3 Pre-ConstructioN City of City of Issuance of
of the project,the project proponent/developer shall contribute 20 Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
percent of the cost to construct a fourth through lane to both the Engineer or and Issuance of
eastbound and westbound Temecula Parkway approaches to the other Designee a Certificate of
intersection of La Paz Road and Temecula Parkway,toward the Occupancy
acquisition of right-of-way,and modification of existing traffic signal
facilities at the intersection
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-12:Prior to the completion of Phase Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
3 of the project,the project proponent/developer shall contribute 43 Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
percent of the cost to construct improvements at the west Ridge Engineer or and Issuance of
Park Drive leg to allow for right-in/right-out turn movements only at other Designee a Certificate of
the intersection of Vincent Moraga Drive and Ridge Park Drive,to Occupancy
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This improvement would
prohibit vehicles from making northbound left and westbound left
turning movements at the intersection.
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-13:Prior to the completion of Phase Construction City of City of Issuance of
3 of the project,the project proponent/developer shall contribute 17 Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
percent of the cost to install traffic signals at the intersection of Pujol Engineer or and Issuance of
Street and First Street. other Designee a Certificate of
Occupancy
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-14:Prior to the issuance of any Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
grading permit or any permit that authorizes construction activities Temecula Temecula Grading and
within the Specific Plan area,or at offsite locations for improvements Engineer or Building Permits
associated with the Specific Plan,the project applicant(s)shall other Designee
Cypress Ridge Project 22 ESA 1150642
MMRP
July 2017
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED)
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
prepare a Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s)for review and
approval by the City of Temecula as part of the permit application.
The Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s)shall include measures to
minimize the construction traffic volumes entering the roadway
system(including local roads)during AM and PM peak hours. At a
minimum,the Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s)shall include the
following implementation measures:
• Construction truck routes shall be prepared to designate
principal haul routes for trucks delivering materials to and
from the construction site.
• Should a temporary road and/or lane closure be
necessary during construction,the project applicant shall
provide traffic control activities and personnel,as
necessary,to minimize traffic impacts. This may include
detour signage,cones,construction area signage,
flagmen,and other measures as required for safe traffic
handling in the construction zone.
The project applicant shall keep a minimum of one lane in each
direction free from encumbrances at all times on perimeter roads
accessing the project site. In the event a full road closure is
required,the contractor shall coordinate with the City of Temecula
and other affected jurisdictions(i.e.,Caltrans,and/or County of
Riverside)to designate proper detour routes and signage to
appropriate proper access routes.
Cypress Ridge Protect 23 ESA 1150642
MMRP
July 2017
ATTACHMENT 5C
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (NC)
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS— NATURE CENTER
The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the
proposed approval of the Altair Specific Plan (the "Project").
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social,
technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when
determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable
adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to
provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when
significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the
EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this Project
despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
The City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh
the significant and unavoidable impacts to:
• Air quality at the project and cumulative level give that the City is in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District, which is a non-attainment region for ozone;
• Greenhouse gas emissions at the cumulative level for exceeding the conservative
threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year even with incorporation of Smart Growth
development standards, which promote walking and alternative transportation;
• Noise and vibration impacts during construction; and
• Traffic impacts to the 1-15 SB Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection under Future
Buildout(2035)Conditions(prior to completion of the Ultimate interchange improvements,
which are under construction).
Although the FEIR concludes there are significant and unavoidable impacts to the 1-15 SB
Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection under Future Buildout (2035) Conditions, it should be
noted that this is a conservative approach as the ultimate intersection improvements are under
construction and once complete, the improvements will reduce the project impacts below a level
of significance.
In making this Statement of Overriding Considerations, 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.
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.
Furthermore,the following primary public benefits are required by Conditions of Approval, and
in the Development Agreement:
A. An estimated $28 million dollars of regional infrastructure (Western Bypass Corridor and
Bridge over Murrieta Creek), and improved east-west connectivity in the City;
The Western Bypass Corridor and Bridge are part of a regional facility, identified in the
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The Regional System needs to
be expanded to accommodate anticipated future growth in the City of Temecula and
southwestern Riverside County; the Project provides critical infrastructure to assist the
City in meeting this need.
B. A 5-acre Central Park and "Grand Staircase" connection to Main Street in Old Town on
the west side of 1-15 for public use;
Currently, the City does not have a park of sufficient size for residents on the west side of
I-15 to accommodate parks and recreation programs. Residents west of 1-15 have to
travel to the east side sports parks. The Central Park will accommodate existing and
future growth, and provide an important destination and gathering place for passive and
active recreation in and around Old Town.
C. An elementary school site to serve existing and future residents on the west side of 1-15;
Similar to the City's current situation with a lack of parks and programming relative to
population on the west side of 1-15, the elementary school site has the ability to provide a
neighborhood school in walking distance for many that will help eliminate the need to rely
exclusively on schools on the east side of I-15.
D. Over eight miles of pathways and trails connecting to the City's bike lane and trail network;
The Quality of Life Master Plan identifies six core values as identified by the community.
Transportation Mobility and Connectivity figures prominently in the City's planning efforts.
Altair is designed as a "Smart Growth" development which makes walking easy and
promotes a healthy and active lifestyle. Furthermore, the proposed trails, pathways, and
sidewalks connect to the surrounding network closing gaps and increasing opportunities
for active transportation.
E. Per the Development Agreement, the applicant will provide $150,000 dollars of"start-up"
funding for a shuttle connecting to RTA transit stops and/or a bikeshare program;
Again, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity figures prominently in the City's planning
efforts. This funding will assist in promoting active transportation in an effort to relieve
auto congestion in the City.
F. A 55-acre Civic Site for a Nature Center/Culture/Sustainability Center and trails to provide
environmental education and protection of natural resources at the confluence of the
Santa Margarita River,which is southern California's last"free flowing"river and the center
of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Sacred Place/Origin Area, a recognized
Traditional Cultural Place (TCP) on the National Register of Historic Places;
' G. Per the Development Agreement, the applicant is committed to provide Project
conservation features in excess of what is required as environmental mitigation, including
the following:
• 55-acre reduction in hillside escarpment/Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP) impacts associated with the shortened Western Bypass alignment, as
compared to the current alignment in the City's General Plan Circulation Element and
the approved West Side Specific Plan and MSHCP;
• Facilitation of the sale of an additional 8.97 acres of hillside escarpment adjacent to
the project site to the Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority for
conservation;
• Additional funding for conservation efforts (up to $500,0000) to be used for a wildlife
connectivity study, engineering feasibility,and/or land acquisition in the special linkage
area south of the Project.
H.
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.