The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutParcel Map 32468 Environmental Impact Report 1 1 ' Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report .' TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ' October, 2004 1 ' Lead Agency: City of Temecula ' 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 tContact: David Hogan, Principal Planner ' Planning Division 1 Consultant to the City: Cotton/Bridges/Associates A Division of P&D Consultants, Inc. ' r - 800 E. Colorado Blvd.,Suite 270 Pasadena,CA 91101 1 1 Table of Contents 1 Page 1.0 Executive Summary................................................................................................................................ 1-1 2.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................................................2-1 3.0 Project Description.................................................................................................................................3-1 4.0 Environmental Setting............................................................................................................................4-1 ' 5.0 Environmental impacts..........................................................................................................................5-1 5.1 Aesthetics................................................................................................................................5.1-1 1 5.2 Agricultural Resources..........................................................................................................5.2.1 5.3 Air Quality...............................................................................................................................5.3-1 5.4 Biological Resources.............................................................................................................5.4-1 1 5.5 Cultural Resources................................................................................................................5.5-1 5.6 Geology and Soils.................................................................................................................5.6-1 5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials....................................................................................5.7-1 ' 5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................................5.8.1 5.9 Land Use and Planning........................................................................................................5.9-1 5.10 Noise..................................................................................................................................... 5.10.1 5.11 Population and Housing................................................................................................... 5.11-1 ' 5.12 Public Services/Recreation............................................................................................... 5.12-1 5.13 Transportation..................................................................................................................... 5.13-1 5.14 Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................ 5.14-1 1 6.0 Alternatives..............................................................................................................................................6-1 ' 7.0 Cumulative and Long-Term Effects..................................................................................................... 7-1 8.0 Preparers of the EIR................................................................................................................................8-1 1 9.0 References................................................................................................................................................9-1 1 Appendices A: Notice of Preparation and Initial Study B: Air Quality Worksheets C: Biological Resources Report ' D: Traffic Study E: Noise Worksheets . F: Temecula General Plan Goals and Policies ' CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1 Table of Contents . ' List of Tables ' Table 1-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures..................................... 1-8 , Table 1-2: Notice of Preparation Letters...............................................................................................1-36 Table 3-1: General Plan Development Capacity..................................................................................3-7 ' Table 5.2-1: Farmland Conversion in Riverside County 2000-2002.................................................5.2-2 Table 5.2-2: Significant Farmland within the Temecula Planning Area............................................5.2-4 Table 5.3-1: Air Pollution Sources, Affects, and Standards.................................................................5.3-4 ' Table 5.3.2: Number of Days State Ambient Air Quality Standards Exceeded LakeElsinore Station.............................................................................................................5.3-5 Table 5.3-3: PM1e Measurements: Perris Valley Station......................................................................5.3-5 Table 5.3-4: SCAQMD Thresholds for Significant Contribution to Regional Air Pollution.........5.3-8 ' Table 5.3.5: Estimated Air Pollutant Emissions Associated with Change in Land Use.............. 5.3-10 Table 5.4-1: Regional Vegetation Communities and Approximate Acreages withinthe Planning Area......................................................................................................5.4-2 , Table 5.4.2: Sensitive Flora Species Known to Occur within the Planning Area..........................5.4-8 Table 5.4-3 Sensitive Flora Species Potentially Present within the Planning Area.......................5.4-9 Table 5.4-4: Sensitive Fauna Species Known to Occur within the Planning Area.....................5.4-1 1 ' Table 5.4-5: Sensitive Fauna Species Potentially Present within the Planning Area.................. 5.4-13 Table 5.7-1: Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites..........................................................5.7-2 Table 5.9-1: French Valley Airport CLUP Basic Compatibility Criteria..........................................5.9-10 ' Table 5.10-1: State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards.......................................... 5.10-2 Table 5.10-2: Temecula Noise Standards............................................................................................... 5.104 Table 5.10-3: Summary of Existing (2002) Noise Level Measurements in Temecula.................. 5.10-6 ' Table 5.10-4: Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix.........................................................................5.10-11 Table 5.10-5: Construction Equipment Noise Levels.........................................................................5.10-13 Table 5.12-1: Summary of City of Temecula Fire Facilities................................................................ 5.12-1 ' Table 5.12-2: School Facilities...................................................................................................................5.12-5 Table 5.12-3: TVUSD Student Generation Factors by New Residential Dwelling Unit Type and Education Level............................................. 5.12-7 ' Table 5.12-4: Future TVUSD Schools......................................................................................................5.12-8 Table 5.12-5: City of Temecula Parks and Recreational Facilities..................................................5.12.1 1 Table 5.13-1: Arterial Intersection Performance Criteria.................................................................... 5.13-2 ' Table 5.13-2: Existing ICU Summary................................................:...................................................... 5.13-4 Table 5.13-3: 1-15 Peak Hour Ramp Summary......................................................................................5.13-6 Table 5.14-1: Rancho California Water District Water Services.......................................................5.14-1 ' Table 5.14-2: Eastern Municipal Water District Current and Projected Water Supplies............. 5.14-2 Table 5.14-3: Estimated Current and Future Electricity Demand...................................................... 5.14-8 Table 5.14-4: Estimated Current and Future Natural Gas Demand................................................. 5.14-9 , Table 5.14.5: Estimated Current and Future Solid Waste Generation ..........................................5.14-11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA , GENERAL PLAN UPDATE „ 1 ' Toble of Contents ' List of Figures ' Figure 3-1: Regional Location Map...........................................................................................................3-2 Figure3-2: Land Use Policy Map................................................................................................................3-5 Figure3-3: Roadway Plan..........................................................................................................................3-11 Figure 5.1-1: Palomar Observatory Lighting Impact Zone...................................................................5.1-2 Figure 5.2-1: Agricultural Resources..........................................................................................................5.2-3 Figure 5.3-1: South Coast Air Basin...........................................................................................................5.3-2 ' Figure 5.3.2: Sensitive Receptors...............................................................................................................5.3-7 Figure 5.4-1: Critical Habitat of the California gnatcatcher and Quino checkerspot butterfly....5.4-5 Figure 5.4-2: MSHCP Conservation Areas/Core Linkages...................................................................5.4-7 Figure 5.5-1: Historic Structures and Properties Map...........................................................................5.5-3 Figure5.6-1: Seismic Hazards.....................................................................................................................5.6-2 Figure 5.7-1: Flood and Dam Inundation Hazard Areas.......................................................................5.7-4 Figure 5.8-1: Water Service Providers Service Areas............................................................................5.8-2 Figure 5.9-1: Southwest Area Plan.............................................................................................................5.9-2 Figure 5.9-2: Redevelopment Project Area Map....................................................................................5.9-4 ' Figure 5.9-3: French Valley Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone....................................................5.9-5 Figure 5.9-4: French Valley Airport Compatibility Factors Map.......................................................5.9-12 Figure 5.10-1: Existing Roadway Noise Contours.................................................................................. 5.10-5 Figure 5.10-2: French Valley Airport Noise Contours........................................................................... 5.10-6 ' Figure 5.10-3: Buildout Noise Contours................................................................................................5.10-10 Figure 5.10-4: French Valley Airport Future Noise Contours............................................................5.10-15 Figure 5.12-1: Community Safety Facilities............................................................................................. 5.12-1 t Figure 5.12-2: School Facilities................................................................................................................... 5.12-6 Figure 5.12-3: Park and Recreational Facilities.....................................................................................5.12.12 Figure 5.13-1: Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes......................................................................... 5.13-3 Figure 5.13-2: Location of Study Intersections....................................................................................... 5.13-5 1 1 1 1 ' CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT iii GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Toble of Contents 1 1 1 This page is intentionally left blank. ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE n 1 Executive Summary 1 1 . 0 Executive Summary ' The Project ' The proposed project analyzed in this Program EIR is the adoption and implementation of the City of Temecula General Plan Update. The updated General Plan establishes an overall development capacity for the City and surrounding areas, and serves as a policy guide for determining the ' appropriate physical development and character of the City for the next 20 years. The Land Use Element establishes land use designations to identify the types and nature of future development permitted throughout the, Planning Area. The Circulation Element describes how Temecula residents and employees get around using automobiles, public transit, bicycles, airplanes, sidewalks and trails, and railways. In addition, it presents the City's plan for future roadways that provide adequate capacity to accommodate travel needs resulting from development pursuant to the Land Use Element. All of the elements combined establish a vision for the City, emphasizing a family- focused lifestyle while promoting a strong local business community and agricultural, technological, and manufacturing industries, so that the community remains an attractive and enjoyable place to live, work, and play. 1 Project Location ' Temecula is located in southwestern Riverside County. The City is bordered-by the De Luz area to the west, the City of Murrieta and Murrieta Hot Springs to the north, unincorporated County of Riverside land to the east, and the Pechanga Indian Reservation, Bureau of Land Management lands, and unincorporated portions of San Diego County to.the'so6th. Figure 3-1 in Section 3.0, Project Description, shows.Temecula in a regional context and outlines the Planning Area. 1 The Planning Area encompasses approximately 62 square miles (31,286 net acres), and it consists of properties contained within the City's corporate limits and sphere of influence,as well as portions ' of unincorporated Riverside County currently outside the City's sphere of influence. The present City boundary encompasses approximately 28 square miles (14,805 acres). Twenty-four square miles (16,481 acres) are within the sphere of influence and the remainder of the Planning Area. The ' sphere of influence was established by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to identify unincorporated areas that will most likely annex to the City of Temecula in the future, on a project-by-project basis. The sphere of influence consists of open space, undeveloped ' land,,some residential development, vineyards/agricultural land, the French Valley Airport, and the Pechanga Indian Reservation. The remainder of the Planning Area consists primarily of undeveloped land and vineyards/agricultural land. 1 1 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' I-t GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Execulive Summary ' Project Objectives ' The General Plan establishes a comprehensive community vision for Temecula with regard to land use, housing, circulation, safety, open space/conservation, noise, growth management, economic ' development, and community design. The vision for the community is based on the following principles: • A family-focused lifestyle enjoyed by residents while promoting a strong local business ' community and agricultural, technological, and manufacturing industries. • The community continues to be a regional destination for those seeking the desirable ' atmosphere of the wineries and historic Old Town. • A strong business community, quality housing stock, scenic open space, and cultural t amenities make Temecula a desirable place for higher education facilities to locate. • The local circulation system meets the needs of Temecula residents and businesses ' while calming traffic in residential neighborhoods and near schools. Within this circulation system, pedestrians and cyclists are able to travel safely and quickly throughout the community and appropriate pedestrian-oriented mixed commercial ' and office uses are concentrated within village centers. • Commercial, office, and light industrial uses locate and thrive in Temecula, providing fiscal stability to the City and a revenue source to finance community improvements ' and open space resources, including cultural art centers, community centers, and parks. • Diverse housing options are available to meet the needs of all segments of the ' community while protecting the character and value of single-family neighborhoods. • High quality education is offered and children are provided strong role models and ' training for a successful future. • Properties are well maintained so the community remains an attractive and enjoyable , place to live, work, and play. Based on these principles, long-term community goals and decision-making policies are defined ' using text and maps within ten General Plan elements (or chapters). Each element also includes implementation programs describing actions or strategies corresponding to adopted goals and policies. The recommended implementation programs serve as the basis for future programming ' decisions related to the assignment of staff and expenditure of City funds. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1-2 ' Executive Summary 1 Project Characteristics In terms of guiding physical development within the Planning Area, the General Plan elements of most importance are the Land Use and Circulation Elements. Other sections of the General Plan address open space/conservation, growth management, public safety, noise, air quality, community design, economic development, and housing. The issues addressed in each subject area often overlap. A general description of each subject area is provided below. ' Land Use Element ' The Land Use Element describes the economic, social, . physical, and cultural aspects of the Temecula Planning Area. Determining the future location, type, and intensity of new development and reuse projects, and establishing the desired mix and relationship between such projects are the ' primary objectives. Figure 3-2 in Section 3.0, Project Description depicts the proposed Land Use Policy Map. The Land Use Element establishes land use designations to identify the types and nature of development permitted throughout the Planning Area, providing a mix of land uses to achieve a suitable inventory of housing for a range of income groups, a viable commercial and employment base for residents and surrounding communities, ample open space and recreational opportunities, adequate public facilities and services, and high-quality urban, suburban and rural ' lifestyles for residents and visitors to enjoy. _ Considerable future development potential exists both within the City's corporate limits, and within ' the sphere of influence and .remainder of the Planning Area. An estimated 25,005 net new residential units may be constructed in the next 20 years pursuant to General 'Plan policy, resulting in as.many as 54,687 total residential units at buildout in 2025. During this time, approximately 36.2 million square feet of net new nonresidential development is expected to be developed, ' resulting in just over 78.3 million square feet of,nonresidential development within the Planning Area. The General Plan has been designed to manage the pace and direct the location of future development using goals, policies, and implementation programs that ensure preservation of a high ' quality of life as the City faces increased growth pressures. Circulation Element The Circulation Element describes how Temecula residents and employees get around using automobiles, public.transit, bicycles, airplanes, sidewalks and trails, and railways. The City strives to ' reduce traffic congestion and improve safety on roadways, to provide useful travel alternatives to the automobile, and to provide better access to regional travel routes. The proposed Roadway Plan established within the Circulation Element is illustrated in Figure 3-3 in Section 3.0, Project Description. Future roadways have been designed to provide adequate capacity to accommodate travel needs resulting from development pursuant to the Land Use Element within the Temecula Planning Area, as well as attempting to anticipate future development in the County of Riverside and the City of Murrieta. The Circulation Element establishes eight types of roadways, ranging. from eight-lane high capacity divided roadways to two-lane undivided roadways. Improvements needed to upgrade Temecula's roadways to achieve the Roadway Plan are detailed in the Traffic and Circulation Report for this EIR (Appendix 8), and summarized in Section 5.73, CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 1-3 GENERAL PUN UPDATE Executive Summary 1 Traffic and Circulation of this EIR. These improvements will be programmed within the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The extension of North General Kearney Road from La Colima Road to Nicolas Road as.a Limited Secondary Arterial is not part of the project. The roadway extension is an issue of concern to many r within the community who feel it may lead to additional vehicle trips, noise, and loss of open space within established low- and low-medium density residential neighborhoods. Thus, the extension of North General Kearney Road is discussed as an alternative to the proposed project in Section 6.0 of , the EIR. Housing Element ' The City's Housing Element was recently updated .in 2002. The City adopted a Negative . Declaration. for the Housing Element. Therefore no comprehensive update to this Element is. , included in the project. Open Space/Conservation Element The Open Space/Conservation Element contains goals, policies and implementation programs that encourage conservation and management of natural resources, including: biological/ecological , resources, water resources, energy resources, agricultural resources, and open space. The Element also ensures the provision of parks and,recreation opportunities and preservation of the Citys historic and cultural heritage. The conservation component contains goals and policies that further ' the protection and maintenance of the State's resources.in the Temecula Planning Area. These. resources include water, soils, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources that should be considered to prevent wasteful exploitation, degradation, and destruction. The Open . ' Space/Conservation Element also incorporates goals and policies related to parks and recreation. This'section of the Element focuses on the relationship.of park space to the entire Temecula open space system and on the dedication and provision.of parklands trails, and recreation facilities. ' Growth Management/Public Facilities Element The purpose of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element is to promote orderly growth and development based on the City's ability to, provide adequate public facilities and services. This Element sets for policies and standards to ensure that future development is coordinated with public facilities and services at.desired levels of service. 'Other aspects of-growth management are found within the Land Use, Circulation, Air Quality and other elements of the General Plan. Taken together, these sections will influence growth and development within the City and surrounding areas to achieve the quality of life embodied in the Plan. The growth management component of ' this Element addresses local and regional growth management issues, including compliance with State laws affecting growth in Temecula. The public facilities component addresses both infrastructure and public services. Infrastructure includes sewer, water, storm drain systems, as well ' as public facilities. Public services include police, fire, emergency medical, public schools, solid and hazardous waste disposal, and civic and cultural facilities. r ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1.4 , Executive Summary. Public Safety Element The purpose of the Public Safety Element is to identify and address natural features, characteristics and human activities in or near Temecula that represent potential hazards to residents, structures, public facilities, and infrastructure. The Public Safety Element establishes policies to minimize potential danger to persons and property, establishes programs to regulate development in hazard- prone areas, and identifies actions to manage emergency situations. Potential .natural hazards ' addressed in the Element include geologic instability, seismic events, wild land fires, flooding, and dam failures. Potential human-caused hazards addressed in the Element include hazardous materials and waste handling, nuclear power production (at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, located 25 miles west of the Planning Area), and criminal activity. Noise Element The City strives to reduce the impacts of noise through a combination of land use planning, site criteria, noise reduction and enforcement strategies. The policies and programs provided in the Noise Element are designed to.protect the quality of life within residential:neighborhoods, schools, and other noise-sensitive uses, and to protect.these sensitive areas from the persistent hazards of excessive noise. Potential noise sources are identified and programs established to avoid or mitigate noise impacts associated with community development: Future noise conditions w ' associated with both short- and long-term growth are quantified and identified within noise exposure contours. The contours serve as the basis for developing guidelines to identify compatible r land uses Air Quality Element e- ' The Air Quality Element establishes a policy foundation to implement local air quality improvement measures and provides a framework for coordination of air quality planning efforts with surrounding jurisdictions. The City has important rolesand commitments to the implementation of the AQMP and Sub-Regional Air Quality Implementation Program. Continued efforts to provide regional public transit and high speed rail systems in the area will also lead to reductions.in vehicle trips and improved air quality. The Air Quality Element outlines the City's plan to improve the quality of Temecula's air for the health and benefit of all residents. Community Design Element The Community Design Element addresses the physical aspects of Temecula that contribute to the image and character of the natural and built environments. This Element establishes a policy foundation to implement both city-wide and focused area design criteria. The Community Design Element addresses physical aspects of Temecula that contribute to the image and character of the natural and built environments. Community Design Element policies provide the framework for: Overall city image enhancement, Preservation and enhancement of districts and neighborhoods, Design of public spaces and improvements such as community gathering areas and the streetscape system, and Preservation of significant natural features and public viewsheds. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 1.5 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Executive Summary Economic Development Element The Economic Development Element provides policies to improve the economic viability of Temecula through the provision of balanced employment and housing opportunities, the attraction and retention of businesses, and the promotion of fiscal strength and stability in the community. The City's economic development efforts must focus.on attracting and retaining businesses that: • Complement Temecula's character and take advantage of the City's supply of ' quality housing and locational benefits. • Stimulate jobs, economic growth, and fiscal stability. Serve local employment, shopping, and entertainment needs. Expand the selection of conveniently located goods and services. Intended Uses of the Program EIR This Program EIR serves as the basis for environmental review and impact mitigation for adoption and implementation of the Temecula General Plan. The City will review subsequent projects for consistency with the Program EIR and prepare appropriate environmental documentation pursuant, to CEQA provisions for Program EIRs and subsequent projects. Subsequent projects under the Program EIR may include (but are not limited to) the following activities: • Revisions to the Temecula Development Code; Rezoning of properties; Approval of Specific Plans; Approval of development plans, including tentative maps, variances, conditional use ' permits, and otheraand use permits; • Approval of development agreements; Approval of facility and service master plans and financing plans; • Approval and funding of public improvement projects; Approval of resource management plans; • Issuance of municipal bonds; • Issuance of permits and other approvals necessary for implementation of the General Plan; Acquisition of property by purchase or eminent domain; and, • Issuance of permits and other approvals necessary for public and private development projects. The following lead, responsible, and trustee agencies may use this Program EIR in the adoption of the General Plan and approval of subsequent implementation activities. These agencies may include, but are not limited to, the following: • City of Temecula • California Department of Housing and • Temecula Redevelopment Agency Community Development • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • California Department of Transportation • United States Army Corps of Engineers (Caltrans) • California Department of Fish and Game • State Lands.Commission • California Department of Conservation • California Water Resources Control Board ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1-6 , Executive Summary Southern California Association of • San Diego Regional Water Quality Governments (SCAG) Control Board Western Riverside Council of • Temecula Valley Unified School District Governments (WRCOG) Rancho California Water District • South Coast Air Quality Management Eastern Municipal Water District District Riverside County Airport Land Use County of Riverside Commission • Metropolitan Water District of Southern Riverside County Local Agency Formation California Commission 1 Summary of Environmental Impacts ' Table 1-1 summarizes the environmental effects associated with the adoption and long-term implementation of the General Plan, the mitigation measures required to avoid or minimize impact, and the level of impact following mitigation. I 1 r CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 1.7 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation Unavoidable Significant Environmental Impacts (Lead Agency must issue"Statement of Overriding Considerations"under Section 15093 and 151261b) of the State CEQA Guidelines if the agency determines these effects are significant and approves the project.) Air Quality -Short-term and Long-term Impacts AQ-1. The City will support regional transit initiatives Significant and and promote development of high-speed rail unavoidable. While individual development projects will be required to service connecting Temecula to San Diego and employ construction approaches that minimize pollutant Los Angeles; actively participate in efforts to emissions (e.g., watering for dust control, tuning of equipment protect and improve air quality in the region; and limiting truck traffic to non-peak hours), on a cumulative and attend meetings with the County of basis over the next 20 years, pollutant emissions associated Riverside, WRCOG, SCAQMD, SCAG, and with construction activity will be significant, and mitigation is other agencies as required to support these required. objectives and fulfill Temecula's requirements and obligations under the AQMP and Sub- Levels of PM,o have exceeded State standards regularly in the Regional Air Quality Implementation Program past and are expected to continue exceeding these standards in (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-1). the future. Therefore, long-term air quality impacts resulting from adoption and implementation of the proposed General AQ-2. The City will continue to involve the general Plan will be significant, and mitigation measures are required. public, ' environmental groups, the business community, and special interest groups in the formulation and implementation of air quality programs; conduct periodic public outreach efforts; and continue to promote public education as a method of employer compliance with the City Trip Reduction Ordinance (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-2). AQ-3. The City will adhere to policies and programs of the Land Use Element, including development of mixed-use projects where designated and feasible (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-3). AQ-4. The City will encourage development and expansion of businesses, and promote ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE t-e I_ oft Will M Will M M M M �� r u■s � n■s � >! s .�r a•s� � � tie !I � r Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation development of housing affordable to all segments of the community -near job opportunity sites, and within Mixed Use Overlay Areas. (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-4). AQ-5. The City will continue to implement a site development permit process and use the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the review of proposed-development projects. The City shall require individual development projects to comply with the following measures to minimize short-term, construction-related PM, and NO, emissions, and to minimize off- site impacts: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public.roadway. Cover or water, twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain in active for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed. Ensure that all cut and fill slopes are permanently protected from erosion. • Require the construction contractor to CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1.9 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation ensure that all construction equipment is maintained in peak working order. Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. Encourage car pooling for construction workers. Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site. • Wash or sweep away access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non- peak traffic hours. Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Approve development that could significantly impact air quality, either individually or cumulatively, only if it is conditioned with all reasonable mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or offset the impact. (General Plan Implementation Programs LU-4 and AQ-S). AQ-6. The City will`ensure location of new sensitive receptors away from major air pollution sources, and require buffering of sensitive receptors (shown in Figure 7) from air pollution sources through the use of landscaping,open space, and other separation techniques (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-6).. AQ-7. The City will incorporate strategies into City- wide design guidelines and development standards that promote a pedestrian-scale environment, encourage use of mass transit, and reduce dependence on the automobile General ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUtA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE _ - 1-10 s of 1=101111111111101 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation Plan Implementation Program AQ-7). AQ-8. The City will promote the use of alternative work weeks, flextime, telecommuting, and work- at-home programs among employers in Temecula, and continue to enforce provisions of the City Trip Reduction Ordinance, including requirements for preparation of Trip Reduction Plans (TRPs) for qualifying development projects and employers (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-8). AQ-9. The City will require employee rideshare and transit incentives for large employers, consistent with the requirements of the City's Trip Reduction Ordinance, and continue to encourage voluntary compliance with the Ordinance for smaller employers (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-9). AQ-10. The City will require operators of large scale outdoor events to submit a Trip Reduction Plan (TRP) applicable to both patrons and employees during the course of the event, and encourage special event operators to advertise and offer discount parking incentives to carpooling patrons, with two or more persons per vehicle, for on-site parking facilities (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-10). AQ-11. The City will work to achieve local performance goals for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction, consistent with SCAG's Growth Management Plan recommended standards for the Western Riverside County sub-region, and enforce requirements and options within the Trip Reduction Ordinance General Plan CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I'I I GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation Implementation Program AQ-11). AQ-12. The City will promote and encourage the use of alternative fuel vehicles and consider the adoption of an ordinance requiring provision of alternative fueling stations at or near major employment locations, shopping centers, public facilities,.and mixed-use developments (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-12). AQ-13. The City will encourage pedestrian and bicycle trips as an alternative. to. single-occupancy vehicle trips by constricting and maintaining trails and bikeways specified in the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, and will periodically update the Master Plan as needed to meet resident needs and City objectives (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-13). AQ-.I4. The City will work with Caltrans and RTA to identify potential sites for Park and Ride facilities adjacent to key .commuting routes within the City, and to prioritize development of such facilities in corridors served by more than one mode of planned transportation (automobile, transit, and/or high-speed rail) (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-14). AQ-15. The City will require incorporation of energy efficient design elements in residential, commercial, light industrial and mixed-use development projects. Examples may include (but are not limited to) the following. • Site orientation strategies that use shade and windbreak trees to reduce fossil fuel consumption for heating and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1.12 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation cooling. • Building designs that maximize use of natural lighting, provide for task lighting, and specific high-efficiency electric lighting (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-15). AQ-16. The City will improve roadway capacity by restricting on-street parking, improving signal timing, widening intersections, adding through and turn lanes, and other transportation systems management measures (General Plan Implementation Program C-3). AQ-17. The City will develop and promote park and ride and Transit Oasis facilities, and encourage preferred parking for ride-sharing and low emission vehicles (General Plan Implementation Program C-18). AQ-18. The City will continue to work with trucking industry representatives to orient trucks to truck routes, and to divert commercial truck traffic to off-peak periods to reduce congestion and diesel emissions (General Plan Implementation Program C-19). Transportation T-1. The City will: 1) prioritize, secure funding, design, Significant and and build new roadways and complete roadway unavoidable. Development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General improvements using the established Capital Plan policy will result in as many as 699,558 additional vehicle Improvement Plan process to implement the trips per day, for a total trip generation of approximately 1.43 circulation system shown on the proposed million vehicle trips per day. This represents an increase of 96 Roadway Plan concurrent with land percent over existing (year 2002) conditions. As a result the development; and 2) require that new roadways following three intersections are forecast to exceed the City's meet roadway classification design specifications adopted LOS "D" threshold: and performance criteria established in the ro osed Circulation Element. Table 5.13-9 in CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-13 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation Ynez Road &Winchester Road - LOS E at p.m. peak hour Section _5.13; Transportation summarizes new • Ynez Road & Solana Way - LOS E at p.m. peak hour roadways and arterial widening projects required • Ynez Road & Rancho California Road- LOS E at p.m. peak to implement the proposed Roadway Plan hour (General Plan Implementation Program C-1). Additionally, the following six freeway ramps are projected to T-2. The City will monitor the performance of exceed Caltrans' LOSE performance standard: Principal Intersections on an ongoing basis and ensure that Principal Intersections approaching • Winchester Road Direct northbound on-ramp - LOS F at Level of Service D are prioritized for p.m.peak hour improvement within the City's Five-Year Capital • Winchester Road Loop northbound on-ramp - LOS F p.m. Improvement . Program (General Plan peak hour Implementation Program C-3). Southern Bypass/Anza Road southbound on-ramp - LOS F at a.m. peak hour T-3. The City will: 1) continue to update the Capital • Winchester Road northbound off-ramp - LOS F at a.m. Improvement Plan on an annual basis to plan for peak hour and fund future improvements to the roadway, French Valley Parkway southbound off-ramp - LOS F at pedestrian, and bicycle systems; 2) identify a.m. peak hour available. funding sources and establish a Winchester Road southbound off-ramp - LOS F at a.m. and financing plan to guide construction and funding p.m. peak hours of transportation, system improvements, and 3) require new development projects to construct Impact will be significant at these intersections and freeway and/or fund in whole or in part necessary traffic ramps. Mitigation measures are required to reduce the level of improvements associated with the proposed impact. project, through the assessment and collection of traffic impact fees. .Such improvements should address both automotive, as well as alternative means of transportation (General Plan Implementation Program C-5). T-4. The City will, require additional dedication of right-of-way on all approaches to Principal Intersections. Such right-of-way shall be preserved for future intersection improvements that may be required at these intersections, such as full width auxiliary turn lanes and/or dual-left turn lanes (General Plan -Implementation Program C-4). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - LIq �r s 11111111111 �I■r Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation T-5. The City will implement the following procedures and requirements to minimize impacts of proposed development projects on the City's circulation system, and to encourage increased use of alternative transportation: Evaluate development proposals for potential impacts to the transportation and infrastructure system. • Require mitigation in the form of physical improvements and/or impact fees for significant impacts prior to or concurrent with project development. • Require dedication of adequate right-of. way along new roadways .to permit pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Update every three years, or as needed, buildout traffic forecasts to monitor the impact of development approvals and the adequacy of the Roadway Plan, and monitor the capacity and performance of Principal Intersections identified in Table 5.13-7 in Section 5.13,Transportation. • Require new development to incorporate design features that facilitate transit service and encourage transit ridership, such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop facilities, efficient trail systems through projects to transit stops, installation of bike lanes, bikeways, and bicycle parking, and incorporation of pedestrian walkways that pass through subdivision boundary walls, as appropriate. • Require new specific plans, village centers, and projects within Mixed Use Overlay Areas to provide an internals stem of CRY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1.15 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Table 1-1 ' Summary of Environmental,Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation pathways and trails. Trails should link schools, shopping centers, transit, and other public facilities in residential areas. Require transportation demand management plans to be submitted for preliminary review at the Specific Plan or Development Plan stage of site development and submitted for final approval prior to issuance of building permits (General Plan Implementation Program C-6). T-6. The City will: 1) identify local streets that are currently closed that may benefit citywide circulation if the street was reopened or construction of the street was completed; 2) assess the feasibility of opening previously closed streets or completing construction of local connecting streets that benefit citywide circulation on a case-by-case basis, providing -ample opportunity for both neighborhood residents and the community at-large to comment on such proposals, and 3) establish a review process for the future closing of any local street that requires City Council determination that the closure does not,have an adverse affect ' on citywide circulation (General Plan Implementation Program C-7). T-7. The City will: 1) continue to work with WRCCIG, SCAG and others to advocate future commuter or high speed rail service connecting Temecula to Los Angeles, Riverside and San Diego; 2) ensure that any future commuter rail corridor serving Temecula is located on the west side of I- 15 to reduce noise impacts on residential areas; and 3 require new commercial, industrial, or ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - 1-I6 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation mixed use development in areas surrounding proposed stations to include transit-oriented design amenities (General Plan Implementation Program C-12). T-8. The City will promote the use of alternative work weeks, Flextime, telecommuting, and work-at- home programs among employers in Temecula, and continue to enforce provisions of the City's Trip Reduction Program Ordinance, including requirements for preparation of Trip Reduction Plans (TRPs) for qualifying development projects and employers (General Plan Implementation Program C-13). T-9. The City will implement the adopted Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan to complete design and construction of a comprehensive alternative transportation network, promote safe use of the trail system, and ensure accessibility of pedestrian facilities to the elderly and disabled (General Plan Implementation Program C-15). T-10. The City will continue to improve transit service and encourage ridership through the following actions: • Require transit facilities in major new development and rehabilitation projects. Coordinate with providers to get more frequent service and broader transit coverage serving employment, shopping, educational, recreational, and residential areas. Work with providers to identify and receive additional funding sources for additional transit services. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-1 7 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation The City will also collaborate with providers to identify needs and provide special transit services beyond fixed-route buses. Potential services include, but are not limited to: Subscription or dial-a-ride service for lower density residential areas Offering limited transit service between outlying residential areas and the City's commercial/employment core Shuttle or trolley service-between Old Town and other destinations along the 1-15 commercial corridor, and expanded service to other areas, including the wineries along Rancho California Road, as opportunities arise • Providing bicycle carrying racks on buses (General Plan Implementation Program C-16) T-11. The City will encourage carpooling and use of public transportation in Temecula through the following measures: Develop and promote park and ride and Transit Oasis facilities within the City. Encourage preferred parking for ride sharing and low emission vehicles (General Plan Implementation Program C- 18). Potentially Significant Impacts that Can Be Avoided or Mitigated Section 15126.6(c)of the State CEQA Guidelines ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TFMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1.18 Table 1-1 summary,of Environmental Impacts and Mitigationn-Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation Aesthetics -Light and Glare A•1. The City will ensure that new development Less than significant. projects comply with the City Light Pollution Light levels within the Planning Area will increase as new Control -Ordinance when building plans are housing units and commercial, industrial 'and institutional submitted for permits -and when projects are projects are developed pursuant to the General Plan. In field-inspected '(General Plan Implementation addition, new development in ,previously undeveloped or Program'OS•31).- sparsely developed areas, particularly within the sphere of influence, has the potential to create new lighting impacts associated with the introduction of vehicle headlights and nighttime lighting. ,New structures-could,create glare effects if they incorporate reflective building materials. Depending upon the location and scope of individual development projects, the impact to surrounding uses could be significant and a Mitigation measure is required. Agricultural Resources AG-1. The City will preserve agricultural lands by: Less than significant. Of the areas currently identified as Vineyard/Agriculture, - Developing effective zoning regulations or approximately four acres may be converted to Rural Residential other land use mechanisms that control uses pursuant to adoption and implementation of the proposed the expansion of intensive non-agricultural General Plan. This is approximately 0.01 percent (one one- development onto productive or hundredth of one percent) of the land currently in agricultural potentially productive.agricultural lands. use. Continuation of the existing General Plan would be Recognizing existing agriculture preserve expected.to result in a similar amount-of conversion to non-. _ contracts and promoting additional agricultural uses. The updated General Plan continues to preservation contracts for prime recognize agricultural uses as important historic uses within the agriculture land Planning Area and allows the continuation of agricultural (General Plan Implementation Program OS-28). 'businesses that wish to operate in the short-term or indefinitely. Impact will be less than significant with implementation of the following mitigation measure. Biological Resources B-I. The City shall require development proposals in Less than significant. all areas inside or adjacent to sensitive habitat There are a number of sensitive habitats and species known to areas, designated critical habitat, and MSCHP exist within the Planning Area. Furthermore,.the Planning Area conservation areas and core linkages as defined encompasses four Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan by .the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the (MSHCP) area and core linkages.- The adoption and California Department of Fish and Game and CITY OF TEMECULA - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I-L9 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation implementation of the General Plan update could result in the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, significant impacts to a variety of sensitive habitats and species. to provide detailed biological assessments to Impacts could occur as a result of grading, excavation, and determine the potentially significant impacts of construction activities associated with construction of the project and mitigate significant impacts to a community facilities, private developments, and street and level below significance (General Plan utility improvements pursuant to the proposed General Plan. Implementation Program OS-9). Development pursuant to implementation and adoption of the B-2. The City shall require the establishment of open proposed General Plan will result in adverse significant impacts space areas that contain significant water if it causes the modification or removal of regional sensitive courses, wildlife corridors, and habitats for rare habitats within the Planning Area, including; or endangered plant and animal species, with first priority given to the core linkage areas Coastal Sage Scrub/Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub identified in the MSHCP (General Plan • Vernal Pools/Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest/Open Implementation Program OS-10). Water, Reservoir, Pond • Coast Live Oak Woodland B-3. The City shall require appropriate resource • Raptor Foraging/Wintering Habitat. protection measures to be prepared in conjunction with specific plans and subsequent Impacts to non-native grassland and agricultural land will be development proposals. Such requirements significant if the habitat is determined to provide high wildlife may include the preparation of a Vegetation Value for raptor wintering and foraging, or to support federally Management Program that addresses or State listed, endangered or threatened species (see Tables landscape maintenance, fuel modification 5.4-2, 5.4-3, 5.4-4, and 5.4-5 in Section 5.4, Biological zones, management of passive open space Resources). areas, provision of corridor connections for wildlife movement, conservation of water The Temecula Planning Area encompasses designated critical courses, rehabilitation of biological resources habitat for the California gnatcatcher and Quino checkerspot displaced in the planning process, and use of butterfly, as determined by USFWS. Critical habitat is primarily project design, engineering, and construction located in the northern portion of the Planning Area in French practices that minimize impacts to sensitive Valley where low-medium residential development is expected species, MSHCP conservation areas, and to occur. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan will designated critical habitats (General Plan result in significant impacts to designated critical habitat. Implementation Program OS-11). The Planning Area encompasses four MSHCP conservation B-4. The City shall evaluate and pursue the areas and core linkages. Portions of MSHCP conservation acquisition of areas with high biological areas within French Valley (subunit 5), Pauba Valley(subunit 2), resource significance. Such acquisition and Temecula Valle subunits 1 and 6 will incur permanent, mechanisms may include acquiring land b y I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE t_ZD � � � r �11� �■I� � r �lll � � r r r � Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation indirect impacts from development associated increases in the development agreement or gift; dedication of amount of fragmented habitat, artificial nighttime illumination, conservation, open space, and scenic and human intrusion into natural habitats. In addition, impacts easements; joint acquisition with other local to chaparral will be significant if the habitat is located within a agencies; transfer of development rights; lease MSHCP conservation, core, or linkage area (e.g., Pauba Valley purchase agreements; State and federal grants; or Temecula Valley). and impact fees/mitigation banking (General Plan implementation Program OS-12) Impacts to federally and State listed, ,rare, endangered and threatened species, as discussed in Environmental Setting, will B-5. The City shall use the resources of national, be significant and adverse. Mitigation measures are required to regional, and local conservation organizations, reduce adverse impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts corporations, associations, and benevolent to lower sensitivity species will be significant if it is determined entities to identify and acquire environmentally that the proposed future development will substantially reduce sensitive lands, and to protect water courses the species' population stability or conflict-with the MSCHP and wildlife . corridors (General Plan conditions of coverage. Implementation Program OS-13). Mitigation measures are required to provide further B-6. The City shall continue to participate in multi- environmental review of individual future development projects species habitat conservation planning, to minimize the impacts to biological resources to a less than, watershed management planning, and water significant level. resource management planning efforts (General Plan Implementation Program OS-14). B-7. The City shall require project developers to retain coast live oak,woodland, including oaks within new development areas, and shall require surveys,of all coast live oak trees prior to construction to determine if any raptor nests are present and active. If active nests are observed, postponement of construction activities until the end.of the fledgling season is required. The City shall apply the following guidelines adapted from the Riverside County Oak Tree Management Guidelines: • Construction and development activities will be avoided within the root zone (e.g., encompassing an area one-third larger than CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-21 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Miti ation the drip line of an oak tree • Landscaping, trenching, or irrigation systems will be avoided within the root zone Land uses that will cause excessive soil compaction within the root zone will be avoided • Manufactured slopes will not be located within the root zone Redirection of surface moisture which alters the soil moisture within the root zone for an extended period of time will be avoided • Filling around the bases of oak trees will be avoided through sedimentation and siltation control Dead and dying oak trees will be retained in place unless determined to post a health or safety hazard • Relocation of trees will not constitute mitigation Oak protection will be oriented toward protection of the life cycle of oak trees and woodland (General Plan Implementation Program OS-32). B-8. The City shall require project proponents to minimize impacts to Coastal sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, and non-native grassland consistent with the MSCHP. Such mitigation measures will include, but are not limited to: on-site preservation, off-site acquisition of mitigation land located within the City and inside MSHCP conservation areas, and habitat restoration of degraded sage scrub vegetation that increases habitat quality and the biological function of the site. (General Plan Implementation Program OS-33 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CITY OF?EMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1.22 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Miti ation B-9. The City shall require project proponents to avoid adverse impacts to Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest and Water vegetations communities to the maximum extent possible. Mitigation consistent with the MSHCP, and future mitigation ratios established by the City will be required, including, but not limited to: wetland creation in upland areas, wetland restoration that re-establishes the habitat functions of a former wetland, and wetland enhancement that improves the self-sustaining habitat functions of an existing wetland. Mitigation measures will be required to achieve "no net loss" of wetland functions and values (General Plan Implementation Program OS-34). B-10. The City shall review development-associated impacts to MSHCP conservation areas for consistency with the MSHCP reserve and buffer development requirements, and shall require compliance with the following MSHCP Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines: • Drainage: Proposed developments in proximity to MSHCP conservation areas shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the MSHCP conservation areas is not altered in an adverse way when compared to existing conditions. Measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into the MSHCP conservation areas. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1.23 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and.Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within the MSHCP conservation areas. This can be accomplished using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems. • Toxics: Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP conservation area that use chemicals or generate byproducts (such as manure) that are potentially toxic or may .adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality.shall incorporate measures To ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP conservation area. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues shall be implemented. Lighting:. Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP conservation area to protect species within the MSHCP conservation area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient light levels within the MSHCP conservation area do not increase. . • Noise: Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP conservation area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP conservation area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines EN'IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - 1.24 CITY Or TEMECUTA M M M W A M = M = M = i M Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP- conservation area should not be subject to noise, that would exceed residential noise standards. • Invasives: When approving landscape plans for proposed development adjacent to the I MSHCP- conservation area, the City shall require revisions to landscape plans to avoid the use of invasive species defined within the MSHCP for the portions of development adjacent to the conservation area. • Barriers: Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping in the conservation, area. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and/or other appropriate mechanisms. Grading/Land Development`. Manufactured slopes ,associated with proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP conservation area (General Plan Implementation Program OS-35). B-11. _ The City shall require work corridor surveys to identify active nests for projects with the -potential to adversely impact nesting migratory birds, as defined under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Development projects shall avoid active nests and, if necessary, require seasonal timing constraints for riparian habitat clearing and an MBTA S ecial-Pur ose permit CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1.25 GENERAL PL4M UPDATE n -� i Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation prior to the removal of active nests of META covered species (General Plan Implementation Program OS-36). Cultural Resources CR-1 The City shall use the development and Less than significant. environmental review process to: Small urban in-fill development or redevelopment projects that are not subject to discretionary review by the City may also a. Ensure that appropriate archaeological occur that could involve the removal or alteration of existing and paleontological surveying and structures with historical value or significance elsewhere within documentation of findings is provided City limits. Thus, mitigation is required to minimize impacts to prior to project approval. historic resources from adoption and implementation of the b. Require effective mitigation where General Plan. development may affect archaeological or paleontological resources. Unknown archaeological sites, structures, and fossils may be C. Require that an archaeologist or unearthed during excavation and grading activities for specific paleontologist be retained to observe projects. If previously undiscovered artifacts or remains are grading activities in areas where the uncovered during excavation or construction, impact will be probable presence of archaeological or significant. Mitigation measures are required to reduce the paleontological resources is identified. impact to archaeological and paleontological resources to a d. Enforce CEQA provisions regarding less than significant level. preservation or salvage of significant archaeological and paleontological sites discovered during construction activities. e. Require monitoring of new developments and reporting to the City on completion of mitigation and resource protection measures (General Plan Implementation Program OS-26). CR-2 The City shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Eastern Information Center of the University of California, Riverside to establish procedures for reviewing the archaeological sensitivity of sites proposed for development. General Plan Implementation ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CRY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1.26 W r M Mr Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Miti anon Program OS-37). CR-3 The City shall adopt a historic preservation ordinance to protect historically significant buildings, sites, roads/trails, and other landscape elements, and to encourage their re-use, where appropriate (General Plan Implementation Program OS-27). CR-4 Encourage owners of local sites to apply for recognition in the State Historic Resources Inventory, as Riverside County Landmarks, as State Points of .Historic Interest, as State Landmarks,and as sites on the National Register of Historic Places, as deemed necessary (General Plan Implementation Program OS-27). Geology/Soils GS-1 The City shall work with the County of Riverside Less than significant. and California Geological Survey to monitor and Temecula is located in a seismically active area, as is all of compile information on faults located within the Southern .California. Projects developed pursuant to General Planning Area (General Plan Implementation Plan land use policies will expose additional people and Program-PS-4).. structures to groundshaking hazards associated with earthquakes. Seismic activity on regional faults creates the GS-2 The City shall develop a Land Use Suitability potential for groundshaking impacts within the Planning Area. Matrix for Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones and County Portions of Temecula and the Planning Area are underlain with Fault Hazards Zones. The matrix will categorize weak, semi-consolidated bedrock and loose, unconsolidated land uses according to risk and develop and often saturated alluvial sediments. These soil types have restrictions for these ,uses within the Zones the potential for liquefaction and collapse in the event of a (General Plan Implementation Program PS-4). major groundshaking event. The fine-grained components of the bedrock units are potentially expansive. The weak soil, GS-3 The City shall prepare and adopt hillside combined with steep slopes and saturated drainage channels, development standards for site development make areas of Temecula susceptible to landslides and and drainage (General Plan Implementation mudfiows. Program PS-5). Portions of the City and the Planning Area are not connected to GS-4 The City shall implement a Hillside. Grading the sewer system and use conventional septic tanks and Ordinance to preserve sensitive hillside and CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1.27 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE r� Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Miti anon subsurface disposal systems for the disposal of wastewater. canyon areas, and require the use of proper soil These include areas that are zoned Vineyard/Agriculture, Rural, management techniques to reduce erosion, and Very Low Density Residential. In addition to the seismic sedimentation, and other soil-related problems hazards described above, the location of septic systems in soils (General Plan Implementation Program OS-21). with excessive permeability or shallow water tables might allow pathogenic bacteria and viruses to enter the groundwater. GS-5 The City shall prepare, adopt and implement a grading ordinance to ensure that grading During the construction phase of development projects associated with new development projects is pursuant to the proposed General Plan, grading could subject conducted in accordance with appropriate temporarily exposed soil surfaces to erosion through geotechnical engineering standards (General stormwater runoff and wind. Long-term soil loss could also Plan Implementation Program PS-16). occur from the increased peak flows and total runoff produced by paved or landscaped surfaces in the Temecula Planning GS-6 The City shall require additional on-site Area. Uncontrolled Bows could result in scouring or down- wastewater treatment beyond that of a cutting of stream channels in sections where runoff velocities conventional septic tank/subsurface disposal and volumes are high. system in any area designated within Zone A of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Per City and State building codes, all new development will be wellhead protection area in accordance with the required to incorporate appropriate design and construction EPA's Design Manual for On-site Wastewater measures to guard against groundshaking hazards. All projects Treatment and Disposal Systems (General Plan and structures will be constructed in compliance with existing Implementation Program GM-13). seismic safety regulations of [lie California Uniform Building Code, which requires the use of site-specific engineering and construction standards identified for each class of seismic hazard. Since the General Plan allows for new development in areas not connected to the sewer system, impact could be significant. Mitigation measures have been included that require all proposed development projects using septic tanks and subsurface disposal systems for the disposal of wastewater to provide detailed geotechnical analysis of the project site and siting recommendations that will ensure no impact to potable water production wells. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1.28 r■ r� r r r r� �Ir �r r� r� �r r r r �r r r r Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Miti ation Land Use and Planning LUP-1 The City shall require preparation of an Less than significant. annexation plan and fiscal analysis prior to Development in unincorporated areas pursuant to the annexation of new areas to the City. Within the Southwest Area Plan represents a significant impact that is annexation plan, applicants must show how beyond the City's ability to control. Temecula's primary adequate levels of public services and facilities opportunity to control phasing'of development, project design, will be provided to serve the new development, and infrastructure improvements is by annexing properties into without reducing service levels for currently the City prior to project approvals by the County. To achieve urbanized areas. The fiscal analysis shall these purposes, the City has developed a land use plan for the determine the impact that additional French Valley Area (shown on the Land Use Policy Map), and development will have on current Temecula has designated this area as a Future Growth Area. The intent of neighborhoods and on the community as a these steps is to ensure that future annexations are beneficial whole, including any impact fees necessary to additions to the City, and to minimize impacts of future offset public costs caused by the proposed development in the area on City roads and infrastructure. project, and shall include an examination of fiscal and service impacts of the proposed Development pursuant to the General Plan may conflict with project on roads, water, sewer, storm water the current City Development Code and Riverside County runoff, fire, police, schools, libraries and other Zoning Ordinance. In particular, areas designated on the Land community facilities (General Plan Use Policy Map as Rural Residential or Vineyards/Agricultural Implementation Program LU-15). conflict with current zoning, as these new designations are introduced for the first time within the General Plan update, LUP-2 The City shall review implementation of the and do not have corresponding zoning districts within the City's General Plan and Land Use Policy Map to Development Code. ensure consistency is maintained between the General Plan and the Development Code New capital improvements specified within the Circulation and (General Plan Implementation Program LU-1). Growth Management Elements of the General Plan may result in conflicts with the current Temecula Capital Improvement LUP-3 The City shall review and update the Program (CIP). The General Plan Circulation Element specifies Development Code to ensure consistency with that improvements required to implement the Roadway Plan the General Plan (General Plan Implementation are to be.scheduled, funded, and completed using the City's Program LU-3). CIP. Consistency between the Capital Improvement Program and the General Plan should be maintained, in accordance with LUP-4 The City shall implement and update as State law. necessary the Redevelopment Plan to establish consistency with the General Plan and amended Development pursuant to the proposed General Plan may Development Code (General Plan result in annexations, as well as additional public service needs Implementation Program LU-11). in areas located within Temecula's sphere of influence, CITY OF TEMECUfA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-29 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation particularly within ,the French Valley Future Growth Area LUP-5 The City shall ensure consistency with the identified in, the proposed Land Use Element. In addition, French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use reorganization of service districts within the sphere of influence Plan through the following measures: may be necessary in order to provide the required services efficiently and effectively, in keeping with General Plan policies a. The City shall review development expressed within the proposed Growth Management/Public projects within the French Valley Facilities Element. Such activities may conflict with established Airport area of influence, and Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission participate in any future updates to the (LAFCO) plans and priorities. Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and Master Plan for the Airport, in Conflicts with existing land use plans will be minimized to a less conjunction with the Riverside County than significant level with implementation of mitigation Airport Land Use Commission. measures. Compliance with existing regulations will ensure b. The City shall require project consistency with the State Water Code. Impact will be less proponents to obtain aviation than significant with regard to the French Valley Airport Land easements as required by the CLUP to Use Plan, Temecula Redevelopment Plan, and SCAG's ensure that landowners acknowledge Comprehensive Plan and Guide. potential impacts associated with aircraft. C. The City shall amend the Development Code to create an. Airport Overlay Zoning districtto implement noise and land use compatibility requirements of the CLUP following annexations of areas within the French Valley Airport area of influence (General Plan Implementation Program LU-24) LUP-6 The City shall review'and update the Fire-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) on an annual basis to achieve consistency with improvements identified ,within the General Plan, and to meet changing needs, priorities, and financial conditions (General Plan Implementation Program LU-17). LUP-7 The City shall cooperate with Riverside County I AFCO and the Coun of Riverside to direct ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1.30 Table 1-1 Summary of,Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact - Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation growth outside the City limits to the French Valley Future Growth Area,-on lands that are served or are planned to be served with a full range of urban services, such as public water and sewer, local and regional road networks demonstrating adequate capacity; safety and emergency response services, parks, trails and open spaces (General Plan Implementation Program LU-16). LUP-8 The City shall continue to implement the procedures, requirements and contents of specific plans contained in the Development Code. Properties under single ownership or multiple ownership which are generally. over 100 acres will utilize the specific plan or village center plan as an implementation tool. Private landowners or the City may undertake the preparation or amendment of a specific plan, in accordance with Government Code Section 65450. Specific plans shall include the location of land uses; standards to regulate height, bulk and setback limits; standards for constructing proposed streets; standards for population density and building intensity; standards for conservation and management of natural resources; and implementation provisions to carry out the Open Space/Conservation Element (General Plan Implementation Program LU-5). Noise N-1 The City will review residential and other noise- Less than significant. sensitive development proposals to ensure that New development will generate additional traffic that will noise standards and compatibility criteria are increase noise levels along the roadways. Future noise levels met, and will require incorporation of noise- along major streets in the City are projected to range from mitigating features identified in acoustical approximately 60 dB(A) to 75 dB(A) CNEL. In some portions of studies prepared for development projects CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1.31 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation the community, the 60 dB noise contour could expand by as including, but not limited to, the following much as 395 feet. Although some roadway segments could measures identified in the Noise Element experience a decrease, wide ranging variability exists across the (General Plan Implementation Programs N-1, N- roadway network. As a result, new development pursuant to 3, N-5 and N-7). the proposed General Plan could conflict with adopted noise standards. This is considered a significant impact, and Use of building setbacks to increase mitigation is required distance between noise sources and receivers Long term implementation of the proposed General Plan could Placing noise tolerant land uses such as expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration and/or parking lots, maintenance facilities, and noise. Problems could arise in cases where noise-producing utility areas between noise sources and uses are located immediately adjacent to sensitive uses, such as receptors. business park areas near residences or schools. Mixed-use Orienting or clustering buildings to shield projects, such as those encouraged within four Mixed Use outdoor spaces from noise sources. Overlay Areas identified in the General Plan Land Use Element, • Placing bedrooms on the side of a house, also present unique concerns, such as when restaurants with facing away from major roadways. nighttime entertainment are located close to residential units. a Placement of noise tolerant rooms (e.g. In addition, construction related activities will be short-term garages, bathrooms and kitchens) to shield sources of groundborne noise that could affect occupants of noise-sensitive portions of homes. neighboring uses. These are significant impacts, and mitigation Use of additional insulation and double- is required. pane windows when bedrooms cannot be located on the side of a house away from a Development controls within the City's Development Code major roadway. include limiting development within areas subject to high noise Avoid placement of balconies facing major levels, and limiting the intensity and height of development travel routes. within aircraft hazard zones. These controls are consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for French N-2 Where architectural design treatments described Valley Airport, adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission) in Mitigation Measure N-1 fail to adequately (ALUC), which designates airport influence areas and zones for reduce adverse noise levels or will significantly every airport in Riverside County, and provides a series of increase the costs of land development, the City policies and compatibility criteria to ensure that both aviation will require the combined use of noise barriers uses and surrounding areas may continue. Ongoing and landscaped berms (General Plan compliance with the ALUCP and implementation of General Implementation Program N-7). Plan policy will ensure a less than significant impact. N-3 The City will require all non-emergency construction activity to comply with the limits maximum noise levels, hours and days of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF iEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1.37 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation activity) established in State and City noise regulations (Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Temecula Development Code and Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code), and will require proposed industrial or commercial projects located near residential areas to demonstrate that the project, when constructed, will meet City noise reduction requirements (General Plan Implementation Program N-2). N-4 During review of development applications, the City will consider the noise and vibration impacts of the proposed land use on current or planned adjacent uses (General Plan Implementation Program N-4). N-5 The City will amend the Noise Control Ordinance to establish standards that address noise impacts within mixed use commercial and residential development projects (General Plan Implementation Program N-4). N-6 The City will: 1) Incorporate noise control measures, such as sound walls and berms, into roadway improvement projects to mitigate impacts to adjacent development; 2) provide noise control for City streets within the Planning Area experiencing unique noise problems; 3) use the ultimate roadway capacity at LOS C and the posted speed limit to estimate maximum future noise impacts; and 4) Coordinate with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department and the California Highway Patrol to enforce the California Vehicle Code noise standards for cars, trucks, and motorcycles (General Plan Implementation Program N-8). CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1.33 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation Public Services and Recreation PSR-I. The City will periodically evaluate levels of Less than significant. sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, Fire and Police Protection Services: Development projects based on changes in population and anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result development, and will: 1) provide a minimum of in increased demand for fire and police protection services and one full-time officer per 1,000 residents for facilities, as well as increased demand for water resources for police protection services; 2) maintain facilities, fire protection and other emergencies. This represents a staffing, and equipment necessary to maintain a significant impact. In addition to final project review, mitigation five-minute response time for 90 percent of all measures are required to reduce impacts to a level below emergencies; and 3) implement new programs significance. to meet the changing needs of residents (General Plan Implementation Program GM-4). Schools: Implementation of the General Plan will result in approximately 4,919 additional elementary school students, PSR-2. As part of the development review process, the 2,532 middle school students, and 2,846 high school students. City will require new development projects to The total number of students will be divided between all of the address_ fire and police protection proactively, District's current and future elementary, middle and high through all-weather access street design, schools. Capacity and enrollment figures also Fluctuate within orientation of entryways, siting of structures, the District depending on the location and type of students, landscaping, lighting, and other security and capacity of nearby schools. With adoption of Senate Bill features; and will require illuminated addresses 50 and Proposition lA in 1998, school districts that meet on new construction (General Plan certain requirements now have the option of adopting Implementation Program GM-5). alternative school fees, also known as Level 2 Fees and Level 3 Fees (Public Resources Code Sections 65995.5, 65995.6 and PSR-3. The City will identify and solicit funding from 65995.7). Payment of alternative school fees will be used to additional sources to supplement library facilities offset the cost to TVUSD of providing education facilities to and services. Such funding sources may future students. The environmental effects of expansion, include: State and federal grants and loans, construction and operation of additional school facilities will be public and private donations, sponsorships by evaluated by TVUSD when planning for construction of new local and national corporations, and other schools or expansion-of existing facilities. SB 50 states that for private individuals and groups (General Plan CEQA purposes, payment of fees to the affected school district Implementation Program GM-7). reduces school facility impacts to a less than significant level. PSR-4. The City will coordinate with the County to Libraries: Residential development projects anticipated to determine location, facilities, and services of occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in demand for new branch libraries needed to serve the additional library resources. Even with the opening of the new community (General Plan Implementation library, the new development associated with implementation Program GM-7). of the General Plan will require the construction of new or ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF 7EMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1-34 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation expanded library facilities. Impact will be significant and PSR-5. The City will identify potential sites for additional mitigation measures have been added to the project. park land, monitor demand for park land and facilities concurrent with development Parks and Recreation: Residential development projects approvals, and prioritize potential parkland anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will acquisitions, expansions, and improvements require the City to provide 204 net new acres of parkland in within the five year Capital Improvement addition to the existing 164 acre deficit. Sufficient acreage to Program, consistent with the adopted Parks and meet the needs of existing residents is anticipated by the'year Recreation Master Plan (General Plan 2013 through the acquisition and dedication of parks :and Implementation Program CS-I). school facilities within identified specific plan areas. However, new development projects pursuant to the General Plan will PSR-6. The City shall adopt a local Park Code that result in increased use of existing neighborhood and regional incorporates standards for parkland dedication parks, other recreational facilities, and trails that may cause or and development. Specifically.the City shall: 1) accelerate substantial physical deterioration of these facilities. require the dedication of, parkland or the Impact will be significant and mitigation measures are required. payment of in-lieu fees'and the development of recreation facilities for all new development; and 2) require developers of residential projects greater than 200 units to dedicate land based on the park acre standard of five acres of usable parkland to 1,000 residents, if the park is needed . or available, (General Plan Implementation Program OS-2). PSR-7. The City, shall .1) 'implement policies and standards'of the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, including trail classifications, design standards, implementation mechanisms, and capital- improvement programming; and 2) ensure that bike routes are,provided or reserved concurrent with new development (General Plan Implementation Program OS-29). Utilities and Service Systems USS-1. The City shall assist the Rancho California and Less than significant. Eastern Municipal Water Districts in the process Water Supply: The proposed General Plan assumes a year of. updating their urban water management 2025 population of 169,184 within the Planning Area, a portion plans to be responsive to the population and of which will be served by Rancho California Water District housing unit capacities established by the CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-35 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation (RCWD). The RCWD 2000 Urban Water Management Plan General Plan (General Plan Implementation estimates that total system per capita domestic water use Program GM-8). averages 234 gpd; therefore the Planning Area will have a total demand of 44,350 of/yr, a portion of which will be served by U55.2. The City- shall review the adopted Uniform RCWD. Buildout of the General Plan will not result in demand Building Code and require new development for water service that exceeds RCWD's planned future supply projects to include water conservation features in 2020 of 55,991 of/yr. Impact to IITe RCWD will be less than to reduce consumption, including, but not significant. The Eastern Municipal Water District(EMWD) 2000 limited to: use of reduced-Flow plumbing Urban Water Management Plan estimates that total system per fixtures,. low-flow toilets, drip irrigation systems capita domestic water use averages 123 gpd; therefore the and xeriscape landscaping (General Plan Planning Area will have a total demand of 24,736 of/yr, a Implementation Program 05-4). portion of which will be served by EMWD. Buildout of the General Plan will not result in demand for water service that USS-3. The City shall ensure that discretionary projects exceeds EMWD's planned future supply in 2020 of 105,421 implementing the General Plan (zone changes, of/yr. Impact to the EMWD will be less than significant. land divisions, and conditional use permits) Increased demand by other water users in the service area comply with California Water Code Section could lead to an impact on future water supply. Therefore, 10910, requiring the preparation of a water mitigation measures are recommended that direct the City to supply assessment indicating that a long-term assist RCWD and EMWD in planning for future water supplies, water supply for a 20-year time frame is to promote water conservation programs, and to maximize City available. Written acknowledgement that water use of recycled water. will be provided by a community or public water system with an adopted urban water Wastewater: Implementation of the General Plan will result in management plan that includes consideration of new residential and non-residential development projects that the project's water consumption and supply will require additional wastewater treatment facilities. Future shall constitute compliance with this demand for the EMWD's wastewater treatment facilities will be requirement (General Plan Implementation 19.8 mgd (based on a conservative factor of 90 percent of water Program OS-37). used becoming wastewater). Estimated future wastewater treatment demand is within the existing capacity of the USS-4. The City shall: 1) require drought-tolerant District's facilities. Impact will be less than significant. landscaping in new development projects; 2) where feasible, incorporate reclaimed water Stormwater Drainage: Development projects anticipated to systems into landscape irrigation plans; 3) occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in increased prepare and adopt a recycled water ordinance demand for energy resources. The demand for electricity is in accordance with the requirements of Senate anticipated to increase by about 102.1 megawatt hours (mwh) Bill 2095, Water Recycling in Landscaping Act; per month. SCE will construct additional electricity facilities as and 4) convert existing City of Temecula non- necessary to meet increased demand. Individual development I domestic water uses to recycled water use in ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT _ CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - 1-36 Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation projects proposed pursuant to the General Plan will be required accordance with Sections 13550-13556 of the to assess project impacts during the environmental review State Water Code(General Plan Implementation process to ensure that SCE has sufficient electricity supplies to Program OS-7). meet demand. The demand for natural gas is anticipated to increase by approximately 104.49 million cubic feet (mcf) per USS-5. The City shall coordinate with Southern month. SCG will work with the community as new California Edison, the Southern California Gas developments are proposed to construct additional natural gas Company, and other responsible companies to infrastructure as necessary to meet demand. Individual provide for the continued maintenance, development projects proposed pursuant to the General Plan development, and expansion of electricity and will .be required to assess project impacts during the natural gas systems (General Plan environmental review process to ensure that SCG has sufficient Implementation Program GM-11). natural gas supplies to meet demand. To ensure that future energy supplies are available to support additional USS-6. The City shall participate in the formation of development pursuant to the General Plan, mitigation measures regional siting plans and policies for energy are required. With implementation of mitigation, impact to facilities (General Plan Implementation Program energy supplies will be less than significant. OS715). Solid Waste: Development projects anticipated to occur USS-7. The City shall coordinate with Southern pursuant to General Plan policy will result in.increased demand- California Edison .and the. Southern California for both solid waste collection and disposal capacity. Gas Company to jointly determine what new Generation of solid waste is anticipated to increase by 425,271 energy options are appropriate as development pounds per day, for a total of about 876,443 pounds per day at proceeds (General Plan Implementation General Plan buildout. The City currently offers a residential Program CS-16). recycling program that diverts nearly 50 percent of the solid waste generated. Furthermore, the Riverside County Waste USS-8. The City shall implement land use and building Management Department expects to expand the capacity of controls that require new development to both El Sobrante and Badlands Sanitary Landfills.-The City will comply with the California State Energy also continue to implement solid waste reduction programs in Regulation requirements (General Plan compliance with Section 40050 et seq. of the California Public Implementation Program CIS-1 7). Resources Code. Thus, although implementation of the General Plan will result in new development and USS-9. The City shall 1) enforce all current residential redevelopment within the Planning Area and related increases and commercial California Energy Commission in solid waste generation, impact Will be less than significant energy conservation standards, 2) encourage with mitigation. public institutions to use high-efficiency heating and cooling systems, advanced lighting systems, and passive solar systems to reduce energy use; and 3 adoptproject-related energy CITY OF TEMECULA - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1.37 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Table 1 A Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation conservation guidelines that are incorporated within the development approval process to promote and require conservation strategies as development occurs (General Plan Implementation Program CIS-18). USS-10. The City shall: 1) assist the Riverside County Solid Waste Management Department to implement the County's Solid Waste Management Plan, and when feasible and appropriate, assist the County in locating cost effective and environmentally acceptable solid waste sites and facilities; and 2) promote awareness of recycling options for businesses (General Plan Implementation Program GM- 10). USS-I1. The City will require incorporation of recycling as a condition of approval for all multi-family residential, commercial and office projects, and will work with the private sector contractor providing solid waste services to ensure that appropriate recycling containers, procedures, and education are readily available (General Plan Implementation Program GM-14). USS-12. The City will investigate the feasibility of composting green waste collected from landscape and park maintenance (General Plan Implementation Program GM-15). Impacts Considered but Found to Be Less Than Significant Section 15128 of State CEQA Guidelines ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 138 CITY OF TEMECUfA Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation Hazards and Hazardous Materials No mitigation is required. Less than significant. Implementation of the General - Plan will result in the development of new residential, commercial, 'and industrial land uses throughout the Planning Area. As a result, more hazardous materials will be used. However, any new development facilitated by City planning policies and zoning regulations that involves contaminated property will necessitate the clean up and/or remediation of the property in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local requirements and regulations. Several FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) traverse the Planning Area. These areas, corresponding to the 100-year floodplain, have the potential to become Flooded when major rainstorms cause stream overflows. In addition, there are three dams in the Planning Area, including Lake Skinner Dam, Vail Lake Dam, and Diamond Valley Lake Dams, which are subject to dam inundation. Currently, the City' participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), enforces Development Code regulations regarding development in the floodplain and floodway, and maintains a dam inundation evacuation plan. Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations and plans, including the-City's Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, will result in a less than significant impact. The French Valley Airport is located within the City of Temecula Sphere of Influence, east of Winchester Road. The City of Temecula General Plan proposes new development within the area of influence. All land use development entitlements within the area of influence must be approved by the Riverside County ALUC, consistent with the French Valley Airport ALUCP in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, ensure continued orderly use of the Airport; and prevent the..creation of new noise and safety problems. ,,'Any new development in the Planning Area, no matter how CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1:a9 - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level-of Impact after Miti aeon limited, will expose additional people and structures to wildland fire hazards. The proposed General Plan Public Safety Element includes policies and implementatiori programs that direct the City to reduce the potential for dangerous fires by concentrating development in previously developed areas where the risk of wildland fire is lower; to protect hillside areas from expansion of the urban-wildland interface; to encourage residents to plant and maintain drought-resistant; fire-retardant landscape species on slopes to reduce the risk of brush fire and soil erosion; and to work with the Fire Department to control hazardous vegetation. Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation measures, although not required, are Less than"significant. recommended to ensure that groundwater supplies will New development pursuant to the General Plan will result in not be impacted by future development pursuant to approximately-15,800 of/yr of additional water demand (based implementation of the General Plan and to maintain on the gallons per day per capita. Average of EMWD and .adequate stormwater drainage. RCWD). To avoid groundwater depletion, a conjunctive use program has been negotiated between RCWD, EMWD, and HW-1. The City will work with the water districts to Western Municipal Water District to recharge the Murrieta- promote water conservation and ultimately Temecula. groundwater basin and-other groundwater basins reduce the demand for peak-hour water serving the City. The 1940 Stipulated Judgment in the case of supply wastewater capacity, .review the Santa Margarita versus Vail establishes yearly safe yield adopted Uniform Building Code, and groundwater withdrawal amounts for each of the water service require- water conservation measures to providers. The water master determines the safe annual yield reduce water consumption. Such measures based on annual audits of the groundwater basin, including may include, but are not limited•to: the use how much water was withdrawn from and recharged to the of plumbing fixtures that reduce water use; aquifer.- Water service,providers must purchase imported water low-Flow toilets; 'drip irrigation systems and or utilize recycled water supplies based on the water masters xeriscape landscaping that maximizes the yearly determination. Compliance with the existing agreements use of drought-tolerant plant species will ensure a less than significant impact. (General Plan Implementation Program OS- 4). Construction, of new housing units and commercial and industrial projects throw houtthe Planning Area, especially on -HW2. The City shall review individual ' Riverside County Flood Control District. "NPDES/Municipal Storm Water Management Program." htto://%vwm floodconuol co riverside c-L us/waternuilitvnndes.aso. October 19, 2004. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - 1.40 CITY OF TEMECUTA Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation currently undeveloped lots, will increase the amount of. development projects to ensure that impervious surface, thereby increasing the amount and speed adequate stormwater detention facilities are of runoff. To ensure that adequate flood control capacity is provided to accommodate surface water available to support new development, all proposed runoff generated by the project, and where development projects within the Planning Area are reviewed by needed, incorporate detention of the District prior to approval by the City of Temecula or stormwater runoff at. the point of origin Riverside County. New development projects are required to (General Plan Implementation Program OS- provide on-site drainage, and to pay area drainage fees of 6). $2,291 per acre of development. Drainage fee revenues are used to support capacity expansion within the local storm drain HW-3. The City will require drought-tolerant system. Temecula is a member of the Riverside County Flood landscaping in new development, and Control District's Storm Water Clean Water Protection where feasible, will require incorporation of Program, and therefore requires all development proposals to reclaimed water systems within landscape prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to irrigation plans (General Plan mitigate water quality impacts during storm events that occur Implementation Program OS-7). during construction. In addition, all development proposals must prepare a Water Quality Management Plan, including Best HW4. The City will implement, where appropriate, Management Practices (BMPs), outlining how the project will Water Resource Management Guidelines minimize water quality impacts during project operation.' - drafted by the subcommittee comprised of Compliance with these existing regulations will ensure a less Eastern Municipal Water District and local than significant impact. jurisdictions (General Plan Implementation Program 05-8). Population and Housing No mitigation is required. Less than significant General Plan land use policy establishes capacity for 25,002 net new housing units and 36.2 million net new square feet of nonresidential development over the next 20 years. The General Plan's estimated increase to 113.421 persons by the year 2025 is based on planned land-uses - specifically, new housing units. By definition, these units, along with all planned development and additional amenities described in the General Plan, will provide for the expanded population. Additionally, land designated for housing will in many places be developed' at a higher density than what was typical in the past throughout the City, thus providing housing for a greater number of people per acre. - The capacity to accommodate the expected CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-4) GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Table 1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Impact after Mitigation population is therefore sufficient, and consistent with growth management policies contained in SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, as described in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1.42 • Executive Summary Alternatives to the Proposed Project, ' The City has considered alternatives to the proposed General Plan. Through the comparison of potential alternatives to the proposed project, the relative advantages of each can be weighed and ' analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines require that a range of alternatives addressed be "governed by a rule of reason that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice" (Section 15126.6[aj). This EIR does not consider an alternative site because the project involves all properties within•the Planning Area. The following alternatives are examined in ' the EIR: Alternative 1 : No Project ' The No Project Alternative assumes that the 1993 General Plan remains as the adopted long-range planning policy document for the Planning Area. The No Project Alternative represents conditions that would exist in the year 2025 if development with the Planning Area and the region continued to grow at the pace permitted in the 1993 General Plan, and if the 1993 General Plan policies were implemented by the year 2025. Development under the No Project Alternative would not implement the policies and programs of the proposed General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements. Development would continue ' pursuant to the policies of the 1993 General Plan. As a result, the local circulation system would not meet the needs of Temecula residents and businesses while calming traffic in residential neighborhoods and near schools because the existing transportation system is not, sufficient to ' provide for the efficient flow'of traffic throughout the Planning Area. The No Project Alternative does not`specifically provide for mixed-use areas, but rather designates numerous "village centers" throughout Temecula, several of which have already developed into other more traditional ' commercial uses. Therefore, concentrated areas adjacent to 1-15 with an appropriate pedestrian- oriented mix of commercial, office; and residential uses would not result under the. No Project Alternative. Further, the No Project Alternative would not establish agricultural preservation areas, • the lack.of which would hinder the City's objective to be a regional historical and viticultural destination. No Project Alternative would have several of the same significant unavoidable impacts as the proposed project and would introduce several new significant impacts related to agricultural resources, air quality, land use and planning; noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, and utilities and 'service systems. Further; the No Project Alternative ' would fail to meet many of the project objectives. ' Alternative 2: Extension of North General Kearney Road from La Colima Road to Nicolas Road Alternative 2 was conceived as a means of reducing.environmental impacts of the proposed project by reducing transportation impacts to several roadway segments and intersections in the ' northwestern portion of the City. In the Meadowview neighborhood, a number of streets originally planned to provide access into and out of the community are currently closed. The, extension of North General Kearney Road from La Colima Road to Nicolas Road would add a roadway CITY OF TEMECUTA - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' - 1.43 . GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Executive Summary ' connection to an area where intersection levels of service are close to or worse than LOS D. Under , this Alternative, all other provisions of the General Plan update would be implemented. During the preparation of the General Plan, the public expressed an interest to keep a number of ' streets in the Meadowview area closed to through traffic. The extension of North General Kearney Road from La Colima Road to Nicolas Road was thus not included on the Circulation Element ' Roadway Plan. Alternative 2 would add the extension of North General Kearney Road to the Roadway Plan, and would slightly improve the operating conditions of surrounding roadway segments and intersections. Alternative 2 would not, however, achieve the project objective of ' creating a local circulation system that meets the needs of Temecula residents and businesses while calming traffic in the residential neighborhoods of the Meadowview area. Alternative 2 has the potential to achieve a modest reduction of the significant unavoidable air , quality impact, but this impact reduction cannot be reliably predicted. As such, comparable or increased traffic and air quality impacts must be assumed. However, this alternative does achieve ' most project objectives. Alternative 3: 15 Percent Growth Reduction ' This alternative was conceived as a means of reducing environmental impacts of the proposed Project by reducing development capacity within the Planning Area to levels comparable with ' projections published by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Temecula has a 2004 total population of 77,460 persons.' In the year 2025, SCAG projects a ' population of 96,967 persons within Temecula's corporate boundaries.' These forecasts do not include areas within the sphere of influence or other non-incorporated parts of the Planning Area. The population growth rate between 2005 and 2025 estimated by SCAG is 2.9 percent per year for ' Riverside County. Therefore, under this Alternative (hereinafter Alternative 3), the City would adopt the proposed General Plan, but modifications would be made to the proposed Land Use Element and map and the Circulation Element Roadway Plan such that net new residential development would be reduced by 15 percent across the board compared to the proposed project. This would ' result in a total population of approximately 96,407 persons living in 31,141 housing units within the current City limits, and a total of 143,806 persons living in 46,484 housing units within the Planning Area in the year 2025. These figures are more comparable to the adopted SCAG 2025 , forecasts for Temecula than the proposed project. All other goals and policies of the proposed Project would remain the same, including the establishment of Mixed Use Overlay Areas, Rural Preservation Areas, and the French Valley Future Growth Area, as well as the introduction of the ' Vineyards/Agriculture designation as specified in the proposed Land Use Element. The ability of Alternative 3 to address significant unavoidable cumulative traffic and air quality ' impacts is also uncertain. Growth pressure in western Riverside County is strong; a development curtailment in Temecula would likely lead to increased pressure for development north of the Planning Area, which would use roadways and freeways traversing the City. This alternative would, ' however, result in reduced environmental impacts to aesthetics, land use and planning, noise, 'State Department of Finance. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates,2004, Revised 2001-2003,with 2000 ' DRU Benchmark. May 2004. 'Southern California Association of Governments. Regional Transportation Plan Population Forecasts. May 2004. Located at h_ttp://wsvw.scag.ca.gov/forecast/downloads/2004GF.xls. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1.44 ' Executive Summary ' population and housing, public services and recreation, and utilities and service systems. This alternative would fail to meet many critical project objectives. 1 ' Cumulative Impact The CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 define a cumulative impact as an "impact which is created as ' a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts." Implementation of Temecula General Plan will result in significant unavoidable project-level impacts in the following areas: ' Air quality • Transportation ' Implementation of mitigation measures and land use policies identified in Section 5.0 of this EIR will reduce these impacts to the extent feasible. However, because Temecula lies within an air basin that is a nonattainment area for State and federal air quality standards, increased emissions will ' result in a significant impact on regional air quality. Implementation of the recommended circulation system improvements in the Circulation Element will help reduce traffic impacts; nonetheless, combined with the regional increase in traffic volumes, the project will result in a ' significant impact. Future development will generate construction noise from individual development projects that may affect adjoining uses in the short term. Increased traffic noise may have significant impact to residences and schools near the freeways in the long term. While policies included in the Land Use Element will reduce these impacts to the extent possible, the residual impacts will still be significant. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1-45 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Executive Summary ' Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved ' Through the Notice of Preparation process for the project, the concerns shown in Table 1-2 were ' raised. Table 1-2 ' Notice of Preparation Letters Name Agency Where Issues are addressed in EIR ' 1. Steve Smith, Ph.D., South Coast Air Quality Air Quality: Section 5.3 - Air Quality Management District ' 2. Keith Downs Riverside County - Airport Land Use Airport Land Use: Section 5.9 - Land Commission (ALUC) Use and.Planning Planning: Section 5.10 - Noise ' 3. Andrew L. Webster, P.E. Rancho California Water District Water Supply: Section 5.14 - Utilities and Service Systems 4. Leslie MacNair Department of Fish and Game Sensitive Species: Section 5.4 , Biological Resources 5., David Cohen State of California Deparunent of Traffic: Section 5.13 - ' Transportation Transportation/Traffic 6. Jim Mackenzie City of Murrieta Cross-border Traffici Section 5.13 - Transporlation/Traffic ' 7. Edwin D. Studor County of Riverside Transportation Cumulative.Traffic Impacts: Section and Land Management Agency 5.13 -Transportalion/Traffic 8. Michael McCoy RTA - Riverside Transit Agency Public Transit: Section 5.13 - ' Tra n s p o r l a t i o n/T ra ffi c 9. Laura J. Simonek MWD - Metropolitan Water District Water Supply: Section'5.14 - Utilities of Southern California and Service Systems ' Additionally, during community workshops on the General Plan, concerns were raised regarding potential extension of North General Kearney Road through the Meadowview neighborhood, and ' maintenance of the rural character of the Nicolas Valley and Rainbow Canyori Road areas. These issues are examined in Section 5.13, Transportation and Traffic, Section 5.9 Land Use and Planning, and Section 6.0, Alternatives to the Project. ' Mitigation Monitoring Program ' In accordance with CEQA Section 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring program will be prepared for adoption by the Temecula City Council prior to certification of the Final EIR for the project. The ' mitigation program will be designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1.46 1 1 1 2. 0 Introduction 1 This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a first-tier evaluation of the environmental effects associated with adoption and implementation of the updated City of Temecula General Plan. The City began a comprehensive General Plan Update in 2001 and completed a public review draft revision of the General Plan in 2004. The adoption and implementation of a General Plan 1 constitutes a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. 1 Legal Requirements 1 This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines) published by the Public Resources Agency of the State of California (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and in accordance with the City of Temecula's CEQA Guidelines. The City of Temecula is the lead agency for this EIR, as defined in Section 21067 of CEQA. 1 This EIR was prepared by environmental planning consultants under contract to the City of Temecula and under the direction of City staff. All information, analysis, and conclusions contained 1 in this document reflect the independent review and judgment of the City. This EIR meets the content and analysis requirements of a Program EIR, as defined in Section 15168 1 of the State CEQA Guidelines. A Program EIR allows for review of a series of actions that can.be characterized as one large project, are related geographically, and as logical parts in the chain of actions contemplated in connection with issuance of rules, regulations or plans. The Program EIR 1 allows for a more exhaustive consideration of the effects and alternatives than.WOUld be practical in an EIR on separate individual actions and ensures consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted on a case-by-case basis. 1 Purposes of the EIR ' According to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, an "EIR is an informational document which will inform public agencies, decision makers, and the public 1 generally of the significant environmental effects of a project on the environment, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe alternatives to the project." 1 This Program EIR provides a first tier analysis of the environmental effects of the Temecula General Plan. Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy or program to an EIR or ' negative declaration for another plan, policy or program of lesser scope, or to a site specific EIR or negative declaration. Subsequent activities related to the General Plan must be examined in light of this Program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental an must be conducted and i CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1 2-1 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Introduction ' documentation prepared. If all of the subsequent project's potentially significant effects are ' determined to have been adequately analyzed by this EIR, no additional analysis is required. If a subsequent project or later activity would have effects that were not examined in this Program ' EIR, or not examined at an appropriate level of detail to adequately evaluate impacts associated with the later activity, an initial study would be required. Based on the initial study, the City may ' reach any one of the following conclusions regarding subsequent projects: 1) No significant impacts are identified and a negative declaration may be adopted (CEQA ' Guidelines Section 15152); 2) Changes or additions are required, but the subsequent project is within the scope of the ' project covered by this Program EIR and no substantial change leading to major revisions of this Program EIR is required, thus an Addendum to this Program EIR may be adopted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164); or ' 3) Additional significant environmental effects could occur that were not adequately addressed in this Program EIR, and a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required (CEQA Guidelines ' Section's 15162 and 15163). Accordingly, this Program EIR is an informational document to be used by decision makers, public ' agencies, and the general public. It is not a policy document of the City of Temecula. The document provides information regarding the potential environmental impacts related to implementation of the General Plan. The EIR will be used by the City of Temecula to assess impacts of the proposed project prior to adoption of the General Plan. ' Scope of the Project ' The project analyzed in this EIR is the adoption and implementation of the General Plan to guide. , planning decisions in Temecula over a 20-year period. The General Plan is a comprehensive, long- term guide for the physical development of the Temecula Planning Area, which consists of the incorporated. City, its sphere of influence, and other contiguous areas that bear direct economic , relationship to the City and its planning decisions. The Planning Area encompasses 31,286 acres, with 14,805 acres within the City corporate limits and 16,481 acres within the sphere of influence and the remainder of the Planning Area. 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2-2 ' ' Scope of .the Environmental Analysis ' Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study was prepared for this project. The Initial Study concluded that adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan might have ' a significant effect on the environment with respect to the following: Aesthetics Land Use and Planning ' Agriculture Noise Air Quality Population and Housing Biological Resources Public Services Cultural Resources Recreation ' Geology and Soils Transportation/Traffic Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems Hydrology and Water Quality Appendix A contains the Initial Study and NOP for the project. Appendix B contains the air quality worksheets. Appendix C contains the biological resources report. Appendix D'contains the Traffic Study. Noise calculations are included in Appendix E. Appendix F contains the General Plan Goals t and Policies. All other reference documents cited in the EIR are on-file.rvith the City of Temecula Planning,Department, 43200 Business Center Drive, Temecula, CA 92590. 1 1 Background �. 1 A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR was issued by the City in June 2003 in accordance with the requirements of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15082(a); 15103, and 15375. The NOP indicated that-ran EIR was being prepared.and invited comments on,the project. from public, agencies and the general public. Comment fetters were received from the following agencies (listed in the order received): ' -South Coast.Air Quality Management Department of Fish and Game District Metropolitan Water District of Southern ' County of Riverside Transportation and . California Land Management Agency Rancho California Water District • Riverside Transit Agency Caltrans • Airport Land Use Commission City of Murrieta In addition, City staff received oral comments at a June 25, 2003 scoping meeting on the NOP and Initial Study. Written comments received during the 30-day public review period for the NOP are included in Appendix A of this EIR. 1 1 CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 2.3 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Introduction ' Public Review and Comment ' This Draft EIR is available for public inspection at the City of Temecula Planning Department, located at the 43200 Business Park Drive in Temecula. The Draft-EIR is also available to the public ' at the Temecula Library, located at 41000 County Center Drive, Temecula. Organizations and individuals are invited to comment on the Draft EIR. Where possible, respondents are asked to provide additional information which they feel is not contained in the Draft EIR, or to indicate where ' 'information may be found. Following a 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR, all comments and the City's responses to those comments will be incorporated in to the Final EIR prior to certification of the Final EIR by the City. Contact Person ' The primary contact person regarding information presented in this EIR is David Hogan, Principal ' Planner. Mr. Hogan may be reached at (909) 694-6400, or via email at hogand@citvoftemecula.ora. , 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2-4 ' 1 - 3. 0 Project Description ' The Project The proposed project analyzed in this Program EIR is the adoption and implementation of the City ' of Temecula General Plan update, referred to herein as the Draft General Plan, Plan, or project. The General Plan update addresses the seven State mandated general plan elements (land use, housing, circulation, safety, open space, conservation, and noise), as well as other issues that are important to the community, including growth management, economic development, air quality, and community design. The Housing Element was recently updated in 2002 and'thus has not been updated as part of this project. The updated General Plan establishes an overall development capacity for the City and surrounding areas, and serves as a policy guide for determining the appropriate physical development and ' character of the City for the next 20 years. The General Plan establishes a vision for the City that emphasizes a family-focused lifestyle while promoting a strong local business community comprised of agricultural, technological, and manufacturing industries -so that the community remains an attractive and enjoyable place to live, work, and play. 1 ' Regional Setting Temecula is located in southwestern Riverside County. The-City is bordered by the unincorporated ' De Luz area to the west, the City of Murrieta to the north, unincorporated County of Riverside land to the east, and the Pechanga Indian Reservation, Bureau of Land Management lands, and unincorporated portions of San Diego County to the south. Interstate 15 (1-15) bisects the western portion of Temecula from north to south. State Route 79 (SR-79) North (Winchester Road) provides regional access between Temecula and the Hemet/San Jacinto area. The two major east-west roadways are SR-79 South and Rancho California Road. Figure 3-1 shows Temecula in a regional ' context and outlines the Planning Area. ' Temecula Planning Area The Planning Area encompasses approximately 62 square miles (31,286 net acres) and it consists of ' properties contained within the City's corporate limits and sphere of influence, as well as portions of unincorporated Riverside County currently outside the City's sphere of influence. The present City boundary encompasses approximately 28 square miles (14,805 acres). Twenty-four square miles ' (16,481 acres) are within the sphere of influence and the remainder of the Planning Area. The sphere of influence was established by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to identify unincorporated areas that will most likely annex to the City of Temecula in the ' future, on a project-by-project basis. The sphere of influence consists of open space, undeveloped ' CITY OF TEMECUTA - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR1 3.1 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Figure 3-1 Regional Location Map I r Legend a h Rd P•1 d •— Temecula City Boundary e ��• Sphere of Influence Boundary ee dm City .ea d meta e I Planning Area Sphae!T cote i .ta � Count'of r I Rivcrvde ' Sourtrs; Temecuh CIS and Cooun � r- /BridgcafAuxlaa � M I- I a C i f a i- ewaa I S a � ♦b 1 rt •. — i•1 Re � R Mo LpN ' ti. p ) \ C CT s CAMM1 � • � � le �mT•Wr ' I �. / \ �,n Temecula ' 0 5,000 10,000 Fe 71p , W�J��,y�`}E Feet , I O CC14.AILA 'i'� Mil`s GENERAL PLAN s o i z ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OIY OF TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE }Z 1 Project Description ' land, some residential development, vineyards/agricultural land, the French Valley Airport, and the ' Pechanga Indian Reservation. The remainder of the Planning Area consists primarily of undeveloped land and vineyards/agricultural land. ' Purpose and Objectives of the General Plan ' The General Plan establishes a comprehensive community vision for Temecula with regard to land use, housing; circulation, safety, open space/conservation, noise, growth management, economic development, and community design. The vision for the community is based on the following principles: • A.family-*used lifestyle enjoyed by residents while promoting a strong local business ' community and agricultural, technological, and manufacturing industries. • The community continues to be a regional destination for those seeking the desirable atmosphere of the wineries and historic Old Town. ' ■ A strong business community,' quality housing stock, scenic open space, and cultural . amenities make Temecula a desirable place for higher education facilities to locate. ' The local circulation system meets the needs of Temecula residents. and businesses while calming traffic in residential neighborhoods and near schools. Within this ' circulation system, pedestrians and cyclists are able to travel safely and quickly throughout the community and appropriate pedestrian-oriented mixed commercial and office uses are concentrated within village centers. ' Commercial, office, and light industrial uses locate and thrive in Temecula, providing fiscal stability to. the City•and a •revenue source to finance community improvements and open space resources, including cultural art centers, community centers, and parks. • Diverse housing options are available to• meet the needs .of all segments of the ' community while protecting the character and value of single-family neighborhoods. • High quality education is offered and children are provided strong role models and training for a successful future. • Properties are well maintained so the community remains an attractive and enjoyable place to live, work, and play. ' Based on these principles, long-term community goals and decision-making policies are defined using text and maps within ten General Plan elements (or chapters). Each element also includes ' implementation programs describing actions or strategies corresponding to adopted goals and policies. The recommended implementation programs serve as the basis for future programming decisions related to the assignment of staff and expenditure of City funds. 1 ' CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.3_ GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Project Description ' 1 Project Characteristics In terms of guiding physical develuprnent within the Planning Area, the General Plan elements of 1 most importance are the Land Use and Circulation Elements. Other sections of the General Plan address open space/conservation, growth management, public safety, noise, air quality, community ' design, economic development, and housing. The issues addressed in each subject area often overlap. A general description of each subject area is provided below. Land Use Element ' The Land Use Element describes the economic, social, physical, and cultural aspects of the ' Temecula Planning Area. Determining the future location, type, and intensity of new development and reuse projects, and establishing the desired mix and relationship between such projects are the primary objectives. Figure 3-2 depicts the proposed Land Use Policy Map. Table 3-1 compares the ' development capacity resulting from long-term implementation of General Plan policy to existing (2002) land use conditions. The Land Use Element establishes land use designations to identify the types and nature of ' development permitted throughout the Planning Area, providing a mix of land uses to achieve a suitable inventory of housing for a range of income groups, a viable commercial and employment ' base for residents and surrounding communities, ample open space and recreational opportunities, adequate public facilities and services, and high-quality urban, suburban and rural lifestyles for residents and visitors to enjoy. The residential land use designations are: • HR - Hillside Residential.(0 - 0.1 dwelling units/acre) ' • RR - Rural Residential (0 - 0.2 dwelling units/acre) • VL - Very Low Density Residential (0.2 - 0.4 dwelling units/acre) L - Low Density Residential (0.5 - 2.9 dwelling units/acre) ' LM - Low Medium Density Residential (3 - 6.9 dwelling units/acre) M- Medium Density Residential (7 - 12.9 dwelling units/acre) • H - High Density Residential (13 - 20 dwelling units/acre) , Commercial and industrial designations include the following, with intensity of development allowed within each designation expressed as a range of Floor-area ratios, or FARs: ' • NC - Neighborhood Commercial (0.20 - 0.40 FAR) CC - Community Commercial (0.25 - 1.0 FAR) ' • HT - Highway/Tourist Commercial (0.25 - 1.0 FAR) SC - Service Commercial (0.25 - 1.5 FAR) PO -Professional Office (0.30'- 1.0 FAR) ' IP - Industrial Park (0.30 - 1.5 FAR) t 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 3.4 , raurl - ■ �_' IUsePolicy 1 ■■ 1: ■ ■ oil RESIDENTIAL w ■ wl_ r115or •� ■� Q0 . 11 . ' � u■e I 1 ON © Low Medium •Medium(7-12 ■ ■ •High (13-20 Du/Ac Max) 1 Lilrlii. �■ � 1 • nnittl'!•1: COMMERCIAL/OFFICE Neighborhood Commercial[--iff Highway Tourist Commercial Service Commercial �� + ��II .•! Community Commercial .i Professional Office LIGHT INDUSTRIAL Industrial Park All, PUBLIC USES&OPEN SPACE Public Institutional Facilities Open Space � _®1 1 s' — \Ij F TTF1 Tribal Trust Lands eation Commercial Overlay U �•* r— ` - u� 4 &-irm — \ �7W;44 SaI'�r ♦♦� 1� �I • c "-'1 • �� @ Jpa i '•4�y� W •� Mill 'I . �, , `•c r �`-' ��♦Otjji �i��►N�:'1 �Iiiiii�l�. Jill l• i l��h••�'y��/ �� rs'1< �� , - 47 \ ,■ /♦•/It. � 1►MM1was ��o��D��i��. a .� M IN �;� ��—��• � is �� ' � . `� \� �90'llf,`►,1i► IltInnI�11R� mN Lill' - J — rr w M � 1 11 111 11 1 111 c 4' / 1 1 Project Description 1 ' Table 3-1 General Plan Development Capacity Housing Units Non-Residential Square Feel City Planning Area Total City Planning Area Total Land Use Category KSF KSF KSF ' Hillside Residential 16 86 102 - - ' Rural Residential 23 485 507 Very Low Density Residential 607 185 792 - Low Density Residential 1,404 454 1,858 - - - ' Low Medium Density Residential 20,036 14,486 34,522 = _ - Medium Density Residential 6,540 1,241 7,780 - High Density Residential ' 6,252 891 7,143 - - ' Neighborhood Commercial = - 794 219 1,014 Community Commercial - - 7,462 3,021 10,423 Highway/Tourist Commercial - I - - 1,565 469 2,034 ' Service Commercial - - 5,082 - 5,082 Professional Office - - - 4,396 2,378 6,774 Industrial Park - - 17,569 11,067 28,636 Public/Institutional - - - 9,238 7,106 16,344 Vineyards/Agriculture - 222 222 - 2,900 2,900 Open Space - - - Tribal.Trust Lands Mixed Use 11760 - 1,760 2,245 - 2,245 ' TOTAL 36,637 18,049 54,687 48 291 27,161 75,452 Existing Conditions 2002 23,543 6,139' 29,682 31,572 7,681 39,254 Change from Existing +13,094 +11 911 +25,005 +16,719 +19,479 +36 198 Thousand square feet. ' Source: Cotton/Bridges/Associates, 2063. ' Designations to accommodate public, institutional, agriculture and open space uses include the following: • PI - Public/Institutional Facilities (0.20 - 0.70 FAR) ' VA - Vineyards/Agriculture (0.01 - 0.1 FAR and/or 0 - 0.1 dwelling unit/acre) OS - Open Space (0.01 - 0.1 FAR) • TTL - Tribal Trust Lands (Properties held in trust by Federal agencies, which may not be subject to City or County planning, zoning, and building regulations) • RC - Recreation Commercial Overlay (Open Space properties which include resort or amusement oriented commercial and recreational uses) 1 ' CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.7 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Project Description ' Considerable future development potential exists both within the City's corporate limits and.within ' the sphere of influence and remainder of the Planning.Area. As shown in Table 3-1, an estimated 25,005 net new residential units may constructed in the next 20 years pursuant to General Plan policy, resulting in as many as 54,687 total residential units at buildout in 2025. During this time, approximately 36.2 million square feet of net new nonresidential development could be developed, ' resulting in just over 75.4 million square feet of nonresidential development within the Planning Area. The General Plan has been designed to manage the pace and direct the location of future development using goals, policies, and implementation programs that ensure preservation of a high ' quality of life as the City faces increased growth pressures. The Land Use Element addresses infill residential and commercial development within the City ' through the designation of three Mixed Use Overlay Areas. These areas are located within the City's Redevelopment Project Area and generally surround the 1-15 corridor. These overlay areas provide for development with a mix of residential and non residential uses guided by underlying ' land use designations. Each Mixed Use Overlay Area has different density and intensity standards; responding directly to the available capacity of the surrounding roadway network, defined using.a daily trip cap applicable to each area. Within the daily trip cap, flexible, high-quality design and ' creative mixes of adjacent uses are encouraged. Rural areas are addressed in the Land Use Element through the designation of three Rural ' Preservation Areas, with the following specific goals for each area: • Nicolas Valley: Promote continued development of large lot, Very'Low Density Residential units, provision of rural infrastructure services, and conservation of open space surrounding ' Santa Gertrudis Creek. East Rancho California: Recognize the important role that wineries and agriculture play in the ' history and future success of Temecula by designating a large portion of the area Vineyards/Agriculture, and promote only Rural. and Very Low Density Residential development that is compatible with these uses. ' Anza Road at SR-79: Preserve rural residential densities in the area surrounding the Morgan Hill Specific Plan by promoting only Rural Residential development, supplemented by open ' space buffers and greenways defining the urban edge of Temecula. Land Use Element policy also establishes French Valley Future Growth Area, located north of the , current City boundary. Within this area, the City will adopt a land use plan (shown in Figure 3-2, Land Use Policy Map) to direct development in the area in order to improve ,traffic conditions within the City, avoid developing more land than necessary at urban densities, and meet ' infrastructure needs. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA , GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 3.8 1 Project Description Circulation Element The Circulation Element describes how Temecula residents and employees get around using t automobiles, public transit, bicycles, airplanes, sidewalks and trails, and railways. The City strives to reduce traffic congestion and improve safety on roadways, to provide useful travel alternatives to the automobile, and to provide better access to regional travel routes. ' A well-developed system of local roadways provides access to and circulation within many residential areas of the City, and substantial efforts have been made in recent years to improve traffic conditions on local roadways and to encourage alternative means of travel. However, ' Temecula needs better roadway circulation between residential areas and commercial/employment centers and more efficient connections to regional transportation routes. Pass-through traffic accessing these regional routes from unincorporated areas is also a significant concern. The ' Circulation Element policies and plans aim to ensure that current transportation facilities will be improved and new facilities constructed to adequately serve traffic generated by planned development. ' The proposed Roadway Plan established within the Circulation Element is illustrated in Figure 3.3. Future roadways have been designed to provide adequate capacity to accommodate travel needs ' resulting from development pursuant to the Land Use Element within the Temecula Planning Area, as well as attempting to anticipate future development in the County of Riverside and the City of Murrieta. The Circulation Element establishes eight types of roadways, ranging from eight-lane high- ' capacity divided roadways to two-lane undivided roadways. The classifications are: • Urban Arterial (8-10 lanes divided within 134' right-of-way) ' Principal Arterial (6 lanes divided within 110' right-of-way) • Major Arterial (4 lanes divided within 100' right-of-way) • Secondary Arterial (4 lanes undivided within 88' right-of-way) • Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lanes undivided within 88' right-of-way, no curb and gutter) ' Limited Secondary Arterial (2 lanes divided with turn lanes where needed within 88' right-of- way) Collector (2 lanes undivided within 66' right-of-way in residential areas, within 78' right-of- way in industrial areas) • Rural Highway (2 lanes undivided within 88.150' right-of-way) ' Improvements needed to upgrade Temecula's roadways to achieve the Roadway Plan are detailed in the Traffic and Circulation Report for this EIR (Appendix B) and summarized in Section 5.13, Traffic and Circulation of this EIR. These improvements will be programmed within the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The extension of North General Kearney Road from La Colima Road to Nicolas Road as a Limited ' Secondary Arterial is not part of the project. The roadway extension is an issue of concern to many within the community who feel it may lead to additional vehicle trips, noise, and loss of open space within established low- and low-medium density residential neighborhoods. Thus, the extension of ' North General Kearney Road is discussed as an alternative to the proposed project in Section 6.0 of the EIR. 1 ' CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3-9 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Project Descriplion ' 1 This page intentionally left blank. , 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 340 , Figure 3-3 Roadway Plan Kelkr Rd Legend Interchange Improvements Pal Rd S 'B Rd Urban Arterial(8 Lanes divided) `` r — Principal Arterial(6 Lanes divided) — can Nidtay Rd Major Arterial(4 Lanes divided) City oPMurrieta, n° 6 County of Sfhete-of Influence Riverside Secondary Arterial(4 Lanes undivided) '' g `s Modified Secondary Arterial(4 Lanes undivided) m,i om n Rd ...... Limited Secondary Arterial(2 Lanes divided) Collector(2 Lanes undivided) d �� mmnmm Rural Highway(2 Lanes undivided) Auld Rd r G I e C 9nkc%d �a ru•Borcl Rd iR �d C BaN fy laV� Mu Swinp Rd Not Murriek ot5 rin Rd Buck Rd C of rrr F _ j a "�w m Vida r m �\\•• :,rya � `�: pa ✓J «�_ �1'_�� \ � °• a � d �*aa _'�a c'�'t `�•'+� Ra' eta a as Pyw ao 0La`aoF $_ •� a'O Q;R��W4`�` 7 r ••` a �P ' 4:ea Rd 4 •� T Ryrdo Yap a 4d PM•ya an ` '.� �,� •� De P.Mia Rd •.\ Pechanga aA' Entertainment Center t —••— City Boundary � -- --- Sphere of Influence A � Planning Area � - i 5 Source:Temmula CIS and Cotton1B,,dgeWA.o u,tea N 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 - -- Feet W E Miles S 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 3.11 1 . Project Description 1 ' The Circulation Element also establishes guidelines to determine the required number of lanes at intersections, includes policies requiring the City to identify and monitor the performance of critical intersections over time, and sets performance criteria for intersections and freeway ramps within the Planning Area. tIn addition to meeting the need for a roadway system, the goals, policies, and programs in the Circulation Element emphasize the need for alternative modes of transportation. The Element establishes the foundation for the Citywide Multi-Use Trail and Bikeway system, offering both recreational and commuting opportunities to City residents, and identifies public transit facilities and services in Temecula. ' Housing Element t The City's Housing Element was updated in 2002. The City adopted a Negative Declaration for the Housing Element. Therefore, no update to this Element is included in this update program. tOpen Space/Conservation.Element The Open Space/Conservation Element contains goals, policies and implementation programs that ' encourage conservation and management of natural resources, including biological/ecological resources, water resources, energy resources, agricultural resources, and open space. The Element also ensures the provision of parks and recreation opportunities and preservation of the City's ' historic and cultural heritage. The purposes of the Open Space/Conservation Element are to: • Assure continued availability of predominantly open land for enjoyment bf scenic ' beauty, for recreation, and to conserve natural resources and agriculture Guide development 'in order to make wise and prudent use of natural, environmental, and cultural resources Maintain and enhance valuable natural resource areas necessary for the continued survival of significant wildlife and vegetation through proactive open space planning; • Provide the foundation for a comprehensive open space management system ' involving designated categories of open space Maintain and promote the cultural, historic, and archaeological heritage of Temecula The Open Space/Conservation Element overlaps with provisions found in the Land Use, Public Safety, and Growth Management/Public Facilities Elements of the General Plan. However, it differs by being almost exclusively oriented toward natural resources. The conservation component contains goals and policies that further the protection and maintenance of the State's resources within the Temecula Planning Area. These resources include water, soils, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources that should be considered to prevent wasteful exploitation, degradation, and destruction. The Open Space/Conservation Element also incorporates goals and policies related to ' parks and recreation. This section of the Element focuses on the relationship of park space to the entire Temecula open space system and on the dedication and provision of parkland, trails, and recreation facilities. 1 1 ' CITY OE 1EMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.13 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Project Description ' 1 Growth Management/Public Facilities Element ' The purpose of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element is to promote orderly growth and development based on the City's ability to provide adequate public facilities and services. This ' Element sets-forth policies and standards to ensure that future development is coordinated with public facilities and services ai desired levels of service. Other aspects of growth management are found within the Land Use, Circulation, Air Quality and other elements. Taken together, these ' sections will influence growth and development within the City and surrounding areas to achieve the quality of life embodied in the Plan. The growth management component of this Element addresses local and regional growth management issues, including compliance with State laws affecting growth in Temecula. The public facilities component addresses both infrastructure and ' public services. Infrastructure includes sewer, water, storm drain systems, as well as public facilities. Public services include police, fire, emergency medical, public schools, solid and hazardous waste disposal, and civic and cultural facilities. t Public Safety Element The Public Safety Element identifies and addresses natural features, characteristics and human activities in or near Temecula that represent potential hazards to residents, structures, public . facilities, and infrastructure. The Public Safety Element establishes policies to minimize potential ' danger to persons and property, establishes programs to regulate development in hazard-prone areas, and identifies actions to manage emergency situations. Potential natural hazards addressed in the Element include geologic instability, seismic events, wild land fires, flooding, and dam failures. ' Potential human-caused hazards addressed in the Element include hazardous materials and waste handling, nuclear power production (at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station located 25 miles west of the Planning Area), and criminal activity. ' Noise Element The City strives to reduce the impacts of noise through a combination of land use planning, site , criteria, and noise reduction and enforcement strategies. The policies and programs provided in the Noise Element are designed to protect the quality of life within residential neighborhoods and to ' protect sensitive areas like schools and hospitals from the persistent hazards of excessive noise. Potential noise sources are identified and programs established to avoid or mitigate noise impacts associated with community development. Future noise conditions associated with both short- and ' long-term growth are quantified and identified within noise exposure contours. The contours serve as the basis for developing guidelines to identify compatible land uses 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 3.14 ' 1 Project Description 1 ' Air Quality Element The Air Quality Element establishes a policy foundation to implement local air quality improvement measures and provides a framework for coordination of air quality planning efforts with surrounding jurisdictions. The City has important roles and commitments to the implementation of the regional Air Quality Management Plan and Sub-Regional Air Quality Implementation Program. Continued ' efforts to provide regional public transit and high speed rail systems in the area will also lead to reductions in vehicle trips and improved air quality. The Air Quality Element outlines the City's plan to improve the quality of Temecula's air for the health and benefit of all residents. Community Design Element ' The Community Design Element addresses the physical aspects of Temecula that contribute to the image and character of the natural and built environments. This Element establishes a policy foundation to implement both citywide and focused area design criteria. The Community Design Element addresses physical aspects of Temecula that contribute to the image and character of the ' natural and built environments. Community Design Element policies provide the framework for: Overall city image enhancement • Preservation and enhancement of districts and neighborhoods I • Design of public'spaces and improvements such as community gathering areas and the streetscape system J7*� :. 1 ' Preservation of significant natural features and public viewsheds `. Economic Development Element ' The Economic Development Element provides policies to improve the economic viability of Temecula through the provision of balanced employment and housing opportunities, the attraction and retention of businesses, and the promotion of fiscal strength and stability in the community. The City's economic development efforts must focus on attracting and retaining businesses that: ' Complement Temecula's character and take advantage of the City's supply of quality housing and locational benefits • Stimulate jobs, economic growth, and fiscal stability ' Serve local employment, shopping and entertainment needs Expand the selection of conveniently located goods and services Relationship to Local and Regional Plans Temecula Development Code The Development Code (Title 17 of the Municipal Code) regulates development intensity using a ' variety of tools such as building height limits, minimum setbacks, and specific design standards. The is a significant implementation tool for the General Plan. Following adoption of the General Plan Update, both the zoning map and Title 17 will be revised to implement the changes to the General 1 ' CITY OE TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.I5 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Project Description ' Plan. Temecula Redevelopment Plan ' Prior to Temecula's incorporation in 1989, the County of Riverside established a Redevelopment ' Project Area. After incorporation, the City of Temecula assumed responsibility for administering the Project Area. The Redevelopment Plan Area centers on the Interstate 15 corridor and includes ' Promenade Mall, Old Town, and industrial and business park areas west of 1-15 between -Winchester and Rancho California Roads. The Temecula Redevelopment Agency has prepared an implementation plan for the area. Specific Plans ' The purpose of specific plans is to provide comprehensive planning of large areas consistent with ' the General Plan. The land Use Element identifies 25_specific plan areas within the Temecula Planning Area.which because of size, location, and/or special development opportunities require a coordinated and comprehensive planning approach. A total of 23 specific plans have been ' approved by either the City of Temecula or the County of Riverside within the Planning Area as of July 2004. These approved specific plans are: City of Temecula Specific Plans County of Riverside Specific Plans ' • Roripaugh Hills (SP 1) • Dutch Village (#106) ' • Rancho Highlands (SP 2) • Rancho Bella Vista (#184) • Margarita Village (SP 3) • Winchester Properties/Silverhawk (#213) • Paloma/Paseo Del Sol (SP 4) • Borel Airpark (#265) ' Old Town (SP 5) • Quinta Do Lago (#284) Campos Verdes (SP 6) • Winchester 1800 (#286) • Temecula Regional Center (SP 7) • Crown Valley Village (#238) ' Westside/Villages at Old Town (SP 8) • Morgan Hill (#313) • Redhawk (SP 9) • Vail Ranch (SP 10) ' • Roripaugh Ranch (SP 11) Wolf Creek (SP 12) Harveston (SP 13) • Temecula Creek Village (PDO.4) ' • Rancho Pueblo (PDO-5) Future Specific Plan Areas Y and Z have also been established within the General Plan. These areas , are located on the north side of SR-79 south on the east and west sides of the Paloma/Paseo del Sol Specific Plan Area. French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan 1 The French Valley Airport is a general aviation airport owned and operated by the County of t Riverside. The French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) establishes an area of influence surrounding the airport. All land use development entitlements within the area of 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 3-16 ' Project Description 1 influence must be approved by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. ' Southwest Area Plan tThe Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) is part of the Riverside County Integrated Program (RCIP) and provides land use goals and policies which serve as the County's General Plan for unincorporated portions of the Temecula Planning Area. Temecula's General Plan expands on the SWAP goals and ' policies for these areas to establish a more comprehensive policy framework favorable to the long- range growth and development of the City. ' Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP)/Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) ' Western Riverside County is projected,to grow from a current population of about 1.2 million to 2 million in 2020. In an effort to improve the quality of life for current and future residents, the ' County of Riverside, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, together with Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) embarked on a' planning process to determine future placement of buildings, roads and open spaces within the County. This process was named the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) ' and resulted in three interrelated plans: a General Plan for land use and housing, a Multiple Species ;yr Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) to determine open spaces and conservation areas, and the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP), which identifies ' improvements for highways and transit systems. The integration of these distinct planning efforts will improve their ultimate effectiveness. of The main goals of CETAP are to: 1) identify and set aside areas for major transportation facilities; 2) ensure that transportation infrastructure will be in place to foster the economic development of Riverside County; and 3) provide access to schools, jobs, shopping and other daily activities. A major focus of the CETAP is toridentify the location for the Winchester to Temecula Corridor, which will involve widening of the 1-15 and 1-215, as well as construction of French Valley Parkway, connecting the French Valley Future Growth Area to 1.215 and providing an alternate freeway ' access point to Winchester Road. Other goals include providing expanded rail service and express bus service throughout Riverside County. Decisions reached through the CETAP will affect transportation facilities and opportunities within Temecula. ' SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) ' The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a multi-modal, long-range planning document prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The RTP includes programs and policies for congestion management, transit, bicycles and pedestrians, roadways, freight, and ' finances. The RTP is prepared every three years and addresses a 20-year projection of needs.. Each agency responsible for transportation, including the City of Temecula, has implementation responsibilities under the RTP. The RTP relies on local plans and policies governing circulation and ' transportation to identify the region's future multi-modal transportation system. 1 CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3-17 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Project Description ' 1 Riverside County Congestion Management Program ' Urbanized areas such as Riverside County are required to adopt a Congestion Management Program (CMP). The Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP) is updated every ' two years, in accordance with Proposition 111. The goals' of the CMP are to reduce traffic congestion, to improve air quality, and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use development and transportation improvement decisions. The Congestion Management Program is administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC). ' In 1997, RCTC significantly modified the original CMP to focus on meeting federal Congestion Management System (CMS) guidelines. This has led to the development of an Enhanced Traffic , Monitoring System in which real-time traffic count data can be accessed by RCTC to evaluate the condition of the CMS, as well as meet other monitoring requirements at the state and federal levels. South Coast Air Quality Management Plan ' 1 The South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) mandates a variety of measures to reduce , traffic congestion and improve air quality. The Circulation Element identifies Circulation Programs to be implemented in Temecula that may help improve regional air quality. The plan for the South Coast.Air Basin, which includes Temecula and western Riverside County, was prepared by the ' South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)and SCAG. Intended Uses of the Program EIR This Program EIR serves as�the basis for environmental review and impact mitigation for adoption 1 and implementation of the Temecula General Plan. The City will review subsequent projects for consistency with the Program EIR and prepare appropriate environmental documentation pursuant to CEQA provisions for Program EIRs and subsequent projects. Subsequent projects under the ' Program EIR may include (but are not limited to) the following activities: Updates to the Zoning Code (Title 17) ' • Rezoning of properties • Approval of specific plans Approval of development plans, including tentative maps, variances, conditional use ' permits, and other land use permits • Approval of development agreements • Approval of facility and service master plans and financing plans ' Approval and funding of public improvement projects Approval of resource management plans • Issuance of municipal bonds ' • . Issuance of permits and other approvals necessary for implementation of the General Plan • Acquisition of property by purchase or eminent domain _ • Issuance of permits and other approvals necessary for public and private development , projects ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 3-18 ' 1 Project Description The following lead, responsible, and trustee agencies may use this Program EIR in the adoption of the General Plan and approval of subsequent implementation activities. These agencies may include, but are not limited to, the following: ' City of Temecula • South Coast Air Quality Management Temecula Redevelopment Agency District • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • County of Riverside ' United States Army Corps of Engineers Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Department of Fish and Game California California Department of Conservation • San Diego Regional Water Quality ' California Department of Housing and Control Board Community Development • Temecula Valley Unified School District California Department of Transportation • Rancho California Water District ' (Caltrans) Eastern Municipal Water District State Lands Commission • .Riverside County Airport Land Use California Water Resources Control Board Commission ' Southern California Association of • Riverside County Local Agency Formation Governments (SCAG) Commission Western Riverside Council of >n Governments (WRCOG) 1 r I :.L 1 fi ih 1 ' 1 1 CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT t3.19 GENERAL PUN UPDATE 1 , 4. 0 Environmental Setting ' This section provides an overview of the regional and environmental setting of the Temecula Planning Area. Detailed descriptions of the environmental setting for each category of potential ' impact are included in the environmental impact analysis in Section 5.0. The Temecula Valley is located in southwest Riverside County below the eastern slope of the Santa ' Rosa Plateau. It is approximately 85 miles southeast of Los Angeles, 60 miles northeast of San Diego and 20 miles inland from the cities of San Juan Capistrano and Oceanside. The City of Temecula is situated at the 'southern end of the valley, just north of the San Diego County line. The City is border'ed by the unincorporated De Luz area to the west, the City of Murrieta to the north, ' unincorporated County of,Riverside land to the east, and the Pechanga Indian Reservation, Bureau of Land Management lands, and unincorporated portions of San Diego County to the south. Interstate 15 (1-15) bisects the western portion of Temecula from north to south. State Route 79 ' (SR-79) North (Winchester Road) provides regional access between Temecula and the Hemet/San Jacinto area. The two major east-west roadways are SR-79 South and Rancho California Road. ' Temecula's incorporated area, which encompasses 14,805 acres (23 square miles), consists of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Single-family residential neighborhoods, comprising approximately 31 percent of Temecula's land area,-make up a significant portion of the City. The ' areas in the center and in the eastern portions of Temecula are primarily residential. Densities range from very low to low/medium, with low/medium densities making up the highest percentage of residential housing units (65 percent). Several pockets of medium and high density residential areas ' are located near the center of the City. The Nicolas Valley area, along with the residential development east of 1-15 and south of Santiago Road, consists of larger-lot, lower-density residential uses mixed with vacant parcels. Commercial and industrial development covers about ten percent ' of the land area in Temecula. The largest commercial areas in the City are located adjacent to the two 1-15/SR-79 junctions. Industrial parks and buildings are concentrated at the west end of the City. ' The unincorporated portions of the Planning Area, comprising 16,480 acres (26 square miles), are more rural and agricultural in—character. The large area west of Anza Road and east of the current City boundary includes many of the major wineries in the Temecula Valley. Approximately 13 ' percent of the unincorporated Planning Area is devoted to vineyards and agriculture. More than half(51 percent) of the unincorporated Planning Area consists of vacant land and open space. ' Temecula Valley enjoys a mild Mediterranean climate with year-round temperatures averaging in the mid-70s (F). Summer temperatures, which can average in the mid-80 degrees or the mid 90s during the day, are often cooled by afternoon ocean breezes blowing into the valley through gaps '1 in the Santa Ana foothills to the west. Although separated from the Pacific Ocean by the Santa Rosa mountain range, the Rainbow Gap funnels the mild beach climate into the valley. Mild wintertime temperatures average in the mid-60s. Yearly average rainfall in Temecula is ' approximately 14 inches, as reported by the Rancho California Water District. ' CITY OE TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4.1 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Environmental Setting ' • 1 The quality of air in the Temecula Valley is consistently better than that of surrounding communities. ' Ocean breezes flow through the Rainbow Gap almost every day, sweeping away smog. In the summer, Pacific winds yield temperatures up to ten degrees lower than in towns just a few miles away. Biological diversity in the region is great, with 13 vegetation communities located in Temecula. ' Native vegetation communities include Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Riversidian Sage Scrub, Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, Disturbed Alluvial Chaparral, Vernal Pool, Southern ' Cottonwood-willow Riparian, Southern Sycamore-alder Riparian Woodland, Riparian Scrub, Mule Fat Scrub, Southern Willow Scrub, and Oak woodland. The Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District supply water to the City. ' A portion of the water is drawn from the Murrieta-Temecula groundwater basin and from wells in Hemet and San Jacinto. The remainder of the water supply consists of imported water delivered by ' the Metropolitan Water District. The City presently contracts for solid waste disposal. Waste is transported to the El Sobrante and ' Badlands Landfills, located in unincorporated Riverside County. Temecula offers recycling and composting waste services. Recyclable and compost materials are separated from household trash. Household waste is transported to a processing center in the Orange County city of Stanton, and ' commercial/industrial waste is transported to a processing center in Perris. Regional flood control facilities, including major channels and storm drains, are under the jurisdiction of ' the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Motoe vehicles in Temecula are the dominant source of continuous noise. Interstate 15, SR-79, Rancho California Road, Jefferson Avenue/Front Street, and Winchester Road carry appreciable ' volumes of commuter traffic. The French Valley Airport also contributes to community noise levels. Temecula is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which includes all of Orange County ' and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. Both the federal and State governments have set health based ambient air quality standards for six pollutants: sulfur dioxide, lead, carbon monoxide, fine particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone. The , basin fails to meet air quality standards for two of the six pollutants: ozone and fine particulate matter. Existing land uses generate approximately 711,000 vehicle trips per day. Approximately 39 percent t of existing vehicle trips is attributed to residential land uses, with the remaining 61 percent to non- residential uses. With the exception of Jefferson Avenue and Winchester Road (Level of Service, or ' LOS E at PM Peak Hour), Nicolas Road and Winchester Road (LOS E at AM Peak Hour), and Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road (LOS E at PM Peak Hour), intersections within the Planning Area operate at a LOS D or better. With the exception of the northbound on-ramp at SR- ' 79 South, and the southbound off-ramps at Winchester Road and Rancho California Road, all 1.15 freeway ramps within the Planning Area operate at a LOS E or better. 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 42 ' 1 t 5 . 0 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ' This section of the EIR examines potentially significant effects associated with adoption and implementation of the General Plan update, including any subsequent amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce impacts found to be potentially significant in the EIR analysis. Each environmental issue for which the Initial Study (see Appendix A) identified a potentially significant impact is discussed in the following manner: ' Environmental Setting describes the existing environmental conditions in the City in baseline year 2002 to provide a foundation for comparing "before the project" and "after the project" environmental conditions. Thresholds Used to Determine Level of Impact defines and lists specific criteria used to determine whether an impact is considered to be potentially significant. Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines; , ' local, State, federal or other standards applicable.to that impact area; and officially established thresholds of significance are the major sources Used in crafting criteria appropriate to the specifics of a project, since "... an ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the ' significance of an activity may vary with the setting" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 jbj). Principally, ". . . a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within an area affected by the project, including land, air, water, flora, fauna, ambient ' noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic significance" constitutes a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). ' Environmental Impact presents evidence, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, about the cause and effect relationship between the project and the potential changes in the environment. The exact magnitude,, duration, extent, frequency, range, or other parameters of a ' potential impact are ascertained to the extent possible to provide facts in support of finding the impact to be or not to be significant. In determining whether impacts may be significant, all the potential effects, including direct effects, reasonably foreseeable indirect effects, and considerable contributions to cumulative effects, are considered. If, after thorough investigation, a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, that conclusion is noted (CEQA Guidelines Section 15145). Such may be the case for a number of issue areas given that the project is a 20-year plan, and inherent uncertainties arise in predicting land use activities so far in the future. The Plan was ' prepared through a process which.considered possible environmental impacts, allowing mitigation to be addressed by Plan policies. When a specific feature of the General Plan, whether it be a policy, standard, or guideline, avoids or reduces an environmental impact, that feature is identified. ' Mitigation Measures identify mitigation measures that can reduce or avoid the potentially significant impact in cases where the EIR analysis determines impacts to be potentially significant. ' Standard existing regulations, requirements, and procedures that are applied to all similar projects are taken into account in identifying what additional project-specific mitigation may be needed to reduce significant impacts. Mitigation, in addition to measures that the lead agency will implement, ' CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SI GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures , can also include measures that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public ' agency (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(aJ(21). Level of Impact after Mitigation indicates what effects will remain after application of mitigation t measures, and whether the remaining effects are considered significant. When these impacts, even with the inclusion of mitigation measures, cannot be mitigated to a level considered less than ' significant, they are identified as "unavoidable significant impacts." In order to approve a project with significant unavoidable impacts, the lead agency must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In adopting such a statement, the lead agency finds that it has reviewed the EIR, ' has balanced the benefits of the project against its significant effects, and has concluded that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and thus, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 ' Jaj). Potentially significant impacts to the issue area Mandatory Findings of Significance (see Initial Study) t are addressed generally throughout this section of the EIR, or specifically in Section 7.0, Analysis of Long-Term Effects, of this EIR. 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY 7OF TEMECUU ' GENERAL PUN UPDATE 5-2 5. 1 Aesthetics ' This section examines whether implementation of the General Plan will create new sources of light and glare and if so, how such light sources may affect uses within the Planning Area and regional facilities such as the Palomar Observatory. As indicated in the Initial Study (Appendix A), the project will result in a less than significant impact on scenic resources and visual character. 1 tEnvironmental Setting The natural features of the Temecula Planning Area provide a scenic setting for the community. ' Topographic features include western escarpment and southern ridgelines, hillsides in the northern area, and water features including Murrieta and Temecula Creeks and the Santa Margarita River. While the City itself contains large residential areas, surrounding areas are more rural and ' agricultural in nature. Many golf courses throughout the area and the wineries located in the easternmost part of the Planning Area contribute to the atmosphere of a resort community. ' Much of Temecula is comprised of urbanized areas developed primarily with low-density residential development. Densities range from very low to low/medium, with low/medium densities making up the highest percentage of existing housing units (65 percent). Several pockets of apartment and townhouse residential areas are located near the.center of the City. The Nicolas Valley area and ' residential east of 1-15 and south of Santiago Road consist of large lot, lower density residential uses. Temecula's largest commercial areas are located adjacent to the'two 1-15/SR-79 junctions. The 1.15/ ' SR-79 junction at Winchester Road, Jefferson Avenue south of Winchester Road, and the area surrounding the Rancho California/Ynez Rd intersection contain the major commercial areas. Industrial parks and buildings are concentrated at the western end of the City. This includes a mix of industrial buildings and vacant land. The area along Jefferson Avenue south of Winchester Road consists of.an aging mixed retail, service, and industrial corridor characterized primarily by auto- oriented services. ' ' A large portion of the Planning Area is either vacant or devoted to open space and agricultural uses. Vacant land is most predominant near the City boundary and among new residential developments. Thus, nighttime lighting is concentrated in the center of the City. Limited sources of artificial light in the Temecula Valley is one of the reasons the California Institute ' of Technology chose in 1934 to locate the Palomar Observatory in the mountains south of Temecula. The dark skies around Palomar Mountain make it possible to observe distant galaxies without the interference of urban lights. Generally, observatory sites need to be located 30 to 40 miles from large lighted areas so that the nighttime sky will not be brightened.' Figure 5.1-1 shows ' the location of the Planning Area in relation to the Palomar Observatory. 1 ' County of Riverside. Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Adopted June 17, 2004. City OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' SLL GENERAL PLAN UPDATE �� ■ ♦ w _ ��►' , � ��1.`� ,•�� ''ham^�� ,v �F� v, ai-. a•�. ' Aesthetics In support of the Palomar Observatory, the City adopted Riverside County's Outdoor Lighting Regulations, which restrict nighttime lighting for areas within a 15-mile radius'and a 45-mile radius of ' the facility.' As shown in Figure 5.1.1, the majority of the Planning Area is located within the 45- mile radius (Zone B), and southeastern portions.of the Planning Area lie within a 15-mile radius of the Observatory. Those areas within 15 miles of the Observatory (Zone A) are subject to stringent lighting controls and limitation of uses that may generate significant amounts of light and glare. The use of most types of outdoor lighting is prohibited after 11:00 P.M., and outdoor lighting must be shielded and focused on the object to be illuminated. The ordinance also establishes the type of ' lighting that may be used in Zones A and B, such as low pressure sodium lighting. The ordinance provides exemptions for holiday decorative lights, nonconforming uses, and light directly related to the combustion of fossil fuels. t Threshold Used to Determine Level of Impact ' Implementation of the General Plan will result in a significant impact if it will create a new source of light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. 1 Environmental Impact ' Light levels within the Planning Area will increase as new housing units and commercial, industrial 1i ' and institutional projects are developed pursuant to the General Plan. In addition, new development in previously undeveloped or sparsely developed areas, particularly within the sphere 17. of influence, has the potential to create new lighting impacts associated with the introduction of , ' vehicle headlights and nighttime lighting. New structures could create glare effects if they incorporate reflective building materials. Depending upon the location and scope of individual development projects, the impact to surrounding uses could be significant, and a mitigation measure is required. ' The General Plan acknowledges the importance of the Palomar Observatory through policies that continue the City's participation in Palomar Observatory's dark sky conservation requirements. The ' General Plan policies also state that the City will work with the County of Riverside and California Institute of Technology to ensure preservation procedures for dark skies are implemented within the City's development review process. Nevertheless, if future development pursuant to the General ' Plan increases the amount of nighttime lighting in the Planning Area, effectiveness of Palomar Observatory may be reduced. Therefore, a mitigation measure has been included to reduce the impact of light and glare from new development pursuant to the General Plan to a less than ' significant level. 1 1 l County of Riverside. Outdoor Lighting Regulations- Ordinance 655. Effective July 6, 1988.. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.1-3 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Aesthetics 1 Mitigation Measures A-1. The City will ensure that new development projects comply with the City Light Pollution ' Control Ordinance when building plans are submitted for permits and when projects are field-inspected (General Plan Implementation Program OS-31). ' Level of Impact after Mitigation , With mitigation, impact will be less than significant. ' 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA t GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.1-/ 5. 2 Agricultural Resources This section examines whether implementation of the General Plan will result in the conversion of farmland to non agricultural use. As indicated in the Initial Study (Appendix A), the project will result in a less than significant impact with regard to Williamson Act contract lands, as there are no ' Williamson Act contracts in the Planning Area. Environmental Setting Agriculture and related activities form a large portion of Riverside County's economic base. Currently, Riverside County ranks ninth in California in terms of agricultural production. The County is divided into four agricultural districts: Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley, Riverside/Corona, and San Jacinto/Temecula.' In 1982, the California Department of Conservation enacted the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) database in response to a critical need to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands.and conversion of these lands over time. FMMP is a non-regulatory program and provides a consistent and impartial analysis of agricultural land use and land use changes throughout California. Through the FMMP, agricultural resources are separated into the following categories' ' Prime Farmland: Prime Farmland is land which has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops. It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed.to produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to current farming methods. ' Farmland of Statewide Importance: Farmland of Statewide Importance is land other than Prime Farmland which has a good combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops. It must have been used for the production of irrigated crops at some time during the two ' update cycles prior to the mapping date. . It does not include publicly owned land_s for which there is an adopted policy preventing agricultural use. ' Unique Farmland: Unique Farmland is land which does not meet the criteria for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, that has been used for the production of specific high economic value crops at some time during the two update cycles prior to the mapping date. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high quality and/or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according to current farming methods. 1 ' County of Riverside. Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Final EIR/EIS. June 2003. Located at ' httD://Tcio.orPJmshcodocs/vol4/eirtochlul. 'California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. "Important Farmland Mapping Categories and Soil Taxonomy Terms." August 2004. htto;// wvv consn c,zov/DLRP/fmmo/Pubs/soil criteriT Ddf. 1 CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT- ' 5.2.1 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Agricultural Resources ' Farmland of Local Importance: Farmland of Local Importance is either currently producing crops, ' has the capability of production, or is used for the production of confined livestock. Farmland of ' Local Importance is land other than Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance or Unique Farmland. This land may be important to the local economy due to its productivity or value. It does not include publicly owned lands for which there is an adopted policy preventing agricultural use. In ' a few counties the local advisory committee has elected to additionally define areas of Local Potential (LP) farmland. This land includes soils which qualify for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, but generally are not cultivated or irrigated. Grazing Land: Grazing Land is defined in California Government Code Section 65570(b)(3) as ' "...land on which the existing vegetation, whether grown naturally or through management, is suitable for grazing or browsing of livestock." ' Urban growth pressures in Riverside County in recent decades have resulted in the conversion of farmland to urban uses. Table 5.2-1 summarizes the changes in agricultural land in Riverside County between 2000 and 2002. Riverside County had 13,166 fewer acres of farmland in 2002 than in 2000. Most of this loss was due to urbanization. Table 5.2-1 t Farmland Conversion in Riverside County 2000-2002 Farmland Category Total Acrea a Inventoried 2000 2002 Prime Farmland 151,011 141,175 , Farmland of Statewide Importance 49,446 48,046 Unique Farmland 40,950 39,049 Farmland of Local importance 243,414 240,672 Grazing Land 124,714 126,887 Total 1 609,535 596,369 Source: California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2004. Much of the land designated for agricultural purposes in Temecula has already been developed or entitled prior to the City's incorporation. Figure 5.2.1 shows the location of agricultural resources in the Planning Area as of 2002. Only small portions of significant farmland remain in Temecula. Approximately 1,500 acres of Prime Farmland and some small areas designated as Unique Farmland ' are located in the southern and eastern portions of the Planning Area and in the western hillsides within the City. Farmland of Local Importance is mostly located in the northern part of the sphere of influence in the French Valley area, although small parcels are located within the City. Table 5.2- , 2 summarizes the amount of significant farmland in Temecula. Temecula had a total of 12,693 acres of significant farmland as of 2002, the most recent year for which domplete data are available. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA , GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.2.2 1 ' Figure 5.2-1 Agricultural Resources Legend . a 1 _ Grazing Land _ Farmland of Local Importance City larder, County of /nflue a Riverside ' Prime Farmland a a a _ Farmland of Statewide Importance1. Unique Farmland ' Temecula City Boundary sm.. Sphere of Influence Boundary ' Planning Area aa.. Sources:Temecula and California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,CIS 2W2. If �v i r r1w..s.aa..e 1 N 0 5,000 10,000 WE ®Feet Miles ' S 0 1 2 C.ENFRAL PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 5.2.3 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Agricultural Resources , Table 5.2-2 ' Significant Farmland within the Temecula Planning Area (2002) Farmland Category Acres Percent of Total 1 Farmland Prime Farmland 1,076 8% ' Farmland of State Importance 203 2% Unique Farmland 1 724 14% Farmland of Local Importance 8,716 69% ' Grazin Land 974 7% Total 12,693 100% Source: California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2002. , Currently, 18 wineries are located in and adjacent to the eastern portion of the Planning Area, also known as Temecula Valley. These wineries constitute the most important wine-making region in ' Southern California and make important contributions to the City in terms of trade, tourism, and the aesthetic character of the area. The General Plan Land Use Element includes a new Vineyards/Agriculture land use designation to identify areas east of the City which are used as ' vineyards, or as citrus and avocado groves, and to protect them from residential development pressures. Vineyard/Agriculture areas are shown in Figure 3.2 Land Use Policy Map (page 3-5 of Section 3.0, Project Description). Currently 2,223 acres of Vineyard/Agricultural land exist within ' the Planning Area. As shown in Figure 5.2-1, the Vineyard/Agricultural designation includes some of the prime farmland and unique farmland within Temecula. Thresholds Use to Determine Level of Impact A significant impact on agricultural resources will occur if the project will: ' Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non- agricultural use, or Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could , result in conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. Environmental Impact , The updated General Plan continues to recognize agricultural uses as important historic uses within ' the Planning Area and allows the continuation of agricultural businesses that wish to operate in the short-term or indefinitely. For example, Policy 7.4 discourages urban development in agricultural ' areas outside built-up areas of the City. The General Plan also calls for evaluating scenic or resource conservation easements as suitable means for protecting prime farmland located adjacent to residential areas and where the property does not qualify for inclusion in an agriculture preserve ' program. The General Plan creates three agricultural preservation areas in which community members have expressed a desire to keep these areas rural; rural preservation areas listed in the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.2.4 , Agricultural Resources ' General Plan are: Nicolas Valley, East Rancho California, and Anza Road ® SR-79. In these areas, ' the City will encourage developers to provide open space or landscaped buffers between rural residential_ and agricultural areas and will limit the number and size of accessory structures on large lots to enhance the rural character of these areas. ' Future development within the Planning Area pursuant to the land use policies of the updated General Plan may result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of State and Local Importance to non-agricultural use. - Of the areas currently identified as Vineyard/Agriculture, approximately four acres may be converted to Rural Residential uses as a result of adoption and implementation of the draft General Plan. This is approximately 0.01 percent (one one-hundredth of one percent) of the land currently in agricultural use. Impact will be less ' than'significant with implementation of the following mitigation measure. ' Mitigation Measures AG-1. The City will preserve agricultural lands by: Developing effective zoning regulations or other land use mechanisms that control the " expansion of intensive non-agricultural development onto productive or potentially "P ' productive agricultural lands. (?' Recognizing existing agriculture preserve contracts and promoting additional preservation contracts for prime agriculture land (General Plan Implementation Program OS-28). ' Level of -Impact after Mitigation With mitigation, impact will be less than significant. c 1 1 1 CITY OF TEMECUTA EWRONMENTAE-IMPACT REPORT 5.2.5 GENERALPLAN UPDATE Agricultural Resources 1 1 1 . r . 1 . 1 This page is intentionally left blank. 1 1 - 1 . 1 . i i 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.2.6 1 5. 3 Air Quality ' This section examines the potential for implementation of the General Plan to violate any air quality standard, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, or expose ' sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Through the Initial Study process, issues regarding potential conflicts with the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan and creating objectionable odors were found to have a less than significant impact. Air quality worksheets are ' included in Appendix B of this EIR. ' Environmental Setting Temecula lies within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), as shown in Figure 5.3-1. The Basin is a ' 6,600-square-mile area bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains on the north and east. The Basin includes the non-desert portions of Riverside, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County. Within ' 'the Basin, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the regional agency responsible for air quality monitoring and stationary source control. ' The topography and climate of Southern California combine to create an area of high air pollution potential in the Basin. During the summer months, a warm air mass frequently descends over the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction between the ocean's surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper layer forms a cup over the cool marine layer, which ' prevents pollution from dispersing upward. This inversion allows pollutants to accumulate within the lower layer. Light winds during the summer further limit ventilation from occurring. ' Due to the low average wind speeds in the summer and a persistent daytime temperature inversion, emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen have an opportunity to combine with sunlight in a complex series of reactions. These reactions produce a photochemical oxidant commonly known ' as "smog." Since the Basin experiences more days of sunlight than any other major urban area in the United States, except Phoenix, the smog potential in the region is higher than in most other major metropolitan areas in the country. 1 Climate and Meteorology ' The climate in and around Temecula, as well as most of Southern California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high-pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. This high- pressure cell produces a typical Mediterranean climate with warm summers, mild winters, and ' moderate rainfall. This pattern is infrequently interrupted by periods of extremely hot weather brought in by Santa Ana winds. Almost all precipitation occurs between November and April, although during these months, it is sunny or partly sunny a majority of the time. Cyclic land and sea ' breezes.are the primary factors affecting the region's mild climate. The daytime winds are normally sea breezes, predominantly from the west, that flow at relatively low velocities. Within the Lake Elsinore Convergence Zone, located just north of Temecula, coastal winds often block air pollutants toriginating from the rest of the Basin from entering the Temecula Valley. CrrY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.3.1 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1 Figure 5.3-1 ri I South Coast Air Basin I ' Legend I South Coast Air Basin _ County Boundary I • Air Monitoring Stations I I - Temecula Planning Area I SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Source:South Coast AQMD,2003 • j Santa Clorita-County Fire Station I I LOS ANGELES COUNTY •Creslline •Big Bea City � •Reseda • • Pasadena•$Wilson Avenue � Burbank-W Palm Avenue Azusa• •GlendoreAaurel West Los Angeles-VA Hospital Los Angeles-North Main Street •Upland•Fontana *San Bernardino • •P mono •Ontario Airport •Redlands • — — •Pico Rivera �1" Ontario � _ _ _ _ _ _ — — — — Hawthorne r •Rivenida-Rubidous • is Lynwood 17. Habra \ I 1 •Norco •Riverside-Magnolia is Banning Airport f 1 �i North Long Beachf *Anaheim S ORANGE �` •Parris •San Jacinto-Yo ng Street COUNTY I • San Jacinto-Si n Jacinto Street I — RMEF&DE •Costa Mesa •Lake Elsinore COLIHIY EI Tome• • Miuion Viejo Temecula Plannin Area SAN DIEGO 9 COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PUN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECUfA 5.3.2 ' Air Quality Air Pollution Control Effects ' Both the federal and State governments have set health-based ambient air quality standards for the following 6 pollutants: 1 • Sulfur dioxide (S02) • Fine particulate matter (PM,o) Lead (Ph) • Oxides of Nitrogen (NO,) Carbon monoxide (CO) • Ozone (03) The standards are designed to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort with a ' margin.of safety. The California standards are more stringent than federal standards and in the case of PM,a and sulfur dioxide, far more stringent. Table 5.3-1 outlines current federal and State ambient air quality standards. Despite the existence of many strict controls, the South Coast Air Basin still fails to meet federal air quality standards for two of the six criteria pollutants including 03 and PM,a. Because lead-based ' gasoline•has been phased out of California, airborne lead pollution is no longer a problem in the Basin, nor is sulfur dioxide pollution. ' Nearly all pollution control programs developed to date have relied on the.development and is t; t application of cleaner technology and add-on emissions control devices to clean up vehicular and 1 industrial sources, such as catalytic converters for automobiles. Recent efforts include new programs monitoring high-emitting vehicles and_ industries (e.g. the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program and mandatory maintenance procedures on'.industrial sources), and attempts ex t to reduce overall vehicle activity (e.g. High Occupancy Vehicle.IHOV) lanes). ' Past air quality programs have been effective in improving the Basin's air quality. Although the magnitude' of the 'problem depends .heavily on the weather conditions in a given year, and improvements can only be compared for the same air monitoring station, ozone levels have ' declined by almost half over the past 30 years. However, ozone levels within the Basin remain at or near the top of all pollution concentrations within urban areas in the United States. Air Quality Monitoring The nearest air quality monitoring station to Temecula is located at Lake Elsinore (See Figure 5.3-1). ' Table 5.3-2 shows monitored air quality for CO, 03, and NO, at the Lake Elsinore station. The data indicates that State standards are rarely exceeded for CO or NOx, yet frequently exceeded for 03. PM,a measurements are not taken at the Lake Elsinore station. The nearest air quality monitoring ' station for PM,a is located in the Perris Valley. Table 5.3-3 shows the maximum concentrations of PM,o and the number of days samples exceeded State standards at the Perris Valley station. 1 1 ' CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.3.3 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1 Air Quality , 1 Table 5.3-1 Air Pollution Sources, Effects, and Standards ' Air Federal Primary ' Pollutant State Standard Standard Sources Primary Effects Ozone 0.09 ppm, 1-hour 0.12 ppm, 1-hour Atmospheric reaction of Aggravation of respiratory and (O,) average average;0.08 organic gases with nitrogen cardiovascular diseases;irritation of eyes; ppm, 8-hour oxides in sunlight. impairment of cardiopulmonary function; ' average plant leaf injury. Carbon 9.0 ppm,8-hour 9.0 ppm, 8-hour Incomplete combustion of Reduced tolerance for exercise; Monoxide average; 20 ppm, 1- average;35 ppm, fuels and other carbon- impairment of mental function; (CO) hour average 1-hour average containing substances such impairment of fetal development; t as motor vehicle exhaust; death at high levels of exposure; natural events,such as aggravation of some heart diseases decomposition of organic (angina); reduced visibility. ' matter. Nitrogen 0.25 ppm, 1-hour 0.053 ppm, annual Motor vehicle exhaust; Aggravation of respiratory illness, reduced Oxides average average high-temperature stationary visibility; reduced pldnt growth; formation (NO,) combustion;atmospheric of acid rain. t reactions. Sulfur 0.25 ppm, 1-hour aver- 0.03 ppm,annual Combustion of sulfur- Aggravation of respiratory diseases Dioxide age;0.05 ppm, 24-hour average;0.14 containing fossil fuels; (asthma,emphysema); reduced Twig ' (SO,) average with ozone>- ppm, 24-tour smelting of sulfur-bearing function; irritation of eyes, reduced 0.10 ppm, 1 hour average metal ores; industrial visibility; plant injury;deterioration of average or TSP>- 100 processes. metals, textiles,leather, finishes, coatings, pg/m', 24-hour average I etc. ' Respirable 30 pg/m',annual 50pg/m',annual Stationary combustion of Reduced lung function;aggravation of the Particulate geometric mean;>50 arithmetic mean; solid fuels;construction effects of gaseous pollutants;aggravation Matter pg/m',24-hour average 150 pg/m',24- activities;industrial of respiratory and cardio-respiratory (PM,4) hour average processes;industrial diseases; increased coughing and chest , processes,atmospheric discomfort; soiling; reduced visibility chemical reactions. Fine No Separate State 65 pg/m', 241tour Combustion sources such as Increased mortality; reduced lung ' Particulate Standard average; 15 pg/m' automobiles, trucks,and function;aggravation of the effects of Matter annual arithmetic stationary sources; gaseous pollutants; aggravation of (PM rs) mean atmospheric chemical respiratory and cardio-respiratory reactions. diseases;increased coughing and chest ' discomfort. Lead 1.5 pg/m', 30-day 1.5 pg/m', Contaminated soil. Increased body burden; impairment of average calendar quarter blood formation and nerve conduction; behavioral and hearing problems in ' children. Visibility Sufficient to reduce None Visibility impairment on days when Reducing visual range to less relative humidity is less than 70 percent. ' Particles than 10 miles at relative humidity less than 701/6,8-hour average(9am-5pm) ' pg/m'-micrograms per cubic meter of air;ppm-parts per million parts of air,by volume. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. November 2001 (Version 3)update. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA t GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.3.4 Air Quality 1 Table 5.3-2 Number of Days State Ambient Air Quality Standards Exceeded Lake Elsinore Station ' Carbon Monoxide' I -Ozone' Oxides of Nitrogen' Maximum Maximum Maximum 8-hour *Days 1-hour *Days 1-hour *Days concentration standard concentration standard concentration standard Year (ppm) exceeded (ppm) exceeded (ppm) exceeded 1997 - - 0.16 49 0.11 0 ' 1998 - - 0.17 52 0.09 0 1999 - 0.14 51 0.11 0 ' 2000 2.0 0 0.13 45 0.08 0 2001 2.0 0 0.151 61 0.09 0 2002 2.0 0 0.139 52 0.07 0 ' 2003 1.3 0 0.154 50 0.08 0 Number of clays State standardwas exceeded in calendar year. ppm-parts per million parts of air,by volume ",J I Stale standard for cartron monoxide: 20 ppm 1-Hour; 9.0 ppm &Hour •�"•� State standard for ozone:0.09 ppm 1-Hour 'State standard for nitrogen dioxide:0.25 ppm,l-Hour. Source:South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality gala 1990-2003 Table 5.3-3 PMIe Measurements Perris Valley Station ' Maximum' - Days (% of) Samples Exceeding Year Concentration(pg/m') - California standard* 1997 139 '19 (31.7) ' 1998 98 14 (26.4) 1999 112 30(50) 2000. 87 13 (22) 2001 86 16 (27) 2002 100 24 (39.3) ' 2003 142 19 (32.8) Ng/m3—micrograms per cubic meter of air 'State standard for PM10>50 yg/m', 24-hour. Collected every 6 days. ' Source:South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Data 1990-2003. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.3.5 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1 Air Quality ' Sensitive Receptors ' SCAQMD identifies sensitive receptors as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Sensitive receptors located in or near the vicinity of known ' air emissions sources, including freeways and intersections, are of particular concern. Sensitive receptors are located throughout the project area, as shown in Figure 5.3-2. Sensitive receptors in Temecula include the following: t • hospitals • adult assisted care facilities • libraries • schools • child care centers ' Land use compatibility issues relative to siting of pollution-emitting uses or siting of sensitive receptors must be considered. ' Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots Carbon monoxide (CO) hot spots, or areas where carbon monoxide is concentrated, typically occur 1 near congested intersections, parking garages, and other spaces where a substantial number of vehicles remain idle. Petroleum-powered vehicles emit carbon monoxide, an unhealthy gas (see ' Table 5.3-1), which disperses based on wind speed, temperature, traffic speeds, local topography, and other variables. As vehicles idle in traffic congestion or in enclosed spaces, CO can accumulate to create CO hot spots that can impact sensitive receptors. ' Toxic Air Pollutants Toxic air pollutants, such as asbestos, can be emitted during the demolition of buildings that contain ' toxic contaminants, and during the operation of certain industrial processes that utilize toxic substances. Federal and State governments have implemented a number of programs to control ' toxic air emissions. For example, the federal Clean Air Act provides a program for the control of hazardous air pollutants. In addition, the California legislature enacted programs including the Tanner Toxics Act (Health and Safety Code Section 25300 et. seq.), the Air Toxics Hot Spot ' Assessment Program (Health and Safety Code Section 44300 et. seq.), the Toxics Emissions Near Schools Program (Public Resources Code Section 21151.8), and the Disposal Site Air Monitoring Program (Health and Safety Code Section 41800 et. seq.). ' SCAQMD has developed and implements rules to control emissions of toxic air pollutants from specific sources. These include Rule 1401 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants) which ' requires certain businesses to obtain a permit to emit toxic air pollutants, and Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Renovation/Demolition Activities) which regulates asbestos emissions during construction activities. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA , GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.3-6 It I Figure 5.3-2 ' Sensitive Receptors CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Legend ' O Hospital 0 Elementary School ® Library Q Middle School ® Child Care Center Q High School ' Q Adult Assisted Qi Private School Care Facilities O Temecula City Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary C- 1 Planning Area IFr r S..:T.ade end hive ide C.ty,GIS 2WI O M © M MM ® E 1 \ M P P ' \ �\ E 0 l ` E O M \ �. E \ It P P E \ P i M J \ O `• E � • �• N i 1 ' N 0 5,000 10,000 wl: ®Feet Miles .C.1.1l.A ' S O 1 2 CENCRAL PLAN CITY OF TEMECUtA - ENVIRONMEMAL IMPACT REPORT ' 5-3.7 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Air Quality ' Related Plans and Programs ' Air Quality Management Plan ' Both California and the federal government require non-attainment areas, such as the South Coast , Air Basin, to prepare an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to reduce air pollution to healthful levels. The California Clean Air Act of 1988 and amendments to the federal Clean Air Act in 1990 require strict air pollution control efforts. For example, the State of California must submit plans to the federal government showing how non-attainment areas in California will meet federal air quality ' standards by specific deadlines. The 1994 and 1997 South Coast Air Basin AQMPs incorporate a number of measures to reduce air ' pollution in the Basin in order to meet federal and State requirements. These measures include strategies to meet federal and State standards for CO, PM,e, NO and 03; control of toxic air contaminants and acutely hazardous emissions; and control of global warming and ozone depleting ' gases. These measures are updated periodically. Thresholds Used to Determine Level of Impact Implementation of the General Plan will result in a significant impact if it will: ' • Violate any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing air quality violation • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant 1 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations ' The SCAQMD has established air pollutant emission thresholds to assist lead agencies in determining whether or not the construction or operation of a project results in significant impacts. ' If the lead agency finds that the project has the potential to exceed these thresholds, the project is considered to have a significant impact on air quality. These thresholds are summarized in Table 5.3-4. Table 5.3-4 t SCAQMD Thresholds for Significant Contribution to Regional Air Pollution , Threshold of Significant Effect Pollutant Operation Phase Construction Phase 1 Reactive Organic Gases(ROG) 55 Ibs/day 75 Ibs/day, 2.5 tons/quarter Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 55 Ibs/day 100lbs/day, 2.5 tons/quarter Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550lbs/day 550 Ibs/day, 24.75 tons/quarter ' Fine Particulate Mauer(PM 10) 150 Ibs/day 150lbs/day, 6.75 tons/quarter Source: CEQA Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District. May, 1993 with updates ' through 2001. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.3-0 ' ' Air Quality In addition, implementation of the General Plan will result in a significant impact related to CO hot spots if it will: 1 Allow sensitive receptors to locate adjacent to intersections identified as CO hot spots, and/or ' Result in localized carbon monoxide concentrations near existing sensitive receptors The State of California CO concentration standards, shown in Table 5.3-1, are 9 parts per million ' (ppm) during an 8-hour period, and 20-ppm during a 1-hour period. If CO hot spots currently exist, then a 1-ppm increase attributable to the project over "no project" conditions for the one-hour period is considered a significant impact. 1 Environmental Impact 1 Air quality impacts from future development pursuant to the General Plan can be classified as either short-term or long-term impacts, Short-term impacts are associated with construction activities, and ' long-term impacts are associated with the operation of developed land uses and associated vehicular trips. ' Short-Term Impacts For any construction project, short-term pollutant emissions could be produced from the following ='* ' sources: construction equipment, dust from grading and earthmoving operations, workers' vehicles, and architectural coatings such as paints. rz ' Construction-related air quality impacts will occur periodically throughout implementation of the General Plan as individual development projects are constructed. Construction activity will primarily generate airborne dust, carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen oxides (NOx). In addition, ' architectural coatings, exterior paints, and asphalt may release volatile organic compounds (VOC). Because the General Plan identifies future permitted land uses and does not identify specific development proposals, construction-related emissions of individual future developments cannot be ' quantified at this time. Assuming relatively robust economic conditions through 2025, construction activity will be a constant throughout the Temecula Planning Area, particularly at locations where land use policy focuses development. While individual development projects will be required to employ construction approaches that minimize pollutant emissions (e.g., watering for dust control, ' tuning of equipment and limiting truck traffic to non-peak hours), on a cumulative basis over the next 20 years, pollutant emissions associated with construction activity will be significant, and mitigation is required. ' Long-Term Impacts ' Development through 2025 consistent with proposed General Plan land use policies will result in the addition of approximately 25,005 units to Temecula's existing housing stock, for a total of 54,687 units, and an additional 36.2 million square feet of nonresidential development, for a total of ' 75.5 million square feet. This development will generate additional emissions from both stationary sources and vehicle trips. Stationary sources are defined by SCAQMD to be those sources that emit pollution from industrial or commercial processes, or use of various types of equipment. 1 CITY OF TEMECULI ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' - 9 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Air Quality ' 1 Table 5.3-5 reports the estimated air pollution emissions associated with the change in land uses as ' a result of implementation of the proposed General Plan in 2025. Future pollutant emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2002 Air Pollution Model. Appendix B contains the worksheets documenting the calculations. Table 5.3-5 1 Estimated Air Pollutant Emissions Associated With Change in Land Use (Pounds per Day) ' Existing Proposed Land Use Land Use Percent SCAQMD Significant ' Pollutant 2004 2025 Difference' Chan a Thresholds Impact? Carbon Monoxide CO 163,185 62,792 100,393 -62% 550 No Reactive Organic 13,943 8, ' Compounds ROC 308 (5,635) -40% 55 No Nitrogen Oxides NO 15,287 6,151 9,136 -60% 55 No Particulate Matter less than 10 microns PM 11,576 23,227 11,651 101% 150 Yes ''Numbers in parenthesis indicate a reduction in emissions. Source: URBEMIS 2002 conducted by Cotton/Bridges/Associates,November,2004. As evident from Table 5.3-5, for all pollutant categories except PM,o, long-term pollutant emissions ' in year 2025 are projected to decrease relative to 2002. This can be explained by several factors, including effective efforts of the SCAQMD to improve the Basin's air quality. Factors that will contribute to this reduction, in spite of new development within the Planning Area and the region, ' include: • Phase-out of older automobiles from the vehicle fleet , • Improvement of vehicle emissions-control technology, particularly within diesel vehicles • Better control of VOC release from all sources • Improvement in emissions-control technologies for commercial and industrial operations ' PM,o typically originates from the stationary combustion of solid fuels, construction activities, industrial processes, and atmospheric chemical reactions. A possible explanation for PM,, ' increasing over the next 20 years is a lack of specific legal control measures for this pollutant. PM,, will continue exhaust and tire wear, which are difficult to regulate. Levels of PM,a have exceeded State standards regularly in the past and are expected to continue exceeding these standards in the ' future. Therefore, long-term air quality impacts resulting from adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan will be significant, and mitigation measures are required. 1 1 - 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ' S.a-10 ' Air Quality 1 Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots Intersections within the Planning Area projected to experience the worst level of service (LOS)' conditions, in combination with proximity to sensitive receptors were selected for CO hot spot analysis. The following intersections were analyzed: • Rancho California Road & Old Town Front Street • Ynez Road & Rancho California Road ' Ynez Road & Rancho Vista Road ■ SR-79 North & 1-15 ' Using the CO model CALINE4, a 1-hour emission scenario was analyzed for the selected intersections (see Appendix B). CALINE4 is a dispersion model used to predict CO levels near highways and arterial streets. Downwind concentration of CO is estimated for the worst-case ' atmospheric conditions resulting in the least dispersion of pollutants. These atmospheric conditions, which may occur on up to 5 to 10 days per year, typically occur during the morning hours from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. or 11:00 A.M., when low wind speeds (less than 1 meter per second), stable ' air, and constant wind direction combine to minimize dispersal of pollutants. In more typical morning conditions, less stable air and substantially more variation in wind direction disperse pollutants over a much wider area, minimizing the area exposed to the highest pollutant levels. ' During other times of the day, much lower stability and higher wind speeds are typical. The CALINE4 analysis shows that while all study intersections will experience some level of CO r concentration, ranging from 0.1 ppm to 1.5 pprn during the 1-hour period, no intersections are - ' t anticipated to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for 1-hour standard. Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan will not result in a significant impact with regard to CO hot Spots? ' The General Plan Air Quality Element includes goals and policies addressing regional air quality improvement, the consideration of air quality impacts in land use planning and development approval decisions, reduction of air pollutant emissions from automobiles, and energy conservation ' practices. In addition, several policies within the Land Use and Circulation Elements encourage techniques designed to reduce air pollution in the Temecula Planning Area. ' Mitigation Measures AQ-1. The City will support regional transit initiatives and promote development of high-speed rail ' service connecting Temecula to San Diego and Los Angeles; actively participate in efforts to protect and improve air quality in the region; and attend meetings with the County of Riverside, WRCOG, SCAQMD, SCAG, and other agencies as required to support these ' objectives and fulfill Temecula's requirements and obligations under the AQMP and Sub- Regional Air Quality Implementation Program (General Plan Implementation Program AQ- 1). ' AQ-2. The City will continue to involve the general public, environmental groups, the business community, and special interest groups in the formulation and implementation of air quality See Section S.13, Transportation and Traffic,for a discussion of the level of service concept. Future conditions considers the intersections as improved,per traffic report. CITY OF TEMECUTA - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT tI I GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Air Quality ' programs; conduct periodic public outreach efforts; and continue to promote public ' education as a method of employer compliance with the City Trip Reduction Ordinance ' (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-2). AQ-3. The City will adhere to policies and programs of the Land Use Element, including development of mixed-use projects where designated and feasible (General Plan ' Implementation Program AQ-3). AQ-4. The City will encourage development and expansion of businesses, and promote ' development of housing affordable to all segments of the community near job opportunity sites, and within Mixed Use Overlay Areas (General Plan Implementation Program AQ4). AQ-5. The City will continue to implement a site development permit process and use the ' California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the review of proposed development projects. The City shall require individual development projects to comply with the t following measures to minimize short-term, construction-related PM,o and NO, emissions, and to minimize off-site impacts: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. ' • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. ' • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Cover or water twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. ' • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain in active for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed. • Ensure that all cut and fill slopes are permanently protected from erosion. ' • Require the construction contractor to ensure that all construction equipment is maintained in peak working order. • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. , Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. ' Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site. Wash or sweep away access points daily. Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours. , Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Approve development that could significantly impact air quality, either individually or ' cumulatively, only if it is conditioned with all reasonable mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or offset the impact. (General Plan Implementation Programs LU4 and AQ-5). AQ-6. The City will ensure location of new sensitive receptors away from major air pollution ' sources, and require buffering of sensitive receptors (shown in Figure 7) from air pollution sources through the use of landscaping, open space, and other separation techniques (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-6). ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY O TTEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.3.12 , ' Air Quality tAQ-7. The City will incorporate strategies into City-wide design guidelines and development standards that promote a pedestrian-scale environment, encourage use of mass transit, and ' reduce dependence on the automobile (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-7). AQ-8. The City will promote the use of alternative work weeks, flextime, telecommuting, and work- at-home programs among employers in Temecula, and continue to enforce provisions of the City Trip Reduction Ordinance, including requirements for preparation of Trip Reduction Plans (TRPs) for qualifying development projects and employers (General Plan ' Implementation Program AQ-8). AQ-9. The City will require employee rideshare and transit incentives for large employers, ' consistent with the requirements of the City's Trip 'Reduction Ordinance, and continue to encourage voluntary compliance with the Ordinance for smaller employers (General Plan Implementation'Program AQ-9). ' AQ-10.The City will require operators of large scale outdoor events to submit a Trip Reduction Plan (TRP) applicable to both patrons and employees during the course of the event, and encourage special event operators to advertise and' offer discount parking incentives to carpooling patrons, with two or more persons per vehicle, for on-site parking facilities (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-10). ' AQ-1 1.The City will work to achieve local performance goals for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) r reduction, consistent with SCAG's Growth Management Plan recommended standards for the Western Riverside County sub-region, and enforce requirements and options within the ' Trip Reduction Ordinance (General Plan Implementation Program'AQ-11). AQ-12.The City will promote and encourage the use of alternative fuel vehicles and consider the -r adoption of an ordinance requiring provision of alternative fueling stations at or near major employment, locations, shopping,centers, public facilities, and mixed-use developments (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-12). AQ-13.The City will encourage pedestrian and bicycle trips as an alternative to single-occupancy vehicle trips by constructing and maintaining trails and bikeways specified in the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, and will periodically update the Master Plan as needed to ' meet resident needs and City objectives (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-13). AQ-14.The City will work with Caltrans and RTA to identify potential sites for Park and Ride facilities adjacent to key commuting routes within the City, and to prioritize development of such facilities in corridors served by more than one mode of planned transportation (automobile, transit, and/or high-speed rail) (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-14). tAQ-15.The City will require incorporation of energy efficient design elements in residential, commercial, light industrial and mixed-use development projects. Examples may include ' (but are not limited to) the following. • Site orientation strategies that use shade and windbreak trees to reduce fossil fueld ' consumption for heating and cooling. CITY OF TEMECULA - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 13 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Air Quality , Building designs that maximize use of natural lighting, provide for task lighting, and ' specific high-efficiency electric lighting (General Plan Implementation Program AQ- 15). ' AQ-16.The City will improve roadway capacity by restricting on-street parking, improving signal timing, widening intersections, adding through and turn lanes, and other transportation ' systems management measures (General Plan Implementation Program C-3). AQ-17.The City will develop and promote park and ride and Transit Oasis facilities, and encourage ' preferred parking for ride-sharing and low emission vehicles (General Plan Implementation Program C-18). AQ-18.The City will continue to work with trucking industry representatives to orient trucks to truck ' routes, and to divert commercial truck traffic to off-peak periods to reduce congestion and diesel emissions (General Plan']mpl em en tation Program C-19). ' Level of Impact after Mitigation ' With implementation of goals and policies in the General Plan and mitigation measures, air quality impacts will be substantially lessened. However, the degree to which these measures will reduce ' particulate matter emissions cannot be quantified at this time. Air pollutant levels will still continue to exceed the SCAQMD threshold criteria for. significance. Impact will be significant and unavoidable. , Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots The State of California CO concentration standards for carbon monoxide hot spots will riot be , exceeded. Impact is less than significant. 1 t 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.3-14 ' 1 5.4 Biological Resources ' This section evaluates the potential for implementation of the General Plan to affect biological resources within the Planning Area. As indicated in the Initial Study (Appendix A), the project will not conflict with any local policies, ordinances, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. The following is summarized from Biological Existing Conditions (May 2002) and ' Biological Resources Section (September 2003) prepared by Merkel & Associates. These reports are provided in Appendix C of this EIR. ' Environmental Setting ' The majority of the Temecula region is topographically characterized by flat terrain with elevations gradually rising towards the southeast in the foothills of the Agua Tibia Mountains. Areas within the ' current City limits primarily consist of urban developed lands, intermixed with native and non-native vegetation. Surrounding agricultural and undisturbed lands are located to the northeast, with native vegetation to the southeast and southwest. To the northwest are urban developed lands within the City of Murrieta. The Planning Area encompasses habitats ranging from disturbed to very good quality native vegetation communities. Within the City limits, a predominance of urban development and road bisections contains or eliminates habitat connectivity, thereby decreasing the wildlife value of much of the Planning Area. Regions of prime importance to wildlife are generally concentrated within the sphere of influence, particularly within the French Valley area, as well as southeast and southwest of Temecula. ' The City and Planning Area lie within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) area. The MSHCP serves as a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan, pursuant to Section (a)(1)(b) of the federal Endangered Species Act of ' 2001. The plan encompasses all unincorporated County land west of the crest of the San Jacinto Mountains to the Orange County line, as well as the jurisdictional areas of the cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Norco, Corona, Riverside, Moreno Valley, Banning, ' Beaumont, Calimesa, Perris, Hemet, and San Jacinto. The overall biological goal of the MSHCP is to maintain and restore biological diversity and the natural ecosystem processes which support this diversity, to natural areas within Western Riverside County which are known to support threatened, endangered, or key sensitive populations of plant and wildlife species.' ' Regional Vegetation Communities ' Thirteen vegetation communities have been identified within the Planning Area: Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Riversidean Sage Scrub, Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, Disturbed Alluvial, Chaparral, Vernal Pool, Southern Cottonwood-willow Riparian Woodland, Southern Sycamore-alder ' Riparian Woodland, Riparian Scrub, Mule Fat Scrub, Southern Willow Scrub, Oak Woodland, and Non-native Grassland. Four additional categories consisting primarily of non-native vegetation with reduced biological value include: Open Water/Reservoir/Pond, Residential/Urban/Exotic lands, 1 ' County of Riverside. Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. June 2003. Located at htto://vtimv.rcne.eov/. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 5.4-1 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1 Biological Resources Field Croplands, and Groves/Orchards. Table 5.4-1 describes the regional vegetation communities within the City, Sphere of Influence, and Planning Area. ' Table 5.4-1 Regional Vegetation Communities and Approximate Acreages ' within the Planning Area Generalized Vegetation Approximate Detailed Vegetation , Community Classifications Acreages % ' Community Classifications Coastal Sage Scrub 3,430(9%) Die an Coastal Sae Scrub Riversidean Sae Scrub Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub 229 (1%) Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage ' Scrub Disturbed Alluvial Chaparral 4,641 (12%) Chamise Chaparral , Southern Mixed Chaparral Red Shank Chaparral Non-Native Grassland 8,436 21% Non-Native Grassland Vernal Pools 16 <1% Vernal Pools ' Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest 515 (1%) Southern Cottonwood/Willow -Riparian Forest Southern Sycamore/Alder ' Riparian Woodland Riparian Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Southern Willow Scrub Coast Live Oak Woodland 584 1% Coast Live Oak Woodland O en Water/Reservoir/Pond 94 <I% Open Water/Reservoir/Pond Subtotal of Natural/Naturalized 17,945(45%) Habitats Subtotal of Residential/Urban/Exotic 13,555 (34% Residential Urban Exotic Subtotal of Agricultural Land 8,405 (21%) 1 Field Cro lands , Groves Orchards Total 39,905 100% Vegetation communities are separate from.zoning and land use designations because they cross , private property boundaries and parcel lines. Therefore, the approximate acreages described above differ from those provided in Table 3-1 (Section 3.0 Project Description). Source: Merkel&Associates, Inc.,September 2003. Regional Sensitive Habitats Sensitive habitats include vegetation communities that support rare and endangered species, have been substantially depleted by development, or are naturally limited within a certain region. The following vegetation communities are considered to be sensitive habitats within the Planning Area: ' 1) Coastal Sage Scrub/Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub; 2) Vernal Pools/Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest/Open Water, Reservoir, Pond; 3) Coast Live Oak Woodland; and 4) Raptor Foraging/Wintering Habitat. ' ENYIRONMEMAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.4.2 Biological Resources Coastal Sage Scrub/Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub ' Coastal Sage scrub has been substantially reduced in Southern California largely due to urban and agricultural development. Sage scrub vegetation communities provide habitat for the federally ' listed, threatened California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica), as well as several other State and locally sensitive species. In addition, sage scrub habitats often include rocky outcrops which increase species diversity by creating microhabitats that are regularly used as basking and perch ' sites by a number of sensitive butterfly, reptile, and raptor species. The majority of the sage scrub habitat within the .Planning Area has been fragmented by development, reducing wildlife value. However, several of the sage scrub patches throughout the City, and particularly in the French Valley, may provide narrow habitat linkages or stepping stones enabling wildlife species to disperse ' to larger areas of native habitat within the region. Vernal Pools/Riparian Scrub, Woodland and Forest/Open Water, Reservoir, Pond Vernal pools, riparian vegetation, and water are wetland habitat types that have extremely high wildlife values; are.naturally limited in distribution, and have been substantially depleted within ' Southern California. Numerous species are dependent on wetland and riparian areas for food, cover and breeding, and several, additional species, although not dependent on these habitats, utilize these areas on a regular basis. Several wetland and riparian habitats are located throughout ' the Planning Area along the various creeks and tributaries, and vernal pools are located at Skunk Hollow in the French Valley. Although these habitats are typically constrained by peripheral development, thereby reducing wildlife value, these areas are vital to maintaining existing habitat ' connectivity and wildlife corridor value throughout the region. Coast Live Oak Woodland ' Oak woodlands also have extremely high wildlife value, are naturally limited in distribution, and have been substantially depleted throughout Southern%California. Oak woodlands vary in terms of ' species composition, density, understory, and regeneration capacity. This habitat diversity will typically influence wildlife abundance and habitat quality, but regardless of quality, oaks that form woodlands are generally considered to have high biological value for numerous wildlife species. In ' addition, oak trees are susceptible to indirect long-term impacts from disease, pollution, and changes in water availability, causing loss of regenerative ability within individual oak stands. Oak woodlands are limited within the Planning Area, but those that occur or abut creeks have increased wildlife value. Additionally, oak woodlands adjacent to more open vegetation, such as coastal sage scrub and non-native grasslands with a high abundance of rodent prey items, have increased wildlife value, particularly for raptor species. Raptor Wintering/Foraging Habitat Although non-native grasslands and agricultural lands are not typically considered sensitive habitat ' types, they are considered sensitive if they support listed sensitive species (e.g., some raptors) or are of particular biological value to these species. These vegetation communities, particularly when located adjacent to woodland habitats, provide a good prey base and suitable hunting habitat for resident, wintering, and transient raptor populations. Within the Planning Area, potential raptor wintering and foraging habitat is primarily located in the French Valley area and south of the City. 1 ' CITY OF IEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.4.3 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1 Biological Resources Designated Critical Habitat The Planning Area is partially located within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated critical habitat for the federally listed, threatened California gnatcatcher and endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly, as shown in Figure 5.4-1. ' Unit 10 of the California Gnatcatcher Critical Habitat encompasses approximately 199,940 acres of land within the Western Riverside County MSHCP area. The Temecula/Murrieta/Lake Skinner ' subunit is partially located within the Temecula Planning Area and consists of essential linkages between core gnatcatcher populations. Two linkages are located in the French Valley that connect habitat to the north and northeast of the City boundary. An additional linkage is located in , Temecula Valley (1-15 corridor) that connects habitat to the south into San Diego County. Unit 2 of the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Critical Habitat encompasses approximately 85,950 , acres of land within southwestern Riverside County and northern San Diego County. The Temecula/Murrieta/Oak Grove subunit is partially located within the Planning Area and extends east from 1-215 across French Valley to Hemet on the north and Oak Grove Valley in San Diego ' County to the south. Recent (2004) Quino observations have been recorded throughout the subunit, indicating that the landscape provides some measure of habitat connectivity essential to the conservation of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. MSHCP Conservation Area/Core Linkages , The Temecula Planning Area is partially located within subunits 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the MSHCP , Southwest Area Plan, as shown in Figure 5.4-2. Each subunit identifies conceptual MSHCP reserve designs, applicable cores and linkages, and biological issues and considerations. Subunit 1 Murrieta Creek I The focus of subunit 1 is to maintain habitat connectivity within Murrieta Creek at the confluence of , Pechanga Creek, Temecula Creek, and the Santa Margarita River, as well as between Murrieta Creek and Lower Warm Springs Creek, to facilitate wildlife movement and conserve wetland species. Murrieta Creek functions as a constrained local wildlife corridor that connects the Santa ' Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve, located northwest of Temecula, to upland native habitat which connects to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, located southwest of the Planning Area. Murrieta Creek is located within Temecula Valley and is predominantly constrained by urban ' development; however, quality riparian habitat is present along the edges of the creek. Subunit 2 Temecula and Pechanga Creeks ' Within the Planning Area, the focus of conservation for subunit 2 is to maintain habitat connectivity within Temecula and Pechanga Creeks to facilitate wildlife movement. The portions of Temecula ' and Pechanga Creeks located in the southwestern portion of the City function as constrained local wildlife corridors that connect to upland native habitat and the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. The part of Temecula Creek east of Redhawk Parkway and west of Pauba Road functions as a ' constrained local wildlife corridor that connects to core biological resource areas in Wilson Valley east of the City boundary. Temecula and Pechanga Creeks are located within Pauba Valley and primarily consist of quality riparian habitat constrained by urban development. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA , GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.4.4 Figure 5.4-1 x:< ' Critical Habitats for California Gnatcatcher and Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Legend � urrier Cwrary^f Temecula City Boundary - ^fluen Sphere of Influence Boundary Planning Area Critical Habitat -- - ' -..' Quino Checkerspot Butterfly California Gnatcatcher / 1 ® Proposed California Gnatcatcher sourcer:reneada cls,id '.� v y .. 00 1 ` l � t r 1 s 1\ a 1 •`,� % C. N 0 5,000 10,000 - W, B ®Feet .. Miles GL' .0.AL -LAN ' S 0 1 2 CITY OF TEMECUtA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 5.4.5 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Figure 5.4-2 ■ IF i V i 1 - Biological Resources Subunit 5 French Valley/Lower Sedco Hills ' Within the Planning Area, the.focus of conservation for subunit 5 is to maintain core and linkage habitat for the federally listed, endangered Riverside fairy shrimp and Quino checkerspot butterfly in French Valley. The Skunk Hollow area and lower Tucaloca Creek consist of land in a conservation easement that connects French Valley to Antelope Valley in the west and Johnson Ranch in the east. These linkages are constrained primarily by agricultural lands. ' Subunit 6 Santa Rosa Plateau ' Maintenance of large blocks of core and linkage native habitat is the focus of conservation for subunit 6. The land to the southwest of Murrieta Creek in Temecula Valley functions as an upland habitat connection between the Santa Rosa Plateau and Santa Margarita Ecological Reserves. This area primarily consists of native coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitat. Rare, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive,Species_ ' Regulatory authority is issued over sensitive species designated as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and/or California Endangered Species Act (CESA), while , other sensitivity listings by the State, local jurisdictions and private groups are generally advisory in nature. The following discussion is based on the review of existing MSHCP data, including information compiled from USFWS and California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG) data, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). and museum records, .environmental impact ' reports, published and unpublished accounts, and field notes of local naturalists. Sensitive Flora Eight sensitive flora species listed under the federal ESA and/or CESA,-or by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), are known to occur within .the Planning Area, as described in Table 5.42. Twenty-four additional flora. species have been reported within the vicinity of Temecula and are potentially presen'(within the Planning Area, as described in Table 5.4-3. 1 - 1 1 ' CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.4.7 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1 Biological Resources Table 5.4-2 , Sensitive Flora Species Known to Occur within the Planning Area , Federal California CNPS Scientific Name Common Name (ESA) (CESA) Status ' Status Status' Allium munzii Munz's Onion Endangered Threatened 1 B Ambrosia pumila San Diego Ambrosia Proposed None 1 B Endangered ' Arctosta h los rainbowensis Rainbow Manzanita None None 1 B Berberis nevind Nevin's Barberry Endangered Endangered 1 B Chorizanthe polygonoides var. Long-spined Spineflower None None 1 B lon is ina ' Convolvulus simulans Small-flowered Morning-glory None None 4 Harpagonella palmed var. Palmer's Grappling Hook None None 2 palmed Holocar ha virgata ss .elon ata Graceful Tarplant None None 4 ' CNPS Status: List 1 B, Plants rare, threatened,or endangered in California or elsewhere; List 2, Plants rare or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; List 3, Plants about which more information is needed; List 4; Plants of limited distribution. ' Source: Merkel&Associates, Inc., September 2003. Munz's Onion is endemic to southwestern Riverside County and ranges from southeast of Corona, along the Elsinore Fault Zone, to the southwestern foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains. It is , known to occur within the Planning Area at Skunk Hollow. San Diego Ambrosia is distributed from western Riverside County to western San Diego County, ' and along the coast of Baja California, Mexico. A key population of San Diego Ambrosia is located within the Planning Area in a conservation bank at Skunk Hollow. Rainbow Manzanita is restricted to southwestern Riverside County, south of Pauba Valley and ' northwestern San Diego County, north of the San Luis Rey River. Populations are currently stable; however, the flowers and fruits of this plant are susceptible to boring insects from continued , orchard expansion. Rainbow Manzanita is known to occur within the Temecula region near the Pechanga Indian Reservation and Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. Nevin's Barberry is endemic to southwestern Southern California and occurs in restricted localized ' populations. Nevin's Barberry is known to occur within the Temecula region at the base of the Agua Tiba Mountains. Long-spined Spineflower occurs from western Riverside County south, through San Diego County, ' to the vicinity of Oso Negros, east of Ensenada, Mexico. The status of this species is presumed to be declining based on considerable urban expansion within the Los Angeles basin. Long-spined ' Spineflower is known to occur within the Planning Area in the clay soils at Skunk Hollow. The geographic range of Small-flowered Morning-glory extends from the central, coastal regions of ' California to Baja California, Mexico. Currently, development is reducing the potential habitat of this rare species. Small-flowered Morning-glory is known to occur within the Planning Area, west of Skunk Hollow. ' ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.4.8 1 Biological Resources 1 Palmer's Grappling Hook ranges from Santa Catalina Island and Los Angeles County, south through ' San Diego County and Baja California, Mexico, to east Arizona. The species is declining throughout Southern California, and many historical sites are likely extirpated by urban development and agricultural discing. Palmer's Grappling Hook is known to occur within the Planning Area on the mesa west of Skunk Hollow. Graceful Tarplant is endemic to Orange, Riverside and San Diego Counties. It is known to occur ' within the City southwest of Cherry Street. Table 5.4-3 ' Sensitive Flora Species Potentially Present within the Planning Area Potential Species Sensitivity Status Habitat(s) for Occurence Abronia villosa var.aurita Federal:None Sage scrub;open Floodplain of the Santa Foothill Sand-verbena State: None CNPS: I chaparral Margarita River Federal: None Open sage scrub with Riversidian Sage Scrub Allium praecox intermingled lady Onion Stale: None bunchgrasses;chaparral throughout the ' CNPS:Unlisted openings Temecula region Open sandy or rocky Astragalus pachypus var.jaegerf Federal: None slopes in coastal scrub, Base of Agua Tibia ' jaegers Milk-vetch Slate: None chaparral,Valley and CNPS: 1 B Foothill Grassland and Mountains Cismontane Woodland Caulanthus helerophyllus var. Federal: None Foothills of western ' pseudosimulans Slate: None Chaparral; sage scrub Temecula area Buck's jewelBower CNPS:recently described Ceanothus ophiochilus Federal: FT Foothills south of Stale:SE Chamise Chaparral Vail Lake Ceanothus CNPS: 1 B Pauba Valley Centromadia pungens Federal: None Valley and Foothill Temecula Creek; Smooth Tarplant Stale: None Grasslands seasonal drainages CNPS: 1 B ' Chorizanthe parryi Federal: None Parry's Spineflower State: None Sage scrub;chaparral Temecula region CNPS:3 ' Federal: None Open sparsely vegetated Deinandra paniculata State: None grasslands or open sage Temecula region Paniculate Tarplant CNPS Status: 4 scrub in and cismontane regions Al Dodacahema leptoceras Federal: FE Alluvial Fan Scrub; along Along seasonal Slender-homed Spineflower State: SE intermittent streams in drainages in Temecula CNPS: I B open chaparral area ' Gilhopsis diffusa ssp. filicaulis Federal: None Isolated,sandy openings Mission Canyon Blue-cup Slate: None in chaparral Temecula region CNPS:3 Federal: None Coastal Sall Marsh at juncus aculus ssp.leopoldii State: None brackish locales, alkaline Along drainages in Southwestern Spiny Rush CNPS:4 meadows and riparian Temecula area marshes CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.4.9 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1 Biological Resources Table 5.4-3 , Sensitive Flora Species Potentially Present within the Planning Area ' Potential Species Sensitivity Status Habitat(s) for Occurence ' Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulter( Federal: None periphery of vernal Seasonal basins in Coultels Goldfields State: None CNPS: I pools French Valley Lepidium virginicum var. Federal: None robinso Open sage scrub and ' nii State: None chaparral Temecula region Robinson Pepper-grass CNPS: 16 Clay lenses in perennial , Microseris douglash ssp. Federal: None grasslands,on the Santa Rosa Plateau platycarpha State: None periphery of vernal Small-Flowered Microseris CNPS: 4 pools,or in broad region openings in sae scrub , M osurus minimus Federal: None Y Little Mousctail State: None Vernal Pools Seasonal basins in CNPS: 3 French Valley Navarretia fossalis Federal:FT , Spreading Navarretia State: None Vernal Pools Southern end of French CNPS: 3 Valley Orcultia californica Federal: FE California Orcult Grass State:SE Vernal Pools Seasonal basins in , CNPS: I B French Valley Phacelia suaveolens Federal: None Closed Cone Coniferous Rare wash-down Santia o Peak Phacelia State:None element in the , g CNPS: 1 B Forest and chaparral Temecula area Polygala cornuta var. fishiae Federal: None Chaparral and Western and southern Fish's Milkwort State: None Cismontane Woodland foothills of the CNPS: 4 with Coast Live Oaks Temecula area , Quercus engelmannii Federal: None Oak woodland and Western and southern Engelmann Oak State: None Southern Mixed foothills of the CNPS: 4 Chaparral Temecula area Fire follower which may ' Romne a coulter( Federal: None occur in areas of sage Y State: None scrub;or moretypicallyWestern foothills of Coultels Malilija Poppy CNPS: 4 in chaparral or along Temecula area rocky watercourses ' Satureja chandleri Federal: None Chaparral and oak Southern foothills of San Miguel Savory State: None CNPS: 1 B woodland Temecula area Senecio anden Federal:None ' g State: None Chaparral understory Southern foothills of Gander's Ragwort CNPS: 1 B Temecula area Tetracoccus dioicus Federal: None Southern and western ' Parry's Tetracoccus State: None Chamise Chaparral foothills of Temecula CNPS: 1 B area Federal ESA Status: FE, Federally Endangered; FT, Federally Threatened. CESA Status: SE,State Endangered; ST,Stale Threatened. CNPS Status:List 1 B, Plants rare, threatened,or endangered in California or elsewhere; List 2, Plants rare or , endangered in California,but more common elsewhere; List 3, Plants about which more information is needed;List 4; Plants of limited distribution. Source: Merkel&Associates,Inc.,September 2003. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.4-10 1 Biological Resources Sensitive Fauna ' Eleven sensitive fauna species listed under the federal ESA and/or CESA, or additional CDFG status designations, known to occur within the Planning Area are described in Table 5.4-4. Thirty-three additional fauna species that have been reported within the vicinity of Temecula are described in Table 5.4-5. ' Table 5.4-4 Sensitive Fauna Species Known to Occur within the Planning Area Federal California Additional Common Name Scientific Name (ESA) (CESA) CDFG Status Status Status uino Checkerspol Butterfly Euphydryas editha quino Endangered None None ' Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchineaa lynchi Threatened None None Riverside Fairy Shrimp Stre tote halus woolloni Endangered None None Southwestern Pond Turtle Clemmys marmorata None None CSC Rin neck Snake Diado his punctatus None None CSC Two-striped Garter Snake Thamno his hammondii None None CSC California Red-sided Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis None None CSC California Horned Lark Eremo hila al estris actia None None CSC ' Coastal California Gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica Threatened None CSC Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse Chaelodipus fallax fallax None None CSC ' Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Perognathus longimembris None None CSC brevinasus Additional CDFG Status: CSC,CDFG Species of Special Concern Source: Merkel&Associates,Inc., September 2003. ' The historic range of the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (QCB) extends along the foothills of the Transverse and Peninsular ranges in California, southeast of the Santa Monica Mountains and Santa ' Clarita Valley to northern Baja California, Mexico. Fragmentation of suitable QCB habitat appears to be one factor resulting in the decline of the species. The QCB is known to occur at the Crown Hill Property located south of Rancho California Road in the southeastern portion of the City. ' Fairy shrimp are found in vernal pools and are adapted for survival in realtively short-lived water bodies. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp are restricted to short-lived, seasonal, cool-water vernal pools, and ' are primarily found in the Central Valley and foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in northern California; in southern California, the species is only known to occur in western Riverside County. Riverside Fairy Shrimp are restricted to deep, seasonal, warm-water vernal pools that remain filled for extended periods of time, including ephemeral and stock ponds. Key populations of both of ' these species are known to occur within the Planning Area at Skunk Hollow. The Southwestern Pond Turtle currently ranges from San Francisco Bay to northern Baja California, ' Mexico. The species has seriously declined in Southern California and is becoming extremely rare due to the general destruction of lowland riparian areas and human disturbance. Furthermore, there is evidence that the remaining populations suffer from a lack of recruitment, possibly due to ' predation by non-native bullfrogs. A key population of the Southwestern Pond Turtle is known to occur within the City at the confluence of Murrieta and Temecula Creeks. ' CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.4.11 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Biological Resources ' The Ringneck Snake is widespread throughout California, except in the Central Valley, in high ' mountains, desert, and areas east of the Sierra-Cascade crest. The species is presumed to be ' declining given the number of historical collections from locations that are now largely urban. The Ringneck Snake is known to occur along Murrieta Creek in the City. The Two-striped Garter Snake ranges from Monterey County southward along the drainages within ' the coast and peninsular ranges, to Mission San Fernando Velicata in northwestern Baja California, Mexico. The snake is found in the vicinity of creeks, rivers, and freshwater marshes, and occasionally in stock ponds or vernal pools adjacent to mesic areas. The Two-striped Garter Snake ' is known to occur within and approximately one mile south of the City. The California Homed Lark ranges throughout northern America. The bird is a common breeding ' resident and abundant migrant and winter visitor in Southern California. It is typically found near sandy shores, bare ground, grasslands, open agricultural land and open scrubland. The California Horned Lark is known to occur in areas of suitable habitat within the City. ' The Coastal California Gnatcatcher currently ranges from Orange, Riverside and San Diego Counties, south to Baja California, Mexico. The species has seriously declined due to loss of habitat ' from urban or agricultural development, and has already been nearly extirpated from the counties of Ventura, San Bernardino, and most of Los Angeles. The Coastal California Gnatcatcher has been recorded in areas of suitable habitat within the City. ' The Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse ranges from San Onofre north to Claremont, northeast to Banning, then south to Jacumba and on into Baja California to San Quentin, Mexico. This pocket ' mouse inhabits primarily coastal sage scrub, as well as sage scrub/grassland ecotones and chaparral communities. The status of this species is not well documented,, but it is believed to be declining due to extensive urban and agricultural development. The Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse is known to occur in southern Temecula and to the east in the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. ' The Los Angeles Pocket Mouse extends eastward of the San Gorgonio Pass in Riverside County, southeast to Hemet and Aguanga, and possibly to Oak Grove, in north-central San Diego County. , The Los Angeles Pocket Mouse is known to occur in the French Valley Area at Skunk Hollow, and key populations of this species are located within the City. 1 ' 1 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.4.12 1 Biological Resources 1 ' Table 5.4-5 Sensitive Fauna Species Potentially Present within the Planning Area Potential Species Sensitivity Status Habitat(s) for Occurence Federal: None Slow moving or backwater ' Arroyo Chub sections of warm Bucuating Gila orcutti State: None streams with substrates of Santa Margarita River CDFG:CSC sand or mud ' Western Spade(oot Toad Federal: None Primarily grasslands;also Scaphiopus hae of Toi State: None sage scrub,chaparral and Temecula Creek CDFG:CSC riparian habitats Federal: FE Riparian habitat bordered Arroyo Toad by foothill canyons Bufo californicus State: None consisting of sage scrub, Temecula Creek CDFG:CSC;CP chaparral or oak woodland San Diego Banded Gecko Federal:None Sage scrub and chaparral Coleonyx variegatus abbottii State: None with rock outcrops and Santa Margarita River CDFG:CSC large boulders Northern Red Diamond Federal: None Heavy scrub or chaparral .Expected where suitable Rattlesnake State: None with substantial rock habitat exists ' Crotalusruber ruber CDFG:CSC outcropor rugged terrain Federal: None Permanent or intermittent Coastal Rosy Boa Slate: None streams within rocky Expected where suitable Charing lrivirgala rosefusca CDFG:CSC shrubland and desert habitat exists ' habitats San Diego Homed Lizard Federal:None Chaparral, sage scrub, Expected where suitable Phrynosoma coronatum Stale: None montane forest and habitat exists blainvillii CDFG:CSC;CP grasslands ' 'Cooper's Hawk Federal: None Accipiter coopeni State: None Oak and riparian woodland Temecula region CDFG:CSC "Sharp-shinned Hawk Federal: None Ponderosa pine,black oak, Accipiter suiatus State: None riparian deciduous,mixed Temecula region CDFG:CSC conifer,and Jeffrey pine Southern California Rufous Federal: None Grass-covered hillsides, crowned Sparrow State: None coastal sage scrub and Temecula region ' Aimophila ruficeps CDFG:CSC chaparral canescens Bell's Sage Sparrow Federal: None Amphispiza belli belli State: None Sagebrush Temecula region CDFG:CSC Grasslands,bmshlands, Golden Eagle Federal: None deserts,oak savannas, open In areas of suitable habitat ' Aquila chrysaetos Slate: None coniferous forests and in southern Temecula CDFG:CSC;CP montane valleys. ' "Ferruginous Hawk Federal: None Open tracts of grasslands,Buleo rginou State: None sparse shrub or desert In areas of suitable habitat CDFG:CSC CP habitat Federal:None Open desert,sparse shrub "Swainson's Hawk lands, grassland,or cropland ' Buteo svainsoni State:ST containing scattered,large Agricultural lands CDFG:None trees or small groves 1 ' CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.4.13 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Biological Resources Table 5.4-5 , Sensitive Fauna Species Potentially Present within the Planning Area ' Potential Species Sensitivity Status Habitat(s) for , Occurence Coastal Cactus Wren Federal: None Campylorhynchus Stale: None Sage scrub Temecula region brunneica illus cousei CDFG:CSC ' Federal: None Open wetlands,wet and —North Harrier State: None lightly grazed pastures,dry Near 1-15 in Temecula area Circuuss cyayaneus CDFG:CSC uplands,croplands, grasslands ' Yellow Warbler Federal: None Lowland and foothill Near 1-15 and Santa Rosa Dendroica pelechia State: None CDFG:CSC riparian woodlands Plataeu Federal: None Open grasslands,savannah- , Elanus leucu us State: None like habitats,agricultural In areas of suitable habitat Elanus leucurus CDFG:CP areas,wetlands,and oak woodlands Southwestern Willow Federal: FE Temecula and Murrieta , Flycatcher Slate: SE Riparian woodlands Creeks Em idonax traillii extimus CDFG: None Fa Federal: None Fallcoco co ' c State: None Open woodland, grasslands, In areas of suitable habitat lumbarius CDFG:CSC; CP cultivated fields Federal: None Perennial grasslands, Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus State: None savannahs,rangeland, Foothills of Santa Ana , CDFG:CSC agricultural fields and desert Mountains scrub areas "Peregrine Falcon Federal: Delisted Falco peregrinus Stale: SE Open riparian habitat In areas of suitable habitat ' CDFG:CP Yellow-breasted Chat Federal: None Icteria virens State: None Riparian habitat In areas of suitable habitat CDFG:CSC ' Federal:None Riparian areas,open Loggerhead Shrike State: None woodland,agricultural Temecula region Lanius ludovicianus fields,desert scrub, CDFG:CSC grassland,open chaparral , Double-crested Cormorant Federal: None Lakes,rivers,reservoirs, Phalacrocorax auritus State: None estuaries Temecula Creek CDFG: CSC White-(aced Ibis Federal: None Wet meadows,marshes, ' Plegadis chihi State: None ponds,lakes,rivers,flooded In areas of suitable habitat CDFG:CSC fields and estuaries Western Burrowing Owl Federal: None Grasslands,lowland scrub, ' Speotyto cunicularia State: None hu aea CDFG: CSC agricultural lands In areas ofsuitable habitat Least Bell Federal: FE Vireo Temecula and Murrieta ' Vireo belld ii pusillus Stale: SE Riparian habitat Creeks CDFG:CSC Riversidean sage scrub, ipodor Kangaroo Rai Federal: None D chaparral,redshank Periphery of Temecula collinus Minus ys merriami Slate: None CDFG:CSC chaparral and nonnative Creek , grasslands 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.4-14 1 Biological Resources 1 Table 5.4-5 ' Sensitive Fauna Species Potentially Present within the Planning Area Potential Species Sensitivity Status Habitat(s) for Occurence Stephens'Kangaroo Rat Federal: FE Open grasslands or sparse State:SE In areas of suitable habitat CDFG: None Dipodomys stephensi shrublands ' San Diego Black-tailed Federal:None Grasslands,sage scrub and Jackrabbit State: None chaparral In areas of suitable habitat Le us californicus benneltii CDFG: CSC ' Variety of shrub and desert San Diego Desert Woodrat Federal: None habitats,with rock Neoloma lepida intermedia State:None outcroppings,boulders, In areas of suitable habitat CDFG:CSC cacti,or areas of dense undergrowth Federal: None Rocky areas, cliffs and Mountain Lion State: None ledges within open In areas of suitable habitat Puma concolor CDFG: CP woodlands and chaparral, in southern Temecula ' I I as well as riparian areas Federal ESA Status: FE, Federally Endangered; FT,Federally Threatened CESA Status: SE,State Endangered;ST,State Threatened ' Additional CDFG Status: CP, California Fully Protected; CSC, CDFG Species of Special Concern; SA, California Special Animals breeding area migranywinlering area Source: Merkel&Associates,Inc., September 2003. ' Thresholds Used to Determine Level of Significance A significant impact on biological resources will occur if adoption and implementation of the ' General Plan update will: • Have a substantial effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species ' identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in a local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFG or USFWS, • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive species identified in local or regional plan, policies, or regulations, or by CDFG or USFWS, • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of ' the Clean Water Act, or • Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of nature wildlife nursery sites. 1 ' CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.4-15 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Biological Resources ' Environmental Impact A number of sensitive habitats and species are known to exist within the Planning Area. Although all sensitive species and habitats are subject to regulation by the USFWS and CDFG, adoption and implementation of the General Plan update could result in significant impacts to a variety of ' sensitive habitats and species. Impacts could occur as a result of grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with construction of community facilities, private developments, and street and utility improvements facilitated by General Plan policy. In addition, implementation ' and adoption of the proposed General Plan could produce deleterious edge effects that will adversely modify native vegetation located adjacent to development areas. To minimize impacts to biological resources, the General Plan policies require development proposals to identify significant ' biological resources and provide mitigation, including the use of adequate buffering and sensitive site planning techniques, selective preservation, provision of replacement habitats; and other appropriate measures to protect sensitive habitats (General Plan Policy 05-3.1). The General Plan ' also calls for the City to work with nonprofit groups, the County, and other interested parties to set aside and enhance areas containing significant biological resources (General Plan Policy OS-3.2). On of the key features of biological resource protection is the City's inclusion of the policies and ' programs of the MSHCP into the General Plan. As a signatory agency, the City will continue to work with the County of Riverside and other implementing agencies to ensure that sensitive biological areas throughout the County are protected from future development and habitat conservation measures are incorporated into the development review process. Specifically, ' implementation of the General Plan will have the following impacts to biological resources: Impacts to Regional Sensitive Habitats ' Development pursuant to implementation,and adoption of the General Plan will result in adverse significant impacts if such development results in the modification or removal of regional sensitive ' habitats within the Planning Area, including: • Coastal Sage Scrub/Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub ' • Vernal Pools/Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest/Open Water, Reservoir, Pond • Coast Live Oak Woodland Raptor Foraging/Wintering Habitat , Impacts to non-native grassland and agricultural land will be significant if the habitat is determined to provide high wildlife value for raptor wintering and foraging, or to support federally or State ' listed, endangered or threatened species (see Tables 5.4-2, 5.4-3, 5.4-4, and 5.4-5). Mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Designated Critical Habitat ' As shown in Figure 5.4-1, the Temecula Planning Area encompasses designated critical habitat for ' the California gnatcatcher and Quino checkerspot butterfly, as determined by USFWS. Critical habitat is primarily located in the northern portion of the Planning Area in French Valley where low- medium residential development. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan will result in significant impacts to designated critical habitat, as.shown in Figure 5.4-1. ' 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA , GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.4-16 1 Biological Resources ' MSHCP Conservation Area/Core Linkages ' The Planning Area encompasses four MSHCP conservation areas and core linkages. Portions of MSHCP conservation areas within French Valley (subunit 5), Pauba Valley (subunit 2), and ' Temecula Valley (subunits 1 and 6) will incur permanent, indirect impacts from development- associated increases in the amount of fragmented habitat, artificial nighttime illumination, and human intrusion into natural habitats. In addition, impacts to chaparral will be significant if the - habitat is located within a MSHCP conservation, .core, or linkage area (e.g., Pauba Valley or Temecula Valley), as shown on Figure 5.4-2. The General Plan provides for development in these areas; at a Plan level, impact may be significant. ' Rare, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Development associated with implementation of the General Plan will result in permanent indirect impacts to sensitive flora and fauna species present within the Planning Area where development encroaches into habitat or directly affects the following species: ' Munz's onion. Quino checkerspot butterfly San Diego ambrosia Arroyo toad • Nevin's barberry Southwester willow flycatcher a' ' Vail Lake ceanothus American peregrine falcon Slender-horned spineflower Bald eagle San Diego button-celery Coastal California gnatchatcher • Spreading navarretia Least bell'svireo • California orcutt grass Stephen's kangaroo rat San Miguelsavory ' Impacts to federally and State-listed, rare, endangered and threatened species will be significant and adverse. Mitigation measures are required to.reduce adverse impacts:to a less than significant level. Impacts to"lower'sensitivity species will be significant if it is determined that the proposed future development will su bstantially 'reduce the species' population stability or conflict with the MSCHP conditions of coverage. Mitigation measures are required to provide further environmental review of individual future,development projects. ' Mitigation:Measures B-1. The City shall require development proposals in all areas inside or adjacent to sensitive habitat areas,-designated critical habitat, and MSCHP conservation areas and core linkages as defined by the U.S: Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game and the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, to provide detailed biological ' assessments to determine the potentially significant impacts of the project and mitigate significant impacts to a level below significance (General Plan Implementation Program OS- 9). B-2. The City shall require the establishment of open space areas that contain significant water courses, wildlife corridors, and habitats for rare or endangered plant and animal species, 1 ' CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.4-17 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Biological Resources ' with first priority given to the core linkage areas identified in the MSHCP (General Plan ' Implementation Program OS-10). ' B-3. The City shall require appropriate resource protection measures to be prepared in conjunction with specific plans and subsequent development proposals. Such ' requirements may include the preparation of a Vegetation Management Program that addresses landscape maintenance, fuel modification zones, management of passive open space areas, provision of corridor connections for wildlife movement, conservation of water ' courses, rehabilitation of biological resources displaced in the planning process, and use of project design, engineering, and construction practices that minimize impacts to sensitive species, MSHCP conservation areas, and designated critical habitats (General Plan Implementation Program OS-1 1). ' 134. The City shall evaluate and pursue the acquisition of areas with high biological resource .significance. Such acquisition mechanisms may include acquiring land by development , agreement or gift; dedication of conservation, open space, and scenic easements; joint acquisition with other local agencies; transfer of development rights; lease purchase agreements; State and federal grants; and impact fees/mitigation banking (General Plan ' Implementation Program OS-12). B-5. The City shall use the resources of national, regional, and local conservation organizations, , corporations, associations, and benevolent entities to identify and acquire environmentally sensitive lands, and to protect water courses and wildlife corridors (General Plan Implementation Program OS-13)'. B-6. The City shall continue to participate in multi-species habitat conservation planning, ' watershed management planning, and water resource management planning efforts (General Plan Implementation Program OS-14). , B-7. The City shall require project developers to retain coast live oak woodland, including oaks within new development areas, and shall require surveys of all coast live oak trees prior to ' construction to determine if any raptor nests are present and active. If active nests are observed, postponement of construction activities until the end of the fledgling season is required. The City shall apply the following guidelines adapted from the Riverside County , Oak Tree Management Guidelines: • Construction and development activities will be avoided within the root zone (e.g., ' encompassing an area one-third larger than the drip line of an oak tree • Landscaping, trenching, or irrigation systems will be avoided within the root zone • Land uses that will cause excessive soil compaction within the root zone will be avoided ' • Manufactured slopes will not be located within the root zone • Redirection of surface moisture which alters the soil moisture within the root zone for an extended period of time will be avoided ' • Filling around the bases of oak trees will be avoided through sedimentation and siltation control • Dead and dying oak trees will be retained in place unless determined to post a health or ' safety hazard • Relocation of trees will not constitute mitigation ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY Or TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.a-I B 1 Biological Resources Oak protection will be oriented toward protection of the life cycle of oak trees and ' woodland (General Plan Implementation Program OS-32). B-8. The City shall require project proponents to minimize impacts to Coastal sage scrub, ' Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, and non-native grassland consistent with the MSCHP. Such mitigation measures will include, but are not limited to: on-site preservation, off-site acquisition of mitigation land located within the City and inside MSHCP conservation areas, and habitat restoration of degraded sage scrub vegetation that ' increases habitat quality and the biological function of the site (General Plan Implementation Program OS-33). ' B-9. The City shall require project proponents to -avoid adverse impacts.to Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest and Water vegetations communities to the maximum extent possible. Mitigation consistent with the MSHCP, and future mitigation ratios established by the City will be required, including, but not limited to: wetland creation in upland areas, wetland restoration that re-establishes the habitat functions of a former wetland, and wetland enhancement that improves the self-sustaining habitat functions of an existing ' wetland. Mitigation measures will be required to achieve "no net loss" of wetland functions and values (General Plan Implementation Program OS-34). B-10. The City shall review development-associated impacts to MSHCP conservation areas for ' consistency with the. MSHCP reserve and buffer development requirements, and shall ` require compliance with the following MSHCP Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines: r- ' Drainage: Proposed developments in proximity to MSHCP conservation areas shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the MSHCP conservation areas. is not altered in an adverse way when compared to existing conditions. ,Measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into the ' ,MSHCP conservation areas. Stormwater systems shall -be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm Biological resources or ecosystem processes ' within the MSHCP conservation areas. This can be accomplished using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff ' control systems. • Toxics: Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP conservation area that use chemicals or generate byproducts (such as manure) that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP conservation area. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues shall • be implemented. Lighting: Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP conservation area to protect species within the MSHCP conservation area from direct night lighting. ' Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient light levels within the MSHCP conservation area do not increase. Noise: Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP conservation area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP 1 CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.4.19 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1 Biological Resources conservation area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines ' related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP ' conservation aiea should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. • Invasives: When approving landscape plans for proposed development adjacent to the ' MSHCP conservation area, the City shall require revisions to landscape plans to avoid the use'of invasive species defined within the MSHCP for the portions of development adjacent to the conservation area. • Barriers: Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area shall ' incorporate barriers, where appropriate in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping in the conservation area. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, ' fencing, walls, signage and/or other appropriate mechanisms. Grading/Land Development: Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development. shall not 'extend into the MSHCP conservation area (General Plan , Implementation Program OS-35). B-11. The City shall require work corridor surveys to identify active nests for projects with.the , potential to adversely impact nesting migratory birds, as defined under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Development projects shall avoid active nests and, if necessary, require seasonal timing constraints for riparian habitat clearing and an MBTA Special Purpose permit prior to the removal of active nests of MBTA -covered species (General Plan Implementation Program OS-36). Level of Impact after Mitigation ' Implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce the adverse impacts to biological resources ' associated with adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan to a less than significant level. , . 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.4-20 1 1 5.5 Cultural Resources This section evaluates the potential for implementation of the General Plan to affect historical, archeological, and paleontological resources or human remains within the Planning Area. Environmental Setting The name Temecula comes from the Luiseno Indian word "Temecunga" - "tercet" meaning "sun" and "-ngna"which means "place of." The Spanish interpreted and spelled the word as "Temecula." Over the years, the meaning of "Temecula" has been, translated into several different versions of this interpretation, including the most popular, which is "Where the sun breaks through the mist." Temecula is the only city in California to still retain its original Indian,name.l ' The Luiseno Indians inhabited Temecula in the 1700s when the Spanish padres visited. By the mid- 1840s it became apparent that Mexico's hold on California could no longer be retained and governors of the province began the process of making land grants to individuals. 'in 1845, Rancho Temecula was granted to Felix Valdez. The passing of the ranchos into private ownership brought Y. ' the romantic era of rancheros and vaqueros, for which early California is best known, into full bloom. It was a short-lived era, but perhaps nowhere in California,did its aura linger longer than within the Temecula Valley.' ' In 1858, Temecula became a stop on the Butterfield Overland Stage route: The stages brought new settlers to the area and mail became an important link with the rest of the country,. On April 22, 1859, the first inland Southern California post office was. established in Temecula in the Magee ' Store. This was the second post office in the State, the first being sited in San Francisco. The Temecula post office_ was destined for a number of moves over the ensuing years; its present locations are the seventh and eighth sites it has occupied. While the United States mail delivery in ' Temecula was being transformed from stagecoaches to military couriers and from saddle pouches to wagons, other phases of history were also transpiring. Born of discontent bred by'the Civil War, ' in the late 1860s, a great migration reached Temecula Valley. It was also during this period that the historic Mormon March, the longest non military march in U.S. history, passed through Temecula on the way to San Diego.' ' In 1875, the local Indians were evicted from their lands as a result of petitions signed by area ranchers. Ten years after the eviction, in 1885, the 4,125-acre Pechanga Indian reservation was created some eight miles from downtown Temecula. ' The Civil War put an end to the great Butterfield Overland Stage Service, but shortly thereafter a rail line from National City to Temecula was completed in 1882. A minor business boom began in City of Temecula. "What does Temecula mean?" Located at lit tP:/1%yv -.cityoftemecula.orz/tenlectila/city/. October 8, 2004. 'City of Temecula website. "History of Temecula." Located at hitD://%"%s v.citvoftemecada.ore/temecula/historv/index.htm. October 8, 2004. Ibid. 1 ' CITY OF TEMECULA - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.5 1 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1 Cultural Resources Temecula with the advent of rail service. At the turn of the century Temecula gained a place of ' importance as a shipping point for grain and cattle.' In 1904, Walter Vail migrated to California and with various partners began buying vast acreages in ' Southern California. He purchased 87,500 acres in Riverside County which included the township of Temecula. For years, the Vail family had dreamed of building a dam to catch the Temecula ' Creek water which ran its course to the Pacific Ocean. In 1948, at a cost of more that $1 million, the dam was completed, and Vail Lake was created. Through the mid-1960s, the economy of the Temecula Valley centered on the Vail Ranch; the cattle business and agriculture were the stimuli for ' most business ventures. In 1964, the Vail Ranch was sold to Kaiser Development Company and the Temecula Valley was transformed. Soon, the valley became known as the site of Rancho California.' ' Interstate 15 between Los Angeles County and San Diego was completed in the early 1980s, sparking the subdivision land boom. When Rancho California incorporated in December, 1989,the ' citizens voted to officially name their city Temecula.' Historic Resources ' Murrieta Creek Archaeological National District, located in the southern portion of the City, is listed in the National Register of Historical Places.' Four Temecula properties are listed in the California ' Inventory of Historic Resources, including Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area, Temecula's first Post Office, Temecula Quarries, and Little Temecula Rancho Adobe.' The Historic Resources Inventory lists 47 properties in the City and 8 properties in the sphere of influence. The inventory includes ' several buildings on the Pauba Ranch, the Rancho Temecula Bible Church (formerly Pujol School), the Palomar Hotel, Saint Catherine's Church., various houses of the Escallier family, and the First National Bank building. In the sphere of influence, the inventory includes James Place, Murrieta Hot ' Springs, and Temecula Hot Springs.' The Old Town Specific Plan includes a list of historic structures, the locations of which are shown in Figure 5.5-1. The list includes the following properties:10 , A. Saint Catherine's Church;1920, 28314 Mercedes Street B. Welty Building, 1897, 28659 Old Town Front Street ' C. Machado Store, 1910, 28656 Old Town Front Street D. Clogstone Restaurant, 1932, 28676 Old Town Front Street E. First National Bank, 1914, 28645 Old Town Front Street , F. Palomar Hotel, 1915, 28522 Old Town Front Street G. Alec Escallier House, 1927-28, 41852 Main Street H. Burnham Store, 1902, 42051 Main Street ' I. Friedeman Meat Market, 1901, 42050 Main Street ' Ibid. , s Ibid. Ibid. 'National Parks Service, National Register of Historic Places,National Register Information System. Located at htto://v"m-.cr.nos.gov/nr/research/. October 8,2004. ' °Cotton/Bridges/Associates. General Plan Working Papers. November 2002. ' 'City of Temecula. Historic Resources Inventory. September 1, 2004. 10 City of Temecula. Old Town Specific Plan. Revisions adopted August 10, 2004 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.5-2 _ A Saint Catherine's Church,1920 B. Welty Building 7897 — ) 1 C. Machado Store,1910 Zdl Ga�i� D. Clogstone Restaurant,1932 A be h0 E. run National Bank,1914 / 3 \ F. Palomar Hotel,1915 G. Alec Escallier House,1927-28 H. Burnham Sw e,1 W2 L Friedeman Meat Market,1901 A Welty House,1891 \Y� fi K. J.D.Welty,1936 Za 'Ch e•5 L. Arviso House,1920 Catholicr`Churcly Rd �O i �1< ' —� ab N \ - _ \ H � D x B ♦ '` \ N Unnameda ce,192 S tation Califo t Id o. Bill Friedentn House,1922 ern Pad c ' \ P. Menke Haase,1936 use, ♦` Ch OI R lbeitMcCcM n eHouseady1192 T\\ R. Albert Menke House,early 1920's \ d] S. G.A.Burnham House,early 1880's \ Slaughter �e AlT. ono Henae,lasz House �� Vail c i oAaa mplex De Poi � ♦ '� � a attle • Ranch _ i t 1 T \ Ja iteyv • ♦ Pechang`♦ Figure 5.5-1 ►• lEntertainmentk. ' Historic Structures and Sites ® o4i �dy Center i♦v e Legend Rancho - Del Pasado- " Historic Structures ' "Esealler House" Historic Sites 9 Old Town Temecula Study Area \ r ' Temecula City Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary N 0 1,250 2,500 5,000 Planning Area WE Feet Miles ' Source:ON of Temecula g 0 0.25 0.5 1 CITY Of TEMECULI ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 5.5-3 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Cultural Resources ' J. Welty Hotel, 1891, 42100 Main Street ' K. J.D. Welty, 1936, 42081 3rd Street L. Arviso House, 1920, 41915 4th Street ' M. Delgado House, 1920, 41878 4th Street N. Unnamed residence, 1928, 42251 6th Street O. Bill Friedeman House, 1922, 42291 6th Street ' P. Nienke House, 1936, 28575 Pujol Street Q. McConville House, early 1890s, 28585 Pujol Street R. Albert Nienke House, early 1920s, 28649 Pujol Street ' S. G.A. Burnham House, early 1880s, 28653 Pujol Street T. Al Otto House, 1882, 28717 Pujol.Street U. Fred Ramirez House, 1920, 28725 Pujol Street ' Saint Catherine's Church building (Historic Building "A") was relocated to Sam Hicks Monument Park in 1992. The Bill Freideman House (Historic Building "O") was relocated on the same site in ' 2003 as part of housing project sponsored by the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency. Since the initial adoption of the Old Town Specific Plan, a number of previously designated historic ' structures were determined to be substantially dilapidated and/or unsafe and the City determined that these historic structures could not be rehabilitated. The following designated historic structures have been demolished since 1994: a. Harry Walters House, 1930s, 28535 Pujol Street, removed in 1996 ' b. Unnamed residence, 1920, 28735 Pujol Street, removed in 1999 c. Knott's Garage, 1910, 28545 Old Town Front Street, removed in 2000 ' d. Angel Ramirez House, 1926, 28731 Pujol Street, removed in 2002 Archaeological Resources Archaeological sites are locations that contain significant resources that identify human activity. Generally, .a site is defined by a significant accumulation or presence of one or more of the , following criteria: human skeletal remains, waste from the manufacturing of tools, tool concentrations or alignments of stones, modification of rock service, unusual discoloration or accumulation of soil, or food remains. ' According to the California Archaeological Inventory, 23 archaeological. sites are recorded within the City boundaries. Archaeological sites are classified into three categories: prehistoric, ' ethnographic, and historical. These categories describe the time period in which they were occupied and imply the type of evidence available. Prehistoric sites are resources for which no written documentation exists, nor does any evidence of Euro-American contact. Ethnographic sites ' are Native American sites associated with the early settlement period by Euro-Americans. Historical sites are associated with the advent of written documents and are considered Euro-American sites. Prehistoric occupation in the Temecula area dates back at least 4,000 years before present. Native ' American villages in the area were described by early European and Euro-American explorers. The. types of sites associated with Native American occupation of Temecula Valley range from single , bedrock milling slicks (used to process plants and animals), to scatters of tools and Flaked stone, to a large village site containing tools of many types, and midden (soil which has been chemically 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.5.4 ' Cultural Resources ' changed by longer human occupation.) Local Native Americans are actively concerned with the identification and proper treatment of their ancestors' remains. 1 The ethnographic period includes Native American village sites that were occupied during the stage of European and Euro-American contact. These sites occasionally contain structures and trade items, in addition to more traditional stone tools." The historic period of Temecula Valley dates back to the Rancho Temecula land grant in 1835. ' Under State guidelines, an archaeological site must be at least 45 years old. The cultural resources associated with the Euro-American occupation,include sites of all types, from early ranching adobes and the two-story Vail Ranch "Big House," to cattle ramps, stage coach stops, and trash-dumps, and ' more recent World War II-era structures. The Temecula Valley has been long considered an optimal place to live due to the presence of reliable water sources and a fertile valley floor. Prehistoric sites in the City tend to be long-term occupation sites., Most of these village sites have been destroyed_by Euro-American development prior to laws passed to protect them. Because village sites contain more remains of daily living than ' do smaller short-term habitation sites, they are valuable to researchers for their evidence about past cultures." Furthermore, it is, not unusual in the Temecula area for a single location to contain evidence of . occupation from the prehistoric through the historical period. The location of the first Euro- American birth in Riverside County occurred at an historical-era Native American site. The first location of historical Temecula was a prehistoric Native American village. Burials are often > ' associated with the village sites of the periods. Isolated prehistoric and historical human remains have been found in the Temecula area, as well as those associated with known cemeteries." ' Paleontological Resources Within the Temecula Valley region, sedimentary rock units contain significant fossil'records that date back three million years. Scientists speculate that the region may have been a major migration route for animals moving between North and South America. This exchange played a significant role in the evolution of mammals on both continents. 1. An Unnamed Sandstone (middle Pleistocene, dates one million years to 450,000 years ago) is evidenced between Murrieta and Pauba Valley. According to the San Bernardino County Museum Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory, this unit contains a number of vertebrate fossil resource localities. Large Ice Age Mammals, such as mammoth, mastodon, horse, camel, antelope, and coyote, are located in this unit. Small vertebrate fossils found in this unit include bat, shrew, rabbit, ' rodent, lizard, snake, frogs, toads, salamanders, and fish. Sediments in this formation consist of Bishop Tuff (700,000 years before present) and youngest Irvingtonian Land Mammal Age (450,000 years before present).14 " City of Temecula. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 1994. " Ibid. " Ibid. " Ibid. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 5.5-5 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Cultural Resources , The Planning Area also contains Pauba Sandstone (early to late Pleistocene, 300,000 years before ' present). Fossil records indicate that the Pauba Formation spans the period at the end of the Pleistocene period, when there was a major extinction of land animals. The Pauba Formation is ' well-exposed from Pauba Valley northwestward to Elsinore. The Regional Paleontologic Local Inventory indicates that this formation contains more than 30 resource deposits. Fossils in the Pauba Formation represent the Rancholabrean Land Mammal Age and may date 300,000 years ' before present. The Pauba Formation is overlain by Pleistocene Alluvium (late Pleistocene, 10,000 years before ' present). At Diamond Valley .and near Lake Elsinore, fossil horse and mammoth have been recorded at several localities. Unnamed Sandstone and Pauba Formation are sensitive paleontologic resources, as .they have a ' high potential to contain significant non-renewable paleontologic resources. Unnamed Sandstone and Pauba-Formation occur throughout a large percentage of the Planning Area. Cretaceous and ' pre-cretaceous rock formations occur southwest of Murrieta Creek, along the southern edge of the City limits. Quarternary" recent alluvium, in varying degrees of thickness, occurs along river and stream channels in the Planning Area. River and stream channels are marked as having low ' sensitivity. Recent alluvium in these areas does not have the potential to contain paleontologic resources; however, it often covers older Pleistocene sediments of paleontologic significance. Previous'resource assessments conducted within the city indicate a wide range of vertebrate fauna from the Rancholabrean North American Land Mammal Age, including horse skulls and mammoth ' bones. Resource assessments in the southern sphere of influence have produced typical Irvingtonian faunal assemblages, including horse." Thresholds Used to Determine Level of Impact , For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact will occur if implementation of the proposed General Plan will:, ' Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, , • Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource,or site or unique geologic feature, or , • Disturb any human remains;including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. 1 A ibid. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.5.6 , ' Cultural Resources ' Environmental Impact 1 Historic Resources ' Adoption and implementation of the Temecula General Plan will result in an estimated 25,005 net new residential units and approximately 36.2 million square feet of net new nonresidential development. Development pursuant to the General Plan will occur mostly on vacant sites within the Planning Area that do not contain existing structures, as well as within currently urbanized Mixed-Use Overlay Areas and Village Centers identified in the Land Use Element. In addition, the General Plan strives to preserve existing historic resources through the maintenance of a historic ' properties inventory, assistance to property owners in seeking State and/or federal registration and appropriate zoning for historic sites and assets, and acquisition and preservation of historical buildings for public facilities in accordance with the Old Town Specific Plan when possible. The ' General Plan also calls for an integrated approach to historic preservation in coordination with other affected jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations for areas within the Planning Area and surrounding region that seeks to establish linkages between historic sites or buildings with other ' historic features such as roads, trails, ridges, and seasonal waterways. Nevertheless, small urban infill development or redevelopment projects that are not subject to discretionary review by the City may also occur that could involve the removal or alteration of existing structures with historical value or significance elsewhere within City limits. Thus, mitigation is required to minimize impacts ' to historic resources from adoption and implementation of the General Plan. With mitigation, impact will be less than significant. ' Archaeological and Paleontological Resources As described in the Environmental Setting, Temecula has a rich past, and portions of the Planning ' Area contain known archaeological and paleontological resources. Implementation of the General Plan is expected to result in new development in vacant areas where no structures currently exist, as well as infill development within focus areas located throughout the Planning Area. Therefore, the General Plan Open Space Element calls for the City to work to preserve or salvage potential archeological and paleontological resources on sites proposed for future development through the development review and mitigation monitoring processes, as well as maintain an inventory of areas ' with archaeological/paleontological sensitivity, and historic sites in the Planning Area. However, unknown archaeological sites, structures, and fossils may be unearthed during excavation and grading activities for specific projects. If previously undiscovered artifacts or remains are uncovered during excavation or construction, impact will be significant. Mitigation measures are required to reduce the impact to archaeological and paleontological resources to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures ' CR-1 The City shall use the development and environmental review process to: a. Ensure that appropriate archaeological and paleontological surveying and ' documentation of findings is provided prior to project approval. b. Require effective mitigation where development may affect archaeological or paleontological resources. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.5-7 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Cultural Resources ' C. Require that an archaeologist or paleontologist be retained to observe. grading ' activities in areas where the probable presence of archaeological or paleontological resources is identified. ' d. Enforce CEQA provisions regarding preservation or salvage of significant archaeological and paleontological sites discovered during construction activities. e. Require monitoring of new developments and reporting to the City on completion of mitigation and resource protection measures (General Plan Implementation Program OS-26). CR-2 The City shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Eastern Information Center of the University of California, Riverside to establish procedures for reviewing the archaeological sensitivity of sites proposed for development. (General Plan Implementation , Program OS-37). CR-3 The City shall adopt a `historic preservation ordinance to protect historically significant ' buildings, sites, roads/trails, and other landscape elements, and to encourage their re-use, where appropriate (General Plan Implementation Program OS-27). CR4 The City will encourage owners of local sites to apply for recognition in the State Historic ' Resources Inventory, as Riverside County Landmarks, as State Points of Historic Interest, as State Landmarks, and as sites on the National Register of Historic Places, as deemed , necessary (General Plan Implementation Program OS-27). Level of Impact after Mitigation ' At the time individual development projects proceed, if such excavation or grading uncovers ' archaeological resources, developers will be required to comply with CEQA Section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 regarding the discovery sensitive archaeological resources. Generally, excavation/grading activity will have to be temporarily suspended to allow for an ' assessment of the resource and appropriate mitigation. Compliance with these existing regulations for individual development projects will result in less than significant impact. ' 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.5.8 1 . 1 5. 6 Geology/Soils ' This section examines whether adoption and implementation of the City of Temecula General Plan will expose people or structures to hazardous geologic or seismic conditions. ' ' Environmental Setting Geology and Soils Temecula is located in a natural geomorphic, province in southwestern California known as the Peninsular Range. This range extends north from the tip of Baja California to the San Gabriel Mountains. This province is characterized by northwest-trending landforms and underlying geologic ' structures typical of the series of faults associated with the San Andreas Fault system. The development of the province began 'with a thick accumulation of predominantly marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks. Following this accumulation, in the mid-Cretaceous time, the ' province underwent a pronounced episode of mountain building. The thick accumulation of —_ sedimentary and volcanic rocks was metamorphosed and invaded by igneous intrusions. These intrusive rocks, Southern California batholiths, now constitute the dominant terrain of the province. A period of erosion followed the mountain-building episode,- during which sedimentary and subordinate volcanic rocks were deposited on the eroded surface of the batholithic and pre- a 3- batholithic rocks. Marine sediment, which was deposited when the area 'was.under water, overlies the basement rock. Temecula is underlain by two relatively weak semi-consolidated sedimentary bedrocks in the hilly mountainous areas and loose, unconsolidated, often saturated, alluvial sediments in the valleys and ' along streams. The sedimentary knits in Temecula are composed primarily of granular soils (silty sand, sand, and gravel) which contain a low to moderately low range for expansion potential. However, every sedimentary unit in the area contains lenses or layers of fine-grained soils (clays and silty, clays) that are typically in the moderate to highly expansive range. The younger alluvial and . possibly the older alluvial sediments contain strata that are susceptible'to collapse. Ground failure, earth fissures, and surface faults have all been identified within the Temecula Planning Area. 1 'This section is based on the Working Papers for the Temecula General Plan prepared in November 2003. The Working ' Papers for the Temecula General Plan are on file with the City and are available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200Business Center Drive,Temecula,CA 92590 'California Geological Survey. "Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones." hllo://www.consN.ci.gov/CGS/rzhm/an/. October 11, 2004. CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ,. - 5.6.1 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Figure 5.&1. ' Seismic Hazards legend = , a Liquefaction Hazard Zones � Estimated Fault Locations '�"""'•• ' • Temecula City Boundary Clryo urd Coumy of ln0ue RMerslde ��• Sphere of Influence Boundary a ■g Planning Area Boundary 3 , n S.,cc:T..I.CIS ub Couon/eridgn/A.wuem •"�'• r g L E n�u ti, w of — —� ti • ^ ' �-------- i � J \ � 1 ��N}� 0 5,000 10,000 WE ®Feet PULA Miles S 0 1 2 GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUEA , GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.62 1 Geology and Soils 1 ' Seismicity Temecula is located in one of the most seismically active areas of Southern California. Figure 5.6-1 ' illustrates the seismic hazards in the City of Temecula Planning Area. The City is traversed by the Elsinore fault and has historically experienced earthquakes of moderate magnitude. The Elsinore fault zone is one of the largest.in Southern California and in historical times, has been one of the ' quietest. The southeastern extension of the Elsinore fault zone, the Laguna Salada fault, ruptured in 1892 in a ' magnitude 7.0 earthquake, but the main trace of the Elsinore fault zone has only seen one historical event greater than magnitude 5.2: the magnitude 6.0 earthquake of 1910 near Temescal Valley, which produced no known surface rupture and did little damage. Other faults surrounding Temecula include the San Andreas, San Jacinto, San Gabriel, Newport-Inglewood, Sierra Madre- Santa Susana-Cucamonga, Rose Canyon, Coronado Banks, San Diego Trough, and San Clemente Island faults. The Elsinore fault is designated as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone by the California Geological Survey. This designation, pursuant to California's Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Public Resources Code, Section 2621 et. seq.) limits the types of construction and other ' activities that can occur within the Elsinore fault zone to prevent damage associated with ground surface rupture. Before a project within the fault zone can be permitted by the City, completion of geologic investigation by a State-licensed engineering geologist is required to demonstrate that the ' proposed structure(s) will not be constructed across the fault. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault.' The fact that a property is located within an earthquake fault zone must be disclosed to a potential buyer before the sales process is complete. The real estate agent is legally bound to present this information to the buyer. When no realtor is involved, the seller must inform the buyer directly. ' This is usually done at the time an offer is made or accepted. Effective June 1, 1998, the Natural Hazards Disclosure Act requires that sellers of real property and their agents provide prospective buyers with a "Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement" when the property is being sold lies within one ' or more State-mapped hazard areas, including Earthquake Fault Zones.' The County of Riverside has zoned fault systems and required similar special studies prior to ' development. These are referred to as County Fault Zones. They generally represent zones that have been identified from groundwater studies and should be viewed as doubtful. However, until solid field evidence is generated to prove or disprove their existence, they should continue to be ' considered a hazard. The Agua Caliente fault extends from Murrieta Hot Springs southeast to a matrix in the vicinity of Vail Lake. It is a County Fault Hazard Zone, which means that it is thought to be either an active or potentially active fault, but requires further study.' Geologic Hazards from Seismic Groundshaking ' Ibid. s County of Riverside. County of Riverside General Plan,Safety Element. hm, /,"vw,rcip,or¢/documents/eeneral plan/een plan 14.03/bookl-6-safetv.odf. Adopted CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.6.3 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Geology and Soils ' Liquefaction ' Liquefaction typically occurs in loose, saturated sediments consisting primarily of sandy composition in the presence of ground accelerations caused by earthquakes. When liquefaction occurs, the sediments involved have a total or substantial loss of shear strength and behave like a liquid or semi- viscous substance. Three general conditions must be met for liquefaction to occur: (1) strong seismic groundshaking of relatively long duration; (2) loose, or unconsolidated, recently deposited sediments consisting primarily of silty sand and sand; and (3) water-saturated sediments within ' about 50 feet of the surface. In accordance with the Seismic Safety Mapping Act, the California Geological Survey has evaluated the liquefaction susceptibility for the Temecula area. Areas near existing stream channels, such as along the Santa Gertrudis and Temecula Creeks, may be especially vulnerable to liquefaction because these areas contain loose, recently deposited sediments. Areas subject to liquefaction are , shown in Figure 5.6-1 Subsidence Strong groundshaking can cause the densification of soils, resulting in local or regional settlement of the ground surface. During strong groundshaking, soil grains may become more tightly packed due , to the collapse of voids or pore spaces, resulting in a reduction in the thickness of the soil column. This type of ground failure typically occurs in loose granular, cohesionless soils, and can occur in either wet or dry conditions. Artificial fills may also experience seismically induced settlement. , Those portions of Temecula that may be susceptible to seismically induced settlement are the alluvial surfaces and larger drainages that are underlain by late Quarternary alluvial sediments, ' similar to the liquefaction-susceptible areas. Sites along the margins of the larger drainage channels may be particularly vulnerable. Landslides ' Strong ground motions can worsen existing unstable slope conditions, particularly if coupled with saturated ground conditions. Although numerous types of earthquake-induced landslides have , been identified, the most widespread type generally consists of shallow failures involving surficial soils and the uppermost weathered bedrock in moderate to steep hillside terrain. Rock falls and rock slides on very steep slopes are also common. 1 Although no recent landslides have occurred in the area, potential landslide conditions exist in hillside areas in southwest Temecula where slopes are greater than 15 percent (see Figure 5.6-1). ' Erosion Erosion is the process by which the land surface is carried away through either wind or moving 1 water. Soils with a low permeability and/or a high amount of runoff are particularly susceptible to water erosion and soils consisting of fine particles, as well as drained alluvial surfaces, are , "California Geological Survey. "Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones." htlo://%% .y.consrv.ca.eov/CGS/rehm/aD/. October 11, 2004. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA ' GENERAL PLAID UPDATE 5.6-4 Geology and Soils 1 susceptible to wind erosion. Erosion removes the smaller and/or lighter soil particles first, which are typically humus and clay particles, leaving the coarse, sandy soils. The underlying surficial geology in Temecula is predominantly composed of well-drained fine sandy loams, sandy loams and gravelly silt foams which are subject to erosion. Soils in exposed areas, particularly those on slopes, are at a ' greater.risk of erosion than flat surfaces, as indicated on Figure 5.6-1. t Thresholds Used to Determine Level of Impact ' Implementation of the General Plan will result in a significant impact if it will: • Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known ' earthquake fault, strong� seismic groundshaking, or seismic-related ground failure, including landslides and liquefaction, • Place people or structures on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable and potentially results in on- or off-'site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, expansion, liquefaction or collapse, • Result in s`ubstantial'soil erosion or Joss of topsoil, or " ' Allow development on soils incapable.of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative r j wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available. R. Environmental Impact 1 Seismicity Temecula is located in a seismically active area, as-is all of Southern.California. Projects developed pursuant to General Plan land use •policies will expose additional people and structures to ' groundshaking hazards associated with earthquakes. Any groundshaking that,will occur will be similar throughout the City and is not considered an,unusual or*unique risk: Per City and State building codes, all .new development will be required to incorporate appropriate design and construction measures to guard against groundshaking hazards. All projects and structures will be constructed,in compliance with existing seismic safety regulations of the California Uniform Building Code, which requires the use of site-specific engineering and construction standards identified for each class of seismic hazard. The proposed General Plan Public Safety Element includes goals, policies and programs that direct the City to identify and mitigate adverse impacts of ground surface rupture at the project level, to ' apply and enforce seismic design standards and building construction codes for new development, and to monitor the potential for seismic events. Impact will be less than significant with implementation of these policies and the implementation programs listed below as mitigation ' measures. ' CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.6.5 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Geology and Soils ' 1 Geologic Hazards from Seismic Groundshaking ' Seismic activity along regional faults creates the potential for groundshaking impacts within the Planning Area. As shown in Figure 5.6-1, portions of the Planning Area are underlain with weak, , semi-consolidated bedrock and loose, unconsolidated and often saturated alluvial sediments. These soil types have the potential to liquefy or collapse in the event of a major groundshaking event. The fine-grained components of the bedrock units are potentially expansive. The weak soil, combined ' with steep slopes and saturated drainage channels, make areas of Temecula susceptible to landslides and mudflows. The General Plan Public Safety Element includes goals, policies and programs that direct the City to identify and mitigate potential adverse impacts of liquefaction and landslides at the project level, to apply and enforce seismic design standards and building construction codes for new development, to work with property owners to remediate hazardous buildings, and to establish development , management techniques to lessen the potential for erosion and landslides. The City requires geological and geotechnical investigations on properties where new development is proposed and seismic and geologic hazards are of concern. Liquefaction assessment studies are also required in areas identified as susceptible to liquefaction. Compliance with General Plan Safety Element goals and policies and implementation of existing regulations will ensure that impacts can be avoided. Impact will be less than significant through the application of these policies and continued standard ' permit review and building practices. Geology and Soils Different types of soil are appropriate for the siting of septic tanks. Weak, unconsolidated soils in areas with high water tables could result in groundwater contamination during a seismic event if the soils liquefy. Portions of the City and Planning Area are not connected to the sewer system and use conventional septic tanks and subsurface disposal systems for the disposal of wastewater! These include areas that are designated Vineyard/Agriculture, Rural, and Very Low Density Residential in ' the proposed Land Use Element. In addition to the seismic hazards described above, the location of septic systems in soils with excessive permeability or shallow water tables might allow pathogenic bacteria and viruses to enter the groundwater. Since the General Plan allows for new development ' in areas not connected to the sewer system, impact could be significant. Mitigation measures have been included that require all proposed development projects using septic tanks and subsurface disposal systems for the disposal of wastewater to provide detailed geotechnical analysis of the project site and siting recommendations that will ensure no impact to potable water production ' wells. Erosion ' During the construction phase of development projects consistent with General Plan policies, , grading could subject temporarily expose soil surfaces to erosion through stormwater runoff and wind. Long-term soil loss could also occur from the increased peak flows and total runoff produced by paved or landscaped surfaces in the Temecula Planning Area. Uncontrolled flows could result in 'Letter to David Hogan,Principal Planner, City of Temecula from Andrew L.Webster, Planning&Capital Projects ' Manager, Rancho California Water District. July 1, 2003. ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.6.6 1 Geology and Soils 1 scouring or down-cutting of stream channels in sections where runoff velocities and volumes are high. The General Plan Public Safety Element includes goals, policies, and.programs that direct the City to establish development management techniques to lessen the potential for erosion and landslides. Nevertheless, development activities may lead to increased erosion or loss of top soil. Therefore, mitigation measures are required to reduce the impact to a level below significance. ' Mitigation Measures The following measures are necessary to ensure long-term implementation of General Plan policies ' aimed at minimizing or avoiding impacts related to geologic hazards and soil conditions. GS-1 The City shall work with the County of Riverside and California Geological Survey to monitor and compile information on faults located within the Planning Area (General Plan Implementation Program.PS-4). GS-2 The City shall develop a Land Use Suitability Matrix for Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault ' Zones and County Fault Hazards Zones. The matrix will categorize land uses according to -. risk and develop restrictions for these uses within the Zones (General Plan Implementation Program PS-4). GS-3 The City shall prepare and`'adopt hillside development standards for site development and drainage that work to control runoff for erosion control 'and water quality purposes. ' (General Plan Implementation Program PS-5). = GS-4 The City shall implement a Hillside Grading Ordinance to preserve sensitive hillside and ' canyon areas, and require the use of proper soil management techniques to reduce erosion, sedimentation, and other soil-ielated problems (General Plan Implementation Program OS- 21) ' GS-5 The City shall prepare, adopt and implement a grading ordinance to ensure that grading associated with new development projects is conducted in accordance with appropriate geotechnical engineering standards (General Plan Implementation Program PS-16). ' GS-6 To prevent groundwater contamination during seismic events, the City shall require additional on-site wastewater treatment beyond that of a conventional septic ' tank/subsurface disposal system in any area designated within Zone A of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wellhead protection area in accordance with the EPA's Design Manual for On-site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems (General Plan ' Implementation Program GM-13). 1 CITY OT TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.6.7 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Geology and Soils I ' t Level of Impact after Mitigation Impact, is less than significant with implementation of mitigation, as continued application of standard engineering and geotechnical remediation practices will avoid impact at the project- specific level, thereby mitigating program-level impacts as well. ' 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.6-8 1 5. 9 Land Use and, Planning ' This section examines whether implementation of the City of.Temecula General Plan will conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Temecula Planning Area. The General Plan was found to conflict with the Western Riverside ' County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, the impacts and mitigation measures of which are addressed in Section 5.4, Biological Resources. As discussed in the Initial Study (Appendix A to this EIR), implementation of the General Plan will not result in physical division of an established ' community. ' Environmental' Setting A number of plans, policies, and regulations have been adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over ' properties within the Temecula Planning Area. These plans and programs, administered by federal, Slate, County and other local agencies, have been adopted to guide growth and development, protect resources, and guard against creation of land use conflicts. ' Riverside County Southwest Area Plan ' The Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), originally adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in November, 1989 as a part of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, was updated as part of the Riverside County Integrated Program (RCIP) effort in 2003. The SWAP applies to ' unincorporated lands surrounding Temecula, within its sphere of influence, as indicated in Figure 5.9-1. Within the French Valley'portions of the Planning Area, the SWAP generally calls for rural, low-, and low-medium density residential development, supported by neighborhood commercial ' and light,industrial uses. Within the southern and western portions of the unincorporated Planning Area, the SWAP generally calls for rural and hillside residential development, along with conservation of resource lands in the southeastern portion of the Planning Area. ' Temecula Development Code and Riverside County Zoning'Ordinance ' The Temecula Development Code (Municipal Code Title 17) establishes zoning districts and regulations applicable to properties in the City and based upon General Plan land use policy. . The Development Code includes zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, environmental review t procedures, and the sign code. Development Code regulations and maps must be consistent with the land uses, policies, and implementation programs of the General Plan. Areas within the Planning Area that lie beyond the City limits are subject to provisions of the Riverside County Zoning Ordinance. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.9-1 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Figure 5.9-1 Southwest Area Plan Boundary Legend 0 Southwest Area Plan Boundary 4 �•• City Boundary Sphere of Influence �c @ c e Planning Area a 1 sa.>:rs.er cu as cemdeaae../�m 3 •r a C° �, d i I,•`,,"'bin nenoivwrr C .ti s e �NT o 5p MCoo .5." :4eoo W� 1 'C*.�' A11ea 5 e 1 1 ) < ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT O GENERAL PLAN UPDATE S y= CITY OF TEMECULA •Land Use and Planning Temecula Redevelopment Plan ' Prior to Temecula's incorporation in 1989, the County of Riverside established a Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to California Community Redevelopment Law to eliminate blight within ' designated areas. Generally, the Redevelopment Project Area centers on the 1-15 corridor and includes the Promenade Mall, Old Town, and industrial and business park areas west of the freeway between Winchester and Rancho California Roads, as shown in Figure 5.9-2. When established, ' the Project Area encompassed sections of the community with conditions, such as abandoned buildings, substandard housing, empty parcels, and vandalism, which could impede the City's economic growth. ' After incorporation, Temecula assumed responsibility for administering the Redevelopment Project Area. With the adoption of Assembly Bill . 1290, the Temecula Redevelopment Agency has prepared an implementation plan for the area. The Redevelopment Plan is one of the tools the City uses to implement Land Use Element policies. Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document - French Valley Airport French Valley Airport is a general aviation airport owned and operated by the County of Riverside. The airport occupies approximafely 261 acres east ofWinchester Road. The airport is located five miles north of Temecula's city center and one and one-quarter mile northwest of the City limits within the City's sphere of influence. French Valley Airport is one of-16 airports in Riverside County governed by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). In April 2004, the ALUC adopted the Riverside County ' Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document, which establishes policies applicable to land use compatibility planning in the vicinity of airports throughout Riverside County, including compatibility criteria and maps,for the influence areas of individual airports. Figure 5.9-3 shows the ' French Valley Airport land use compatibility zone.. The Compatibility Plan also establishes procedural requirements for compatibility review of development proposals. The basic function of airport land use compatibility plans is to promote compatibility between airports and the land uses that surround them. Compatibility plans serve as a tool for airport land use commissions in reviewing proposed development plans for airports and surrounding land uses. Additionally, compatibility plans establish criteria for local agencies'to use when preparing or amending land use plans and ordinances and for landowners (including special district and other local government entities as well as private parties) to use when designing new development projects.' 1 1 ' Riverside County Land Use Commission. Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document. April 1004, 1 CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.9.3 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1 Figure 5.9-2 Redevelopment Project Area , Legend Redevelopment Project Area , • Temecula City Boundary Cilyo unr 'z County of 5 In0ue: f' Rir2rslde ----• Sphere of Influence Boundary Planning Area r Source:Temecula CIS and Comn/addger/Avodao r r 4 '�4 F • % FWL w owwn� 1 N 0 5,000 10,000 ) , N, E ® Feet -. Miles CLLA CENERA1P_LAN $ 0 1 2 ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.9:4 Figure 5.9-3 French ort Use Compatibility one Land U } f Legend Compatibility Zones Xroort lnOuenca Area Boundary Zone Zone B, r Zone 132 ♦� Zone C O Zoneoo 'n- 0 Zone E a -- Boundary Lines / C - - -- A,pon Property Une —— — —City Uri L _ _ R' rside Courrty �� man4oscn Rd ` ny ofm r0ii Note Point In fil eetn ce a sa ru,i ryen als in acc nom a I sillInFM Mairspaceace probe orients(FAR Pan TC AH totter Clmanslom mmasuraa,frm aurway ends � ` � N 9erlan Rd \- / C - aM cerrtenlnea. Source:Riverside County Airport Land Use - Commisson.2oa4 lPd A Id Rd. 4� E J/ e� D to 4°�°' B / D -� , - low E - a wr 10,ty `r o 1� Ai Qo et rYF/rWy _ I 81 Mumefa Hot 9 I,5 Rd r dr v m N �� /o, Ci \ la cooks Rdv E N 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 Feet W*E .;. t Miles , t�A. ._ 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CfTY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.9-5 Land Use and Planning , State law requires each local agency having jurisdiction over land uses within an ALUC's planning , area to modify its general plan and any affected specific plans to be consistent with the compatibility plan, or to overrule the ALUC by a two-thirds vote of its governing body after making ' findings that the agency's plans are consistent with the intent of State airport land use planning statutes.' The Comprehensive Land Use'Plan (CLUP) for the French Valley Airport has been adopted to protect the public health, safety and welfare, ensure continued orderly use of the ' airport, and prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. In addition, the following City actions are subject to ALUC advisory review, should they occur ' within the French Valley Airport area of influence:' • Actions affecting land uses within any compatibility zone. , • Proposed expansion of the City's sphere of influence. • Proposed pre-zoning associated with future annexation. • Proposed development agreements or amendments to such agreements. , • Proposed residential development, including land divisions, consisting of five or more dwelling units or parcels. • Discretionary development proposals for projects having a building floor area of , 20,000 square feet or greater. • Major capital improvements (e.g., water, sewer, or roads) which would promote urban uses in undeveloped or agricultural areas to the extent that such uses are not ' reflected in a previously reviewed general or specific plan. • Proposed land acquisition by a government entity for any facility accommodating a congregation of people (for example, a school or hospital). ' • Any off-airport, non-aviation use of land within Compatibility Zone A of the airport. • Proposals for new development (including buildings, antennas, and other structures) having a height of more than: , 0 35 feet within Compatibility Zone 131, 132, or a Height Review Overlay Zone; 0 70 feet within Compatibility Zone C; or 0 150 feet within Compatibility Zone D or E. • Any obstruction reviewed by the Federal Aviation Administration in accordance with ' Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations that receives a finding of anything other than "not a hazard to air navigation." • Any project having the potential to create electrical or visual hazards to aircraft in ' flight, including: o Electrical interference with radio communications or navigational signals; o Lighting which could be mistaken for airport lighting; ' o Glare in the eyes of pilots of aircraft using the airport; and o Impaired visibility near the airport. • Projects that may potentially attract birds or other wildlife hazardous to aircraft ' operations increased within the vicinity of an airport. • Proposed non-aviation development of airport property. • Regardless of location, any proposal for construction or alteration of a structure ' (including antennas) taller than 200 feet above the ground level at the site. • Any other proposed land use action, as determined by the City, involving a question of compatibility with airport activities. ' = Ibid. ' Ibid. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.9.6 ' Land Use and Planning 1 Temecula Capital Improvement Program Temecula's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) serves as a planning tool for coordinating the ' financing and scheduling of major projects to be undertaken by the City. These projects generally include land and right-of-way acquisition; design, construction or rehabilitation of public buildings or facilities; public infrastructure design and construction; and redevelopment projects. Some projects are included.which are not capital improvements per se, but are being considered for allocation of '. redevelopment tax increment funds. The Capital Improvement Program is used in the preparation of the Land Use and Circulation Elements, as well as other elements of the General Plan. Southern California Association of Governments The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is responsible for most regional ' planning in Southern California. SCAG has been preparing long-range growth and development plans for the Southern California region since the early 1970s as part of the ongoing Development Guide Program. This program provides a framework to coordinate local and regional decisions regarding future growth and development. An important component of this process is the preparation of growth'forecasts at intervals ranging from three to five years. The adopted growth forecasts become the basis for SCAG's functional plans (transportation, housing, air and water) for the region. The population totals and growth distribution are used to plan the future capacity of highways and transit systems, quantity and location of housing, water supply, and siting and sizing of sewage treatment systems. ^: SCAG has developed a Growth.Management Plan that recommends methods to redirect regional ' growth to minimize traffic congestion and better protect environmental quality. While SCAG has no authority to mandate implementation of the Growth Management Plan, the Plan's goals have implications upon the land use composition of the Temecula Planning Area. Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission Provisions of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization_ Act of 2000 are ' applied by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in making decisions regarding future City annexations'of land within the Temecula sphere of influence (SOI) and to any ' reorganization of other service districts within Temecula's sphere of influence. The Commission's efforts are directed to seeing that services are provided efficiently and economically, while protecting agricultural and open space lands. . ' California Water Code Sections 10910-10915 Sections 1 091 0-1 091 5 of the California Water Code identify consultation, noticing and water supply assessment and provision requirements for proposed projects meeting specific criteria identified in Sections 10910 and 10913 of the Code. The City must consult with local and regional water agencies to assess whether the water demand associated with the project is included in an ' agency's most recent Urban Water Management Plan, and whether existing supplies can meet the _ project's demand for water. ' Based on the entire record, the City will determine within an EIR whether projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years ' CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.9.7 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Land Use and Planning will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. ' Specific Plans Many areas within the City and Planning Area are subject to the plans, policies and implementation ' measures of currently adopted or anticipated future specific plans. The purpose of specific plans is to provide comprehensive planning of large areas consistent with the General Plan. Twenty-five specific plans or areas subject to future specific plans have been identified Temecula Planning Area properties which, because of size, location, and/or special development opportunities, require a coordinated and comprehensive planning approach. In specific plan areas of 100 or more acres, approval of a specific plan is required prior to approval of any discretionary land use entitlement or issuance of any building or grading permit. In some areas, Village Center Plans, which allow greater intensities, can also be used. Planned development overlays can be used for smaller areas. Threshold Used to Determine Level of Impact ' Implementation of the General Plan will result in a significant impact if it will conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project ' adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Regarding the ALUC plan, a general plan must do two things in order to be considered consistent with the ALUC plan: ' • Address compatibility planning issues, either directly or through reference to a zoning ordinance or other policy document, or ' • Avoid direct conflicts with compatibility planning criteria. Environmental Impact Implementation of the proposed General Plan may conflict with other land use plans and policies ' that apply within the Planning Area. Potential conflicts are described below. Southwest Area Plan ' The updated Southwest Area Plan envisions substantial amounts of new development surrounding ' Temecula. The City's General Plan Land Use Policy Map incorporates the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) recommended uses for unincorporated areas, and no direct conflicts result. However, development in unincorporated areas pursuant to the SWAP, particularly within the French Valley , area, will result in significant impacts on traffic, air quality, and resources that are beyond the City's ability to control. Temecula's primary opportunity to control phasing of development, project design, and infrastructure improvements is by annexing properties into the City prior to project approvals by the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA , GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.9-8 1 Land Use and Planning ' County. Through annexation, the City can ensure that new development projects are designed in a manner that reduces traffic, air quality and resource impacts, and are compatible with overall City ' economic and quality of life objectives. Without annexation, projects would continue to be approved . by the County, and may not adequately reduce impacts to the City's roadway infrastructure and natural resources to the extent that they would if under the City's jurisdiction, fully ' subject to policies and implementation programs within the General Plan. Thus, the City has developed a land use plan for the French Valley Area (shown on the proposed Land Use Policy Map), and has designated this area as a Future Growth Area. The intent of these steps is to ensure that future annexations are beneficial additions to the City, and to minimize impacts of future development in the area on City roads and infrastructure. Therefore, a mitigation measure is included that describes annexation requirements for surrounding areas. Temecula Development Code and Riverside County Zoning Ordinance ' Proposed-General-Plan may conflict with provisions of the current City Development Code and Riverside County Zoning Ordinance, particularly with regard to land use designation/zoning ' consistency. For example, areas designated on the Land Use Policy Map as Rural Residential or Vineyards/Agricultural conflict with current zoning, as these are new designations and do not have corresponding zoning districts within the City's Development.Code. ' Mitigation measures are included that. require the City to 'review and update the Development Code to be consistent with the updated General Plan. Also, whenever the City annexes lands rezoning will occur to achieve General Plan/zoning consistency. Impact can be reduced to a less than significant level with these actions. ' Temecula Redevelopment Plan The Temecula Redevelopment Plan includes a set of goals and objectives to guide the revitalization ' efforts for the project area, as described under Environmental Setting. The Redevelopment Project Area encompasses sections of the community with conditions that often impede the City's development, as they contain abandoned buildings, substandard housing, empty parcels, and evidence of neglect and vandalism. Redevelopment activities for the area range from public ' improvements such as sidewalks, traffic signals, and crosswalks,- to commercial, industrial, and residential renovation incentives. Other activities include acquisition and combination of land for various types of development. The goal of these activities is to facilitate physical and economic ' enhancement of the area. The General Plan includes three Mixed-Use Overlay Areas, identified within the Land Use Element ' of the proposed General Plan, that apply within the Temecula Redevelopment Project Area. In some cases, the Overlay Areas provide for the addition of residential units within existing shopping. centers. On other properties, new mixed-use projects will be constructed. In both scenarios, ' residential units will likely be introduced within the Redevelopment Project Area, and development intensity may increase. ' The Redevelopment Plan does not address mixed-use development, as it was adopted prior to consideration of such development methods. However, the General Plan goal to promote mixed commercial, office, and residential development projects at key locations surrounding the 1-15 CRY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.9.9 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Land Use and Planning ' corridor°do not directly conflict with the goals and intentions of the Redevelopment Plan. Although, the Redevelopment Plan does not explicitly call for mixed-use development, implementation of General Plan policies within the Redevelopment Area will complement current redevelopment ' goals and further encourage the growth and development that the Redevelopment Plan seeks. Infill development will support the original goals of the City Redevelopment Plan and help to attain' the goal of facilitating economic growth and physical enhancement of blighted areas. ' The General Plan Implementation Program.calls for the Redevelopment Plan to -be updated to establish consistency with the General Plan policies and amended Development Code. This. ' Implementation Program is included as a mitigation measure to require the Redevelopment Agency to revise the Redevelopment Plan: Impact will be less than significant with implementation of this ; measure. ' Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document - French Valley Airport ' The French Valley Airport CLUP establishes an area of influence surrounding the Airport, as illustrated in Figure 5.9-4. As indicated on the map, compatibility zones "D and "E" cover ' properties within Temecula. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document's Compatibility Criteria for Land Use Actions section, relevant components of which are discussed below, delineates the criteria for assessing whether a land use plan, ordinance,. or ' development proposal is to be judged compatible with a nearby airport. As indicated in Table 5.9-1, the Basic Compatibility Criteria indicate that Zone D prohibits highly ' noise-sensitive-outdoor nonresidential uses, such as amphitheaters, and any flight hazards, including physical, visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of aircraft operations. Development projects that may increase attraction of birds are also prohibited. Additionally, for all ' structures greater than 70 feet tall, airspace review is required. The construction of children's schools, hospitals, and nursing homes are discouraged. All properties within Zone Dare required to have recorded deeds reflecting these restrictions to alert potential property owners of the , restrictions. Land Use Element,City of Temecula General Plan. Page LU-29. July 2004. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA , GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.9.10 Land Use and Planning ' Table 5.9-1 French Valley Airport CLUP Basic Compatibility Criteria Maximum Densities Intensities Additional Criteria ' Other Uses (people/ac.) e Residential Other Development o a Prohibited Uses N Locations (d.u./ac) ea a u r Req'd Conditions d < c Open a m Land Primary (1) 50.2 Highly noise- • Airspace review Traffic (average parcel sensitive required for objects Patterns and size z5.0 ac.) outdoor >70 feet tall 4 D Runway Or' 100 300 390 10% nonresidential • Children's schools, Buffer Area (2) a5.0 uses hospitals, nursing (average parcel Hazards to homes discouraged s size 50.2 ac.) I flight 3 • Deed notice required • Airspace review required for objects >I00 feet tall • Major spectator- , E Other Airport No Limit No Limit a No Hazards to oriented sports Environs Req't flight 3 stadiums, amphitheaters, concert ' halls discouraged beneath principal flight tracks ' Notes:' Two options are provided for residential densities in Compatibility Zone D. Option(1) has a density limit of 0.2 dwelling units per acre (i.e., an average parcel size of at least 5.0 gross acres). Option (2) requires that the density be greater than 5.0 .dwelling units per acre (i.e., an average parcel size less than 0.2 gross acres). The choice between these two options is at the discretion of the local land use jurisdiction. See Table 2B (in Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document)for explanation of rationale. All other criteria for Zone D apply to both options. :. Examples of highly noise-sensitive outdoor nonresidential uses that should be prohibited include amphitheaters and drive-in theaters. Caution should be exercised with respect to uses such as poultry farms and nature preserves- 3 Hazards to flight include physical (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of aircraft ' operations. Land use development that may cause the attraction of birds to increase is also prohibited. 4 This height criterion is for general guidance. Shorter objects normally will not be airspace obstructions unless situated at a ground elevation well above that of the airport. Taller objects may be acceptable if determined not be obstructions. ' Discouraged uses should generally not be permitted unless no feasible alternative is available. Although no explicit upper limit on usage intensity is defined for Zone E,land uses of the types listed—uses that attract very high concentrations of people in confined areas—are discouraged in locations below or near the principal arrival and departure flight tracks.This limitation notwithstanding,no use shall be prohibited in Zone E if its usage intensity is such that it would be permitted in Zone D. Source: Table 2A Basic Compatibility Criteria (modified). Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document, 2-14. April 2004. 1 1 ' CITY Or TEMECULA ENIARONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.911 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Land Use and Planning Zone E, which affects the majority of the overlapping portion of Temecula, prohibits only hazards to , aircraft flight. Other development conditions include required airspace review for all structures over , 100 feet tall. The construction of major spectator-oriented sports stadiums, amphitheaters, and concert halls are also discouraged beneath principal flight tracks. According to the Compatibility Plan: t State law requires each local agency having jurisdiction over land uses within an ALUC's planning area to modify its general plan and any affected specific plans to be consistent with the compatibility plan. The law says that the local agency must take this action within 180 days of when the ALUC adopts or amends its plan. The only other course of action available to local agencies is to overrule the ALUC by a two-thirds vote of its governing ' body after making findings that the agency's plans are consistent with the intent of state airport land use planning statutes. Additionally, the local agency must notify both the ALUC and the California Division of Aeronautics at least 45 days in advance of its decision to , overrule and must hold a public hearing on the proposed overruling (Public Utilities Code Section 216761aj and [bl).5 To maintain consistency with the Compatibility Plan, the General Plan states that following , annexations of areas within its area of influence, the City will create an Airport Overlay Zoning District for newly annexed parcels within the Area of Influence 6 Accordingly, the General Plan ' includes the following goal, policy, and implementation program to assure that implementation of the Plan will not adversely impact French Valley airport operations: Goal8: A City compatible and coordinated with regional land use and transportation , patterns. Policy 8.3 Participate with the Airport Land Use Commission in the implementation of the , Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the French Valley Airport, to the extent feasible. Implementation Program LU-24 , • Work with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission to review development projects within the French Valley Airport area of influence, and participate in any future ' updates to the CLUP and Master Plan for the Airport. Obtain avigation easements as required by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the- French Valley Airport to ensure that landowners acknowledge potential impacts associated with aircraft. • Following annexations of areas within the French Valley Airport area of influence, amend the ' Development Code to create an Airport Overlay Zoning district to implement noise and land use compatibility requirements of the CLUP. 1 'Riverside County Land Use Commission. Riverside Counly Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document, pp. 1.1. , April 2004. "City of Temecula. City of Temecula General Plan, Land Use Element pp. LU-38. July 2004. ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5,9-12 f• f• M Figure 5.9-4 - Aircraft as fow as 473 n. French Valley Airport Land above runway elevation when on instrument(GPS) Use Compatibility Factors I ' approach Compatibility Zones Rlverelde County Airport IMluence Arse Boundary �'oMu I nleta C 0 Zone O Zone et Zone 6214 Zone C 0 Zone D A\\0 Zone E , Noise and Overflight Compatibility Factors 70 dB CNEL 1� `i�o r —— R IN M(drneta r 65dB CNEL Future Average �e0 dS CNEL Annual Day �55 CB CNEL I �General Traffic Pattern ErnNope (apphadmatsly,SO%of elrcralt overflight, estimated to occur within these limits) B'eiatY and Airspace Compatibility Factors / Aircraft Departure Accident Risk Intensity Contours• '.:i c` i (Shown Only for Takeofla to the South) r f r Aircra E r1 (ShovR Approach AccidenLandings Risk Intensity Contour• i Q (Shown Only for LarWinge from the Noah) --------FAR Pen 77 Conical Surface Umrts No Terrain Pe.metlons of FAR Pan n Surfaces ,fEJ. h Q E - ``YY� r r Boundary Lines nrcr Rd. Y ' Airport Property Line ' \ — — City Limits •Arorafl accident entintensity contours erederivedfrom natlomvitle accident location data in Celifomia Division of r ' . .. :' i. ( " — ` �"✓ Aeronautics database.The contours show relative Intern s@ies(highest concentrations)Wnearairport accident, v:.r.. .. :... In 20%increments.The contour shapes represent a wde range of general aviation airports and have not been � � � '. '' '::; '., .: �...�.. .. '-:Rd modified to reflect no flight tracks for this airport. Swrce:Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission ♦ W*E fin J �♦ $ 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 7i :a Cane Wy Feet Miles 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PUN UPDATE CITY OF TEMECUU 5.413 Land Use and Planning ' Implementation of the above policies and programs will ensure that development pursuant to the ' General Plan within the French Valley Airport area of influence does not conflict with the current ' French Valley Airport CLUP. Implementation Program LU-24 is required as a mitigation measure to ensure consistency between the General Plan and CLUP. Impact will be less than significant with implementation of this measure. Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide , The SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) contains policies applicable to the ' General Plan, as discussed below. The RCPG policies are numbered. Growth Management ' 3.01 The population, housing and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council, and that reflect local plans and policies shall be used by SCAG in all phases of ' implementation and review. This policy and any environmental impacts are addressed in Section 5.11 Population and Housing of ' this EIR. 3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation ' systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies. Policies and programs contained in the Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management/Public Facilities ' Elements and elsewhere throughout the General Plan address the timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems. In addition, the Growth Management/Public Services Element includes Implementation Programs that require the City to , participate in the preparation.of plans and programs that address regional issues and partnerships with regional agencies when planning/designing facilities and services for new developments. The General Plan is consistent with RCPG Policy 3.03. 3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use that reduce costs on infrastructure ' construction and make better use of existing facilities. 3.09 Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and public service delivery and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of services. , The General Plan Growth Management/Public Facilities Element includes a Growth Management Program that establishes guidelines for phasing and financing needed public facilities and , infrastructure concurrent with and in anticipation of development. Growth Management/Public Facilities Element policies and implementation programs direct the City to require development projects to pay their fair share of the costs of facilities and services related to growth, to encourage , mixed-use developments that reduce public service costs, and to establish priority growth areas within the City and sphere of influence where near-term urbanization will be encouraged. Thus, the General Plan is consistent with RCPG Policies 3.05 and 3.09. ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.9.14 ' 1 Land Use and Planning ' 3.10 Support local jurisdictions' actions to minimize red tape and expedite the permitting process ' to maintain economic vitality and competitiveness. Land Use and Economic Development Element policies direct the City to encourage flexible zoning techniques in appropriate locations to encourage mixed use development, and to encourage the ' growth or relocation of industries that generate local tax and employment advantages. The General Plan is consistent with RCPG Policy 3.10. t 3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce.the need for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike. 1. Land Use and Circulation 'Element policies and implementation programs direct the City to encourage the use and expansion of transit. Additionally, Circulation and Open Space/Conservation Element policies direct the City to•implement the recently adopted Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, which will result in design and construction of a comprehensive alternative transportation network. Implementation programs within these elements require the City to promote safe use of the trail system and to ensure accessibility of pedestrian facilities to the elderly and disabled. The General Plan is consistentwith RCPG Policy 3.12. ' 3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that maximize the use of existing urbanized areas accessible to transit through'infill and redevelopment. The Land Use Plan directs the City to encourage'development of high-quality, well-designed mixed use.residential and commercial projects within three Mixed Use Overlay areas adjacent to the 1-15 corridor. Although no regional commuter rail system or activity center is currently-located within ' Temecula, implementation rof the General Plan will create'opportunities for increased density in areas surrounding local activity centers. Circulation Element policies direct the City to identify and reserve necessary rights-of-way for future regional transit lines and facilities, and to encourage the ' provision of regional public transportation services.and support facilities, particularly near the 1-15 freeway and within Mixed Use Overlay areas. Implementation programs direct the City to work with regional planning agencies to ensure that the Mixed Use Overlay areas are linked to any future ' commuter or high-speed rail service connecting Temecula to other parts of the region. The General Plan is consistent with RCPG Policy 3.13. ' 3.16 Encourage developments in and around activity centers, transportation corridors, underutilized infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and redevelopment. The Land Use Plan directs the City to encourage development of mixed commercial, office, and residential development projects 'at key locations surrounding the 1.15 corridor. This approach complements and builds upon the Village Center development strategy employed in Temecula throughout the 1990s, where concentrations and mixtures of compatible retail, office, public ' facilities, open space, and housing are encouraged at activity nodes located throughout the City. The General Plan is consistent with RCPG Policy 3.16. ' 3.18 Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause environmental impact. 1 ' CITY OE TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.9-IS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Land Use and Planning ' 3.20 Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, ' woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and ' animals. As described in Section 5.4, Biological Resources of this EIR and in the Open Space/Conservation Element of the General Plan, a variety of ecological and biological resources exist within the , Temecula Planning Area. The Planning Area is located within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) area. Policies and programs specified in the Open Space/Conservation Element will be implemented to ensure environmental compatibility of ' land uses and to address the protection of important ecological and biological resources in the Planning Area. The General Plan is consistent with RCPG Policies 3.18 and 3.20. 3.21 Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and protection of ' recorded and unrecorded cultural and archaeological sites. As described in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources of this EIR, policies and programs in the Open , Space/Conservation Element direct the City to use the development and environmental review processes to ensure that appropriate archaeological surveying and documentation is prepared in ' association with development proposals, and to require effective mitigation in cases where development may negatively affect cultural resources. The General Plan is consistent with RCPG Policy 3.21. , 3.22 Discourage development, or encourage the use of special design requirements, in areas with steep slopes, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards. 3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures aimed at ' preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that will reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and , recovery plans. Many natural and human-made hazards exist within the Planning Area. Policies and programs , contained in the General Plan and mitigation measures (derived from General Plan Implementation Programs) contained in Sections 5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials and 5.6 Geology/Soils of this EIR address these issues. The General Plan is consistent with RCPG Policies 3.22 and 3.23. , 3.24 Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the implementation of programs that increase the supply and quality of housing and provide affordable housing as evaluated in the Regional ' Housing Needs Assessment. As described in Section 3, Project Description, the Housing Element was updated in 2002, and this ' current General Plan update does not include a no comprehensive update to the Housing Element. The adopted and certified Housing Element identifies programs the City will pursue to meet its 1998-2005 Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation of 7,616 units, and directs the City to establish mixed use development sites to accommodate a proportion of this need. ' The General Plan contains policies and programs supporting provision of a variety of housing. The Plan allows a variety of housing types through seven residential land use designations ranging from , Hillside Residential (up to 0.1 dwelling units per acre) to High Density Residential (up to 20 dwelling units per acre). The Plan also identifies three Mixed Use Overlay areas that can accommodate 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF IEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.9-I6 ' Land Use and Planning ' approximately. 2,245 additional housing units, if vehicle trip caps associated with these projects (identified within the Land Use Element) can be met. General Plan land use policy creates capacity ' for approximately 13,094 additional housing units within Temecula over the next. 20 years. Furthermore, the proposed Land Use Plan has no effect on the allowable densities of any of the locations identified in the Housing Element sites inventory. The General Plan is consistent with ' RCPG Policy 3.24. 3.25 Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efforts to develop sustainable ' communities and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible and effective services such as: public education, housing, health care, social services, recreational facilities, law enforcement and fire protection. ' Policies and programs within the General Plan lay the foundation for developing a sustainable community. Goals and policies reinforced by implementation programs are designed to encourage energy conservation and facilitate equal access to housing opportunities, public education, recreational facilities, law enforcement and fire protection. Implementation of the General Plan will not impede access by any members of society to health care and social or other services. The ' General Plan is consistent with RCPG,Policy 3.27. Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) ' SCAG's RTP includes several policies relevant to Temecula, as discussed below. 1. Transportation investments shall be based on SCAG's adopted Regional Performance ' Indicators: Mobility, Accessibility, Reliability, Safety, Cost- Effectiveness, Productivity, Sustainability, Preservation, Environmental, and Environmental justice. ' The Land Use and Circulation Elements contain policies and implementation programs that assist implementation .of the RTP. The City has established policies to maintain and improve local and regional roadways, encourage use of alternative transportation options, and facilitate expanded use of non-vehicular transportation options. The General Plan is consistent with this RTP policy. 2. Ensuring safety, adequate maintenance, and efficiency of operations on the existing multi- modal transportation system will be RTP priorities and will be balanced against the need for system expansion investments. ' The Circulation Element includes policies and implementation programs that direct the City to prioritize safety, maintenance and efficiency of the roadway system and alternative transportation modes, in addition to expanding capacity. Circulation Element policies direct the City to enforce ' vehicle speed restrictions, to minimize conflicts between off-street bicycle and equestrian trails and automobile cross-traffic, and to actively monitor the capacity of critical intersections within the City and prioritize improvement of those intersections when needed. The proposed General Plan is consistent with this RTP policy. ' 3. RTP land use and growth strategies that differ from currently expected trends will require a collaborative implementation program that identifies required actions and policies by all ' affected agencies and sub-regions. 1 � CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.9-17 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Land Use and Planning ' The. Circulation Element includes policies and implementation programs that direct the City to ' participate in collaborative efforts with Caltrans, the City of Murrieta, Riverside County, the Pechanga Band, Western Riverside Council of Governments and others to identify and construct- ' circulation improvements that are beyond the City's jurisdiction. The proposed General Plan is consistent with this RTP policy. 4. HOV gap closures that significantly increase transit and rideshare usage will be supported ' and encouraged, subject to Policy #1. There are no high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes currently within or adjacent to the City's ' boundaries'; therefore, the City is not required to take any specific action to assist with HOV gap closures.. The General Plan does not conflict with this RTP policy. ' Air Quality Chapter Core Actions 5.07 Determine specific programs and associated actions needed (e.g. indirect source rules, ' enhanced use of telecommunications, provision of community based shuttle services, provision of demand management based programs, or vehicle-miles-traveled/emission fees) ' so that options to command and control regulations can be addressed. The Air Quality Element includes policies and implementation programs that direct the City to ' support regional transit initiatives including the development of high-speed rail service, to promote the use of alternative work weeks, Flextime, telecommuting, work-at-home programs; employee rideshare and transit incentives, and use of alternative fueled vehicles as methods of improving regional air quality. The General Plan is consistent with RCPG Policy 5.07. , 5.11 Through the environmental document review process, ensure that plans at: all levels of government (regional, air basin, County, subregional, and local) consider air quality, land ' use, transportation and economic relationships to ensure consistency and minimize conflicts. The General Plan supports this policy by establishing policies and programs which will require ' analysis. of air quality impacts on a project-by-project basis as part of the development and environmental review process. These issues related to implementation of the General Plan itself are , analyzed throughout this EIR. The General Plan is consistent with RCPG Policy 5.1,1. Open Space Chapter Ancillary Policies ' Outdoor Recreation 9.01 Provide adequate land resource to meet the outdoor recreation needs of the present and ' future residents in the region and to promote tourism in the region. 9.02 Increase the accessibility to open space lands for outdoor recreation. , 9.03 Promote self-sustaining regional recreation resources and facilities. 'Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. HOV Facility Inventory , hitp://hovpfs.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/inventoryAnventory.htm. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PUN UPDATE 5.9.18 , Land Use and Planning 1 ' The General Plan includes policies and programs that will provide and maintain adequate and accessible open space and recreational resources as the Plan is implemented. The Open Space/Conservation Element reinforces the City's Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. The City uses the Master Plan to prioritize, finance, and build new trail segments, and requires new ' development projects to provide local connections to master plan trails where feasible. The General Plan is consistent with RCPG Policies 9.01, 9.02, and 9.03. ' Public Health and Safety 9.04 Maintain open space for adequate protection of lives and properties against natural and man-made hazards, 9.05 Minimize potentially hazardous development in hillsides, canyons, areas susceptible to ' flooding, earthquakes, wildfire and other known hazards, and areas with limited access for emergency equipment. ' 9.06 -Minimize public expenditure for infrastructure and facilities to support urban type uses in areas where public health and safety could not be guaranteed. While no jurisdiction can guarantee protection of public health and safety, the General Plan identifies,areas prone to both natural and human-made hazards and includes policies and programs 'that apply to planned public infrastructure and facilities throughout the City. The natural and human activity hazards addressed in the Public Safety Element include seismic, geologic, flood„dam failure, a ' wild land fire, hazardous materials, nuclear power, and crime hazards. Additionally, the Element includes a discussion of emergency preparedness and terrorism readiness and response. Excessive risks associated with these hazards can be reduced or avoided through implementation of policies contained in the Public Safety Element. The General Plan is consistent with RCPG Policies 9:04, 9.05, and 9.06. Resource Production 1- 9.07 Maintain adequate viable resource production, lands, particularly lands devoted to commercial agriculture and mining operations. The Land Use Element includes policies and programs that direct the City to encourage preservation of agricultural land 'by developing effective agricultural zoning regulations (and other land use mechanisms) to implement the new Vineyards/Agriculture land use designation, and to recognize the importance of agriculture preserve contracts. The General Plan is consistent with RCPG Policy 9.07. ' Resource Protection ' 9.08 Develop well-managed viable eco-systems or known habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species, including wetlands. ' The Open Space/Conservation Element includes several policies and programs that direct the City to protect biological resources. The City is required to establish open space areas surrounding significant watercourses, wildlife corridors, and habitats for rare or endangered plant and animal 1 CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.9-)9 GENERAL-PLAN UPDATE Land Use and Planning ' species. Additionally, General Plan policy supports implementation of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and the City is subject to regulations and mitigation requirements of the MSHCP. The General Plan is consistent with SCAG RCPG ' Policy 9.08. Water Quality Chapter Recommendations and Policy Options ' 11.07 Encourage water reclamation throughout the region where it is cost-effective, feasible, and appropriate to reduce reliance on imported water and wastewater discharges. Current ' administrative impediments to increased use of wastewater should be addressed. The Open Space/Conservation Element contains polices and implementation programs that direct , the City to encourage the production, distribution, and use of recycled and reclaimed water for landscaping projects throughout the community, while maintaining urban runoff water quality objectives. Development projects will be reviewed individually to ensure that adequate stormwater ' detention facilities are provided. The General Plan is consistent with RCPG Policy 11.07. Growth Visioning ' Principle 1: Improve mobility for all residents. • Encourage transportation investments and land use decisions that are mutually supportive. , • Locate new housing near existing jobs and new jobs near existing housing. • Encourage transit-oriented development. ' • Promote a variety of travel choices. The Circulation Element Roadway Plan is directly responsive to the Land Use Plan put forth in the Land Use Element. The Circulation Element includes policies and programs that direct the City to ' use the five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process to program, finance, and construct roadway improvements identified in the Circulation Element. Land Use Element policy supports provision of new housing near existing employment centers in , Temecula. The Plan also identifies three Mixed Use Overlay areas surrounding the 1.15 corridor that can accommodate approximately 2,245 additional housing units, if vehicle trip caps associated with ' these projects (identified within the Land Use Element) can be met. This approach complements and builds upon the village center development strategy employed in Temecula throughout the 1990s, where concentrations and mixtures of compatible retail, office, public facilities, open space, ' and housing are encouraged at activity nodes located throughout the City. Although no regional commuter rail system is currently located within Temecula, implementation of ' the General Plan creates opportunities for increased density in areas surrounding local activity centers. Circulation Element policies direct the City to identify and reserve necessary rights-of-way for future regional transit lines and facilities, and to encourage the provision of regional public ' transportation services and support facilities, particularly near the 1-15 freeway and within Mixed Use Overlay areas. Implementation programs direct the City to work with regiunal planning agencies to ensure that the Mixed Use Overlay areas are linked to any future commuter or high speed rail service connecting Temecula to other parts of the region. The proposed General Plan is ' consistent with Growth Visioning Principle 1. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.9.20 ' 'Land Use and Planning 1 Principle 2: Foster livability in all communities. ' Promote infill development and redevelopment to revitalize existing communities. • Promote developments which provide a mix of uses. t Promote "people scaled,"walkable communities. Support the preservation of stable, single-family neighborhoods. The Land Use and Growth Management/Public Facilities Elements include policies and programs ' that guide new development first to vacant, underutilized parcels within the City, and secondarily to vacant lands within the French Valley Future Growth Area, located north of Temecula within the sphere-of-influence. Land Use Element policies and programs also direct the City to continue to use ' redevelopment as a means of revitalizing core locations adjacent to 1-15, including the three Mixed- Use Focus Areas identified in the Land Use Element. The Land Use Element also identifies continued use of redevelopment as a means of providing affordable housing as a high priority. ' The Land Use Plan directs the City to encourage development of high-quality, well-designed mixed use residential and commercial projects within three Mixed Use Overlay areas adjacent to the 1-15 corridor. The Community Design Element includes policies and programs that direct the City to promote development of a continuous sidewalk and trail system throughout the City, to encourage variety in the design of sidewalks and trails, to separate sidewalks from the curb along arterial ' roadways, and to provide site furniture and shade trees in areas of high pedestrian activity to provide a convenient and enjoyable experience for pedestrians. ' The predominant land use in Temecula is the single-family detached home, built at densities ranging from two to eight dwelling units per acre. The General Plan recognizes stable, single-family neighborhoods as the foundation of the community, and the Land Use Element includes policies and programs that direct the City to consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding ' uses, to require commercial and industrial developments to incorporate buffers to minimize light, noise, visual and traffic impacts in single-family residential areas, and to require proposed development to evaluate incremental traffic impacts on local roads throughout project phasing to ensure any adverse impacts to local roads in residential areas are adequately mitigated. The proposed General Plan is consistent with Growth Visioning Principle 2. ' Principle 3: Enable prosperity for all people. • Provide, in each community, a variety of housing types to meet the housing needs of all ' income levels. Support educational opportunities that promote balanced growth. Ensure environmental justice regardless of race, ethnicity or income class. • Support local and state fiscal policies that encourage balanced growth. Encourage civic engagement. ' The General Plan contains policies and programs supporting provision of a variety of housing. The Plan allows a variety of housing types for all income levels by establishing seven residential land use designations ranging from Hillside Residential (up to 0.1 dwelling units per acre) to High Density Residential (up to 20 dwelling units per acre). The Plan also identifies three Mixed Use Overlay ' areas that can accommodate approximately 2,245 additional housing units, if vehicle trip caps associated with these projects (identified within the Land Use Element) can be met. 1 ' CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.9-21 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Land Use and Planning ' The Land Use and Growth Management/Public Facilities Elements include policies and programs ' that direct the City to pursue establishment of a trade school, a junior college, and/or a four-year ' college that offers education required by the engineering biotechnical, and biomedical industries located in Temecula. Implementation programs also require the City to mitigate development impacts on the public school system through provision of school sites, imposition of statutory and ' negotiated development fees, and providing development-related information to affected school districts. The General Plan includes policies designed to improve the balance between jobs and housing in ' Temecula. These policies direct the City to work with property owners to propose innovative residential project designs that provide affordable housing opportunities for all segments of Temecula's workforce. The proposed General Plan is consistent with Growth Visioning Principle 3. ' Principle 4: Promote sustainability, for future generations. • Preserve rural, agricultural, recreational and environmentally sensitive areas. ' • Focus development in urban centers and existing cities. • Develop strategies to accommodate growth that uses resources efficiently, eliminate ' pollution and significantly reduce waste. Utilize "green" development techniques. Large lot and rural residential/agricultural areas in the community represent lifestyle and open space ' characteristics of Temecula that residents want to maintain. Within the Land Use Element, three of these areas, located at the periphery of the City, are designated as Rural Preservation Areas. At ' these locations, rural residential, light agricultural, and vineyard uses will be preserved. The Open Space/Conservation Element includes policies and programs that direct the City to protect recreational and environmentally sensitive areas. The City is required to establish open space areas surrounding significant watercourses, wildlife corridors, and habitats for rare or endangered plant ' and animal species. The Land Use Plan directs the City to encourage development of mixed commercial, office, and ' residential development projects at key locations surrounding the 1.15 corridor. This approach complements and builds upon the Village Center development strategy employed in Temecula throughout the 1990s, where concentrations and mixtures of compatible retail, office, public ' facilities, open space, and housing are encouraged at activity nodes located throughout the City. The Open Space/Conservation Element includes policies and programs that direct the City to ' encourage the use of site planning techniques, building orientation, design and materials that reduce energy use; to encourage the use of renewable and alternative energy generation (e.g. fuel cells, solar energy, other sources); and to consider the feasibility of local or City-owned electrical ' distribution and/or generation facilities. The Growth Management/Public Facilities Element includes a policy and programs that direct the City to provide solid waste reduction and recycling through implementation of the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element. ' The Open Space/Conservation Element includes programs directing the City to enforce all current residential and commercial California Energy Commission conservation standards, to encourage public institutions to use high-efficiency heating and cooling lighting, and passive solar systems to ' reduce energy use, and to adopt project-related energy conservation guidelines to be incorporated ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5,9.22 1 Land Use and Planning ' into the City's development approval process. The proposed General Plan is consistent with Growth Visioning Principle 4. As stated in the above discussion, the General Plan is consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide administered by SCAG. Impact is less than significant. No mitigation is required. Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ' Development pursuant to the General Plan may result in annexations of lands, as well as additional public service needs in areas located within Temecula's sphere of influence, particularly within the French Valley Future Growth Area identified in the Land Use Element. In addition, reorganization of t service districts within the sphere of influence may be necessary to provide the required services efficiently and effectively, in keeping with General Plan policies expressed the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element: Such activities may conflict with established Riverside County LAFCO plans and priorities. This represents a significant impact, and mitigation is required. Mitigation measures have been included that: 1) describe annexation requirements for surrounding ' areas, and 2) require the City to cooperate with Riverside County LAFCO and the County of Riverside to direct growth outside the City limits to the French Valley Future Growth Area, on lands that are served or are planned to be served with a full range of urban services, such as public water ' and sewer, local and regional road networks demonstrating adequate capacity, safety and emergency response services, parks, trails and open spaces: Impact will be less than significant with implementation of these measures. r tCalifornia Water Code Sections 10910-10915 47 L3 ' In compliance with California Water Code Section 10910-10915, all future development projects r pursuant to the proposed General Plan that meet criteria specified in the law, are required to determine whether projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry ' water years will.be sufficient to satisfy demands of the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. No major development project will be permitted to proceed unless required determinations can be made. Compliance with existing regulations will minimize the potential for ' impact. Specific Plans Development pursuant to the General Plan Land Use Element could be inconsistent with some of the development standards outlined in currently adopted specific plans, particularly those under the ' jurisdiction of the County of Riverside within the City's sphere of influence. To avoid conflict, mitigation measures are included that: 1) describe annexation requirements for surrounding areas, 2) require the City to periodically review arid update the General Plan Land Use ' Policy Map, and to review and update the Development Code and Specific Plans to be consistent with the updated General Plan and 3) require the City to continue to implement the procedures, requirements, and contents of specific plans contained in the Development Code. Impact will be ' less than significant with implementation of these measures. CITY Or TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 5.9.23 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Land Use and Planning ' Mitigation Measures LUP-1 The City shall require preparation of an annexation plan and fiscal analysis prior to 1 annexation of new areas to the City. Within the annexation plan, applicants must show how adequate levels of public services and facilities will be provided to serve the new ' development, without reducing service levels for currently urbanized areas. The fiscal analysis shall determine the impact that additional development will have on current Temecula neighborhoods and on the community as a whole, including any impact fees ' necessary to offset public costs caused by the proposed project, and shall include an examination of fiscal and service impacts of the proposed project on roads, water, sewer, storm water runoff, fire, police, schools, libraries and other community facilities (General ' Plan Implementation Program LU-15). LUP-2 The City shall review implementation of the General Plan and Land Use Policy Map to , ensure consistency is maintained between the General Plan and the Development Code (General Plan Implementation Program LU-1). LUP-3 The City shall review and update the Development Code to ensure consistency with the ' General Plan (General Plan Implementation Program LU-3). LUP-4 The City shall implement and update as necessary the City's Redevelopment Plan to ' establish consistency with the General Plan and amended Development Code (General Plan Implementation Program LU-11). LUP-5 The City shall ensure consistency with the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use ' Plan through the following measures: a. The City shall review development projects within the French Valley Airport area of , influence, and participate in any future updates to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and Master Plan for the Airport, in conjunction with the Riverside ' County Airport Land Use Commission. b. The City shall require project proponents to obtain aviation easements as required by the CLUP to ensure that landowners acknowledge potential impacts associated ' with aircraft. C. The City shall amend the Development Code to create an Airport Overlay Zoning district to implement noise and land use compatibility requirements of the CLUP ' following annexations of areas within the French Valley Airport area of influence. (General Plan Implementation Program LU-24). LUP-6 The City shall review and update the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) on an annual basis to achieve consistency with improvements identified within the General Plan, and to meet changing needs, priorities, and financial conditions (General Plan ' Implementation Program LU-1 7). LUP-7 The City shall cooperate with Riverside County LAFCO and the County of Riverside to direct ' growth outside the City limits to the French Valley Future Growth Area, on lands that are served or are planned to be served with a full range of urban services, such as public water ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.9.24 ' 1 - Land'Use and Planning ' and sewer, local and regional road networks demonstrating adequate capacity, safety and emergency response services, parks, trails and open spaces (General Plan Implementation Program LU-16). LUP-8 The City shall continue to implement the procedures, requirements and contents of specific plans contained in the Development Code. Properties under single ownership or multiple ownership which are generally over 100 acres will utilize the specific plan or village center plan as an implementation tool. Private landowners or the City may undertake the preparation or amendment of a specific plan, in accordance with Government Code Section 65450. Specific plans shall include the location of land uses; standards to regulate height, bulk and setback limits; standards for constructing proposed streets; standards for population density and building intensity; standards for conservation and management of '. natural resources; and implementation provisions to carry out the Open Space/Conservation Element. 1 Level of Impact after Mitigation ' Impacts on land use and planning will be reduced to a less than significant,level. 1 c. 1 1 ' CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.9.25 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Land Use and Planning ' I I I • I 1 1 This page is intentionally left blank. , 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULI ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.9.26 1 1 5 , 10 Noise 1 This section examines whether long-term implementation of the General Plan will generate or expose persons to noise levels in excess of City standards, or create a substantial permanent or periodic increase in ambient noise within the Planning Area. 1 Appendix E includes detailed noise measurement worksheets compiled by Wieland Associates that provide the basis for the following analysis. 1 Environmental ,Setting 1 The Temecula Planning Area experiences typical urban noises, such as noise generated by traffic, heavy machinery, and day-to-day outdoor activities. Noise in the community is the cumulative effect of noise from transportation activities and stationary sources. Transportation noise refers to 1 noise from automobile use, trucking, airport operations and rail operations. Stationary noise refers to noise from sources such as commercial establishments, machinery, air conditioning systems, compressors, and landscape maintenance equipment. Regardless of the type of noise, the noise 1 levels are highest near the source and decrease with distance. Noise Standards 1 Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound. Although sound can be measured, perceptibility is subjective and the physical response to sound complicates the analysis of its impact on people. 1 People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as "noisy' or "loud Sound magnitude is measured and quantified using a logarithmic ratio of pressures, the scale of which gives the level of sound in decibels (dB). The human hearing system is not equally 1 sensitive,to sound at all frequencies. Therefore, to approximate this human, frequency-dependent response, the A-weighting filter system is used to adjust measured sound levels and is expressed as dBA. 1 Noise consists of pitch, loudness, and duration; therefore, it is difficult to describe noise with a single unit of measure. Federal and State agencies have established noise and land use compatibility guidelines that use averaging approaches to noise measurement. Two measurement 1 scales commonly used in California are the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and the day- night level (Ld.). To account for increased human sensitivity at night, the CNEL level includes a five dB penalty on noise during the 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. time period and a ten dB penalty on noise 1 during the 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. time period. The Ldn level includes only the ten dB weighting for late-night noise. These values are nearly identical for all but unusual noise sources. 1 In 1974, the California Commission on Housing and Community Development adopted noise insulation standards for residential buildings (Title 24, Part 2, California Code of Regulations). Title 24 establishes standards for interior room noise attributable to outside noise sources. Title 24 also 1 specifies that acoustical studies be prepared whenever a residential building or structure is proposed to be located within exterior CNEL or Ld. contours of 60 dB or greater attributable to an existing or adopted freeway, expressway, parkway, major street, thoroughfare, rail line, rapid transit 1 , 1 CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.10-1 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Noise ' line, or industrial noise source. The acoustical analysis must show that the building has been ' designed to limit intruding noise to an interior CNEL or Ld. of 45 dB. Table 5.10-1 outlines the interior and exterior noise standards set forth by Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of ' Regulations. Table 5.10-1 ' State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Noise Standards' ' Land Use interior',' Exterior Residential - Single-family, multi-family, CNEL 45 de CNEL 65 d64 duplex, mobile home ' Residential - Transient lodging, hotels, CNEL 45 dB CNEL 65 dB motels, nursing homes, hospitals Private offices, church sanctuaries, libraries, , board rooms, conference rooms, theaters, Leq(12) 45 dB(A) — auditoriums, concert halls, meeting halls, etc. Schools Le 12 45 d6 A Leg(]2 67 dB A ' General offices, reception, clerical etc. Le 12 50 dB(A) — ' Bank, lobby, retail store, restaurant, typing Leq(12) 55 dB(A) — pool, etc. Manufacturing, kitchen, warehousing, etc. Le 12 65 dB(A) ' Parks, playgrounds — CNEL 65 dBs Gold courses, outdoor spectator sports, s amusement arks — CNEL 70 d6 Source:Title 24, Part 2,California Code of Regulations. ' Notes: 1. CNEL:Community Noise Equivalent Level. Leq(12):The A-weighted equivalent sound level averaged over a 12-hour period(usually the hours of operations). ' 2. Indoor standard with windows closed. Mechanical ventilation would be provided per UBC requirements to provide a habitable environment. 3. Indoor environment excluding bathrooms, toilets,closets, and corridors. 4. Outdoor environment limited to rear yard of single-family homes, multi-family patios and balconies(with a , depth of 6'or more)and common recreation areas. 5. Outdoor environment limited to playground areas,picnic area,and other areas of frequent human use. County of Riverside General Plan Noise Element 1 Properties within the unincorporated portion of.the Planning Area are subject to the Riverside ' County Noise Element, which establishes parameters for compatibility of noise and various land uses, and the location of new development. For new residential construction, exterior noise must be reduced to 65 dB or less, and interior noise must be reduced to 45 d6 or less. ' City of Temecula Noise Control Ordinance The City has adopted the County of Riverside Noise Control Ordinance (No. 457.73), which establishes interior and exterior noise standards for residential areas. The ordinance provides controls for excessive and annoying noise from stationary sources such as industrial plants, pumps, ' compressors and refrigeration units. In addition, specific noise standards for daytime and nighttime ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.10.2 1 Noise hours are provided. Certain noise sources are prohibited, and the ordinance establishes an ' enforcement process. French Valley Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 1 The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is responsible for land use planning around the French Valley Airport, located within the Temecula Planning Area. The ALUC regulates the area of influence around the airport according to noise regulations set forth in the French Valley ' Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. ' Sensitive Land Uses Noise is particularly problematic when noise-sensitive land uses are affected. Noise-sensitive land uses are defined as uses supporting activities that are interrupted by noise such as residences, ' schools, hospitals, religious facilities, and recreation areas. Noise-sensitive land uses in Temecula are identified in Figure 5.10-1. The City uses land use compatibility standards when planning and making development decisions. Table 5.10-2 summarizes City noise standards for each land use designation defined in the Land Use Element and shown on the Land Use Policy Map. The standards represent the maximum ' acceptable exterior noise level, as measured at the property boundary, which is used to determine noise impacts. ' The City's goal is to minimize exposure of residents to unhealthful or excessive noise levels to the extent possible. To this end, the current Noise Element establishes noise/land use compatibility guidelines based on cumulative noise criteria for outdoor noise. Table 5.10-2 outlines these criteria, which the City uses to review development proposals. In addition, new residential development projects are required to comply with Title 24 standards of the California Code of Regulations. These standards establish maximum interior noise levels for new residential development, requiring that ' sufficient insulation be provided to reduce interior ambient noise levels to 45 CNEL. Higher exterior noise levels are permitted for multiple-family housing than for single-family houses, as multiple-family complexes are generally set back farther from property boundaries, and a more integrated mix of activity (residential and commercial) is often desired near such locations. ' In addition, properties within the airport influence area surrounding French Valley Airport are also subject to the more stringent noise/land use compatibility standards of the French Valley Airport ' Land Use Compatibility Plan. CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.10.3 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1 Noise Table 5.10-2 ' Temecula Noise Standards 1 Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Type of Use Land Use Designation Interior Exterior Hillside ' Rural Very Low 45 65 ' Residential Low Low Medium Medium 45 65/ 70' ' High 45 70' Neighborhood Community - 70 Commercial and Office Highway Tourist Service ' Professional Office 50 70 Light Industrial Industrial Park 55 75 Public/Institutional Schools 50 65 All others 50 70 Open Space Vineyards/Agriculture - 70 Open Space - 70/65z Source: City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element. ' Maximum exterior noise levels up to 70 dB CNEL are allowed for Multiple-Family Housing. , ' Where quiet is a basis required for the land use. Existing Noise ' Noise from transportation activity is the primary component of the noise environment in Temecula. ' Transportation noise is associated with the major transportation corridors that traverse the community. Aircraft operations at the French Valley Airport, located north of the City within Temecula's sphere of influence, also contribute to the noise environment. A study of baseline noise sources and levels was completed in April, 2002. Noise level measurements were collected during a typical weekday at 20 locations throughout the Planning ' Area. Criteria for site selection included geographical distribution, land uses suspected of noisy activities, proximity to transportation facilities and sensitive receptor locations. The primary purpose of noise monitoring was to establish a noise profile for the Planning Area that could be used to estimate the level of current and future noise impact. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUU GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.10.4 Noise Measurements represent motor _vehicle noise emanating from Interstate 15, 'the local master planned roadway network, and aircraft associated with the French Valley Airport. Sensitive receptor locations monitored include single-family homes, schools, and parks. Noise levels were monitored during the peak traffic hour to represent maximum noise levels or during off-peak conditions and then modified to reflect peak traffic conditions. Table 5.10-3 provides a summary of existing (2002) ' noise level measurements in Temecula. The existing noise environment can also be described using contours derived from monitoring major sources of noise. Noise contours define areas of equal noise exposure. As shown in Figure 5.10-1, land uses adjacent to many roadway segments are located within a 60 dB or higher noise contour, potentially exposing residents or visitors to excessive ambient noise levels. ' The French Valley Airport is also a major source of noise. Figure 5.10-2 displays the existing (2004) airport noise contours. The aircraft mix at this airport includes mostly single-engine aircraft, ' although some multi-engine aircraft and a small number of business jets and helicopters also use the airport. Larger aircraft represent a more intrusive noise'source. Impacted future uses include office park areas and residential neighborhoods. Thresholds Used to Determine, Level of Impact A significant impact will result if.long term implementation of the General Plan will: • Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, or • Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, or ~ • Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in,the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, or • Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, or ' Expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, for a project located within an airport land'use plan, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, ' or Expose persons residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. ' CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.10.5 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1 Figure 5.10-1 Baseline (Year 2002) ' Roadway Noise Contours CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Legend ' Cify,IMu to � Countyd Noise Contours phere !/ nee Riserslde Contour Location -�• Noise Level(CNEL) ( ' Noise Monitoring Positions Position Number Temecula City Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary i 1 L Planning Area Boundary , Sources:City of Teme la,Weiland Associates. � rpp ' a ) - - -- e" f. i N 0 5,000 10,000 ' WE ® Feet Miles S 0 1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.10-6 1 EWA Figure 5-10-2 French Valley Airport Noise Contours CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN :I - Contour Location �.�,■1'1 �__'�� ..:. - - _-c__-�ni ram_ !l1111Legend Coffman Associates,December 2003. Temecula City Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary I .■■ INN fM D� i',.I�:•zi�:i uili=-F �F`.Y.�f..1 p„_..r y ME :,;t;�� ;,• ,-.\'/�,,:; 0?1!£•:•.:J, �'=,:;:'�%��':r'�'-;? s:�:'��',"s` �:�;�"—t, ',.� Ili♦' _ Noise Table 5.10-3 Summary of Existing (2002) Noise Level Measurements in Temecula Position Location Measured -Weighted Sound Levels CNEL L2 L8 L25 L50 Leg Lmax Lmin 1 Corner of Benton Rd. and Cognac 73.4 db A 67.9 db(A) 61.9 db(A) 56.Odb A 63.2 db A 77.5 db(A) 41.0 db(A) 2 Corner Buena Ventura Rd./Porroy Rd. 59.0 db A 53.8 db(A) 46.3 db(A) 41.9db A 49.2 db(A) 67.0 db(A) 34.8 db(A) 3 Rear yard of 27117 Quail Creek Cf. - 71.4 db 4 Corner Winchester Rd./Roripaugh Rd. 67.2 db(A) 64.3 db(A) 61.5 db(A) 59.2db(A) 61.8 db(A) 81.2 db(A) 52.8 db(A) _ 5 Rear yard of 27552 Jon Christian PI. 62.0 db 6 Corner of Alexandria Dr. and Nicolas 71.4 db(A) 67.8 db(A) 62.1 db(A) 54.8 db(A) 62.4 db(A) 77.5 db(A) 43.2 db(A) _ Rd. 7 Corner of Camino Corto and La 70.2 db(A) 67.2 db(A) 62.0 db(A) 53.2 db(A) 61.9 db(A) 79.4 db(A) 41.2 db(A) Serena Way 8 Rear yard of 29763 Via Puesta del Sol 65.1 db 9 Corner of Asteroid Way and Rancho 72.9 db(A) 70.7 db(A) 67.9 db(A) 64.7 db(A) 66.6 db(A) 77.1 db(A) 48.9 db(A) _ California Dr. 10 Rear yard of 31005 Avenida de La 66.5 db Reina 11 Corner of Calle Santa Ana and Rancho 70.4 db(A) 67.6 db(A) 62.1 db(A) 53.0 db(A) 62.0 db(A) 77.7 db(A) 40.6 db(A) _ Vista Rd.. 12 Corner of Via Reina and Meadows 69.6 db(A) 65.1 db(A) 59.4 db(A) 4db(A) 60.9 db(A) 79.5 cl (A) 39.1 db(A) _ Pkw13 Rear yard of 43027 Corte Fresca 73.6 db 14 Rear yard of 43798 Butternut Dr. 64.7 db 15 Corner of Via Cerda and Pauba Rd. 66.7 db(A) 64.2 db(A) 61.2 db(A) 60.0 db(A) 73.9 db(A) 45.6 db(A) 16 Corner of Crowne Hill Dr. and 67.5 db(A) 62.9 db(A) 56.2 db(A) 58.1 db(A) 74.9 db(A) 40.8 db(A) Butterfield Stage Rd. 17 Corner of Jedediah Smith Rd. SR-79 74.7 db A 69.7 db(A) 65.2 db(A) 62.Odb A 65.9 db(A) 81.7 db A 50.4 db(A) 18 Rear yard of 31518 Calle Los Padres 64.8 db 19 Rear yard of 31210 Comotilo St. 74.7 db 20 Corner of Redhawk Pkwy. and 68.9 db(A) 64.7 db(A) 60.2 db(A) 55.4db(A) 60.Odb(A) 74.3 db(A) 41.0 db(A) - Callesito Vallarta Source: Wieland Associates, April 2002. Leq - average sound level during the measurement period; Ln=sound level exceeded n%of the time during the measurement period; Lmax and Lmin=maximum and minimum sound levels during the measurement period. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.10-8 Noise Environmental Impact Noise Standards ' Implementation of the General Plan creates capacity for within the Planning Area for up to 25,005 net new housing units and 36.2 million net new square feet of nonresidential development over the next 20 years. New development pursuant to the General Plan will generate additional traffic that will increase noise levels along the roadway network. Figure 5.10-3 depicts anticipated buildout roadway noise contours within the Planning Area. Future noise contours have been estimated based on information about existing and projected transportation activity. Appendix E of this EIR ' includes a table comparing existing and buildout noise contour distances for each analyzed roadway segment. ' The City's noise standards, listed in Table 5.10-2 above, are the basis for land use compatibility guidelines in the General Plan Noise Element. These guidelines are summarized in the land use compatibility matrix presented in Table 5.10-4. As described in the General Plan Noise Element, ' future projects pursuant to the General Plan will be considered compatible with the noise environment if noise levels in the area where the project will be constructed fall within the "normally acceptable" or "conditionally acceptable" noise exposure levels. If the anticipated noise environment is categorized as "normally acceptable," no mitigation is typically needed. If the ' anticipated noise level falls within the "conditionally acceptable" range, minor mitigation may be required to meet City and State Title 24 noise standards. If the noise level falls within the "normally unacceptable" range, substantial mitigation may be necessary to meet City noise standards. Project specific mitigation could include construction of noise barriers, and/or the inclusion of substantial building sound insulation. If noise levels fall within or above the "clearly unacceptable" level, the project is incompatible with the noise environment and new construction of the particular land use should not be undertaken. Future noise levels along major streets in the City are projected to range from approximately 60 dB(A) to 75 dB(A) CNEL. In some portions of the community, the 60 dB noise contour could expand by as much as 395 feet. Although some roadway segments could experience a decrease, wide-ranging variability exists across the roadway network. As a result, new development pursuant to the proposed General Plan could conflict with adopted noise standards. This is considered a significant impact, and mitigation is required. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 5.10.9 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Figure 5.10-3 2025 Noise Contours ' CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Legend Noise Contours Cf Mu 4 + Cl ContoO(LxdGOO phem // M'e { RimmidhersW! -�- Noise Level(CNEL) fd Temecula City Boundary ��• Sphere of Influence Boundary Planning Area Boundary ' Sources:Oty of Temecula Weiland Associates. - r l_ I ... T city Murrku S 1 4 a ' e r ' . � 4 MJ yJ 1 s � Cam. � N 0 5,000 10,000 WE ®Feet Miles S 0 1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OTY OF TEMECUTA , GENERAL PLAN UPDATE S.IP10 ' Noise Table 5.10-4 ' Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix Community Noise Exposure Land Use (Ldn or CNEL) 55 60 .65 70 75 80 Residential ON ' Transient Lodging - Motel, NMI Hotel ' Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes ' Auditoriums,'Concert Halls, Amphitheaters' ' Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports' Playgrounds, Parks Golf Course, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, ' Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business Commercial, Professional 1 Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture ' Source: Modified by Cotton/Bridges/Associates from 1998 State of California General Plan Guidelines. _ 1. No normally acceptable condition is defined for these uses. Noise studies are required prior to approval: ' Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory,based upon the assumption that any buildings involved meet conventional Title 24 construction standards. No special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development shall be undertaken only after a detailed noise ' analysis is made and noise reduction measures are identified and included in the project design. Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development is discouraged. If new construction is proposed,a ' detailed analysis is required,noise reduction measures must be identified,and noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development clearly should not be undertaken. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 5.10.11 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Noise ' Groundborne Vibration or Noise ' Long-term implementation of the General Plan could expose persons to excessive groundborne ' vibration and/or noise. Problems could arise in cases where noise-producing uses are located immediately adjacent to sensitive uses, such as business park areas near residences or schools. ' Mixed-use projects, such as those encouraged within four Mixed Use Overlay Areas identified in the General Plan Land Use Element, also present unique concerns, such as when restaurants with .nighttime entertainment are located close to residential units. In addition, construction-related ' activities will be short-term sources of groundborne noise that could affect occupants of neighboring uses. These are potentially significant impacts at the project level, and d mitigation is required. Ambient Noise Levels ' Permanent , Transportation-related noise is the strongest contributor to ambient noise levels within the Temecula Planning Area. As noted in Appendix E and in Figures 5.10-1 and 5.10-3, future noise levels along , major streets within the City are projected to increase due to additional trips on the roadway. Nearly all of the roadway segments analyzed in Section 5.13, Transportation and Traffic will carry. additional trips in the future,, which will produce additional noise. In some portions of the , community, the 60 dB noise contour could expand by as much as 395 feet. In addition, new transportation facilities shown on the.City's Roadway Plan will contribute new sources of noise, including but not limited to the Southern Bypass, the Western Bypass, two new 1-1-5 freeway interchanges, and the French Valley Parkway connection to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. New noise levels associated with these and other new transportation facilities are estimated in Appendix E. These increases in permanent ambient noise-levels are considered a significant impact, and ' mitigation is required. Temporary ' Long-term implementation of the General Plan creates capacity for additional development within the Planning Area, which could result in substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient , noise levels due to construction activities. Table 5.10-5 illustrates typical noise levels associated with the operation of construction equipment ; at a distance of 50 feet. As shown, construction equipment generates high levels of intermittent noise ranging from 70 dB(A) to 105 dB(A), and thus will result in a significant impact where noise- sensitive land uses adjoin construction sites. Although construction-related noise will be short term for each specific construction project and will cease upon completion of construction, the ' cumulative impact over time could be significant at specific locations. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA , GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.10-12 1 Noise Table 5.10-5 Construction Equipment Noise Levels Range of Noise Level Nominal Noise level, ' Equipment Item at 50 Feet Leq,at 50 Feet Earthmoving Backhoes,200 HP 71 to 93 dB(A) , 85 dB(A) ' Berm Machine, 100 HP 74 to 84 dB(A) 80 dB(A) Dozers 72 to 96 dB(A) 86 dB(A) Front Loaders,300 HP 71 to 96 dB(A) 82 dB(A) ' Graders 73 to 95 dB(A) 85 dB(A) Paver 80 to 92 dB(A) 89 dB(A) Roller, 180 HP 78 to 84 dB(A) 79 dB(A) ' Scrapers 73 to 95'dB(A) 88 dB(A) Tractors, 200 HP 72 to 96 dB(A) 84 dB(A) Trencher,80 HP 76 to 86 dB(A) 82 dB(A) Truck/Trailer, 200 HP 70 W92 dB(A) 82 dB(A) . Truck:125 HP, 150 HP 76 to 85 dB(A) 80,82 dB(A) Materials Handling ' - Concrete Mixer 70 to 90 dB(A) 85 d3(A) Concrete Pump 74 to 84 dB(A) 82 dB(A) Crane, Moveable: 50 HP, 200 HP,400 HP 75 to 95'dB(A) ' 76,80, 83 dB(A) r, ' Derrick 86 to 89 dB(A) 88 dB(A) Forklift, 40 HP - 68 to 82 dB(A) 80 dB(A) <<it Side Boom,200 HP - 80 to 90 dB(A) 85 dB(A) — ' Water Truck, 500 HP 79 to 88 dB(A) 84 dB(A) Stationary Equipment Boiler, 1600 HP - 79 to 85 dB(A) 82 dB(A) ' Compressors: 100 HP,200 HP 68 to 87 dB(A) - 78,81 dB(A) Generators: 20 HP, 400 HP, 1300 HP 69 to 81 dB(A) 74,81, 84 dB(A) ' Pumps: 25 HP,200 HP,350 HP 60 to 80 dB(A) 73, 76, 80 dB(A) -impact Equipment Compactor,20 HP' 84 to 90 dB(A) 86 dB(A) ' Jack Hammers - 75 to 104 dB(A) 88 dB(A) Pile Drivers(Peak Level) 90 to 104 dB(A) 101 dB(A) Pneumatic Tools 82 to 88 dB(A) 86 dB(A) ' Rock Drills - 90 to 105 dB(A) 98 dB(A) Steam Boiler(Pile Driver) 83 to 92 dB(A) 88 dB(A) Other Equipment -' Saws 67 to 92 dB(A) 78 dB(A) Vibrators 69 to 80 dB(A) 76 dB(A) Welding Machines: 50 HP,80 HP 76 to 85 dB(A) 80, 82 dB(A) ' Source:Wieland Associates, 1999. ' CITY OF TEMECUfA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5,10-13 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Noise ' Airport/Land Use Compatibility ' The Land Use Policy Map (Figure 3-2 in Section 3.0, Project Description) and implementing zoning ' regulations restrict development of intensive new uses within airport influence areas. Development controls within the City's Development Code include limiting development within areas subject to ' high noise levels and limiting the intensity and height of development within aircraft hazard zones. These controls are consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for French Valley Airport, adopted by the ALUC, which designates airport influence areas and zones for every airport in Riverside County, and provides a series of policies and compatibility criteria to ensure that ' both aviation uses and surrounding areas may continue. Figure 5.10-4 depicts the future (2013) noise impacts projected for the French Valley Airport in the April 2004 draft of the ALUCP. The General Plan Noise Element includes goals and policies that direct the City to comply with the ' French Valley ALUCP. Ongoing compliance with the ALUCP and implementation of General Plan polity will ensure.a less than significant impact. ' Mitigation Measures ' N-1 The City will review residential and other noise-sensitive development proposals to ensure , that noise standards and compatibility criteria are met, and will require incorporation of noise-mitigating features identified in acoustical studies prepared for development projects including, but not limited to, the following measures identified in the Noise Element (General Plan Implementation Programs N-1, N-3, N-5 and N-7). ' Use of building setbacks to increase distance between noise sources and receivers Placing noise tolerant land uses such as parking lots, maintenance facilities, and utility ' areas between noise sources'and receptors. Orienting or clustering buildings to shield outdoor spaces from noise sources. Placing bedrooms on the side of a house, facing away from major roadways. , • Placement of noise tolerant rooms (e.g. garages, bathrooms and kitchens) to shield noise-sensitive portions of homes. Use of additional insulation and double-pane windows when bedrooms cannot be , located on the side of a house away from a major roadway. Avoid placement of balconies facing major travel routes. N-2 Where architectural design treatments described in Mitigation Measure N-1 fail to ' adequately reduce adverse noise levels or will significantly increase the costs of land development, the City will require the combined use of noise barriers and landscaped ' berms (General Plan Implementation Program N-7). 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA , GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.10.14 ■■■�1�■ :i;: ■■ � 11 �� i '.... 111 '$f'H�',' iii��1��i'•��.amn.nr.� SE �i 1``1� ' ' ■ 1 ry'I•''• 3E� J€iv C��1 .,� •� �� Noise N-3 The City will require all non-emergency construction activity to comply with the limits ' (maximum noise levels, hours and days of activity) established in State and City noise regulations (Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Temecula Development Code and Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code), and will require proposed industrial or commercial projects located near residential areas to demonstrate that the project, when constructed, ' will meet City noise reduction requirements(General Plan Implementation Program N-2). N-4 During review of development applications, the City will consider the noise and vibration ' impacts of the proposed land use on current or planned adjacent uses (General Plan Implementation Program N-4). N-5 The City will amend the Noise Control Ordinance to establish standards that address noise , impacts within mixed use commercial and residential development projects (General Plan Implementation Program N-4). ' N-6 The City will 1) incorporate noise control measures, such as sound walls and berms, into roadway improvement projects to mitigate impacts to adjacent development; 2) provide ' noise control for City streets within the Planning Area experiencing unique noise problems; 3) use the ultimate roadway capacity at LOS C and the posted speed limit to estimate maximum future noise impacts; and 4) Coordinate with the Riverside County Sheriffs , Department and the California Highway Patrol to enforce the California Vehicle Code noise standards for cars, trucks, and motorcycles (General Plan Implementation Program N-8). Level of Impact after Mitigation , With implementation of mitigation measures, land/use noise compatibility impacts can be ' addressed at the project level to avoid impact. Impacts resulting from groundborne vibrations or noise will be reduced to a less than significant level. ' 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.10-16 5 . 11 Population and Housing � P g This section examines' whether implementation of the General Plan will induce substantial population growth within the Planning Area. As indicated in the Initial Study (Appendix A), the project will not displace people or housing. Environmental Setting Over the last decade, the City of Temecula and western Riverside County, have experienced significant: population growth. In 1990, Temecula's population was approximately 27,099. By 2000, the population had increased to 53,791. Similarly, the number of housing units grew from . 10,659 in 1990 to 18,534. in 2000. By this account, the population increased approximately 9.8 percent per year. Since 2000, annexation has also-contributed substantially to the growth of.the ' City. In 2002, Temecula annexed Vail Ranch, adding approximately 6,000 residents to the City's population, an 18 percent increase over 2001'. In'2003, the City annexed the largely-undeveloped Roripaugh Ranch area, which added negligible population. In July 2005, the City will annex the Redhawk.area, which includes approximately 8;000 residents'. According to California Department.of Finance, January 2004 estimates, 77,460 persons reside in 24,984 housing units in'Temecula." Between 1990 and 2000, the average household size increased from 2.97 to 3.39; however, in the last few years, the number of persons per household has decreased to 3.24 persons per household in 2004. ' According to SCAG growth projections, the City's population will be 78,252 in the year 2005.s This forecast applies only to the corporate City and does not include areas within the sphere of influence or other portions of the Planning.Area. SCAG estimates that in 2005, Temecula will have 24,095 ' households and 29,596 jobs, resulting in a jobs/housing ratio of 1.22 jobs per household. Riverside County averages a,jobs/housing ratio of 1.03, while the Western Riverside.Council of Governments averages a 1.25 jobs/housing ratio. As a whole, the five-county SCAG region has a current jobs/housing ratio of 1.37.' 1 ' 'City of Temecula,Demographic,Economic and Quality of Life Data. Compiled by John E. Husing, Ph.D. January 2003. Located at http://.v cityoftemecula.org/cityhall/EconomicDev/HusingReport2003/hU5ing2003.pdf. November 19, 2004. Telephone Interview. David Hogan, Principal Planner,City of Temecula. November 19, 2004. 'City of Temecula. Population Profile for Cities of Temecula, Murriela and Western Riverside County. Located at htip://% w .cityoftemecula.org/cityhall/EconomicDev/retaild,emo.pdf. November 19,2004. 'State Department of Finance. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 2004, Revised 2001-2003,with 2000 ' DRU Benchmark. May 2004. 'Southern California Association of Governments. Regional Transportation Plan Population Forecasts. May 2004. Located at huo://" %w.scae.ca.eov/forecast/downloads/2004GF.als. "Ibid. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Population and Housing ' Threshold Used to Determine Level of Impact ' A significant impact will occur if implementation of the General Plan induces substantial population ' growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. Environmental Impact General Plan land use policy establishes capacity for 25,005 net new housing units and 36.2 million ' net new square feet of nonresidential development over the next 20 years. Directing how and where development occurs has great impact on the quality of life and economic well-being of the ' community. To accommodate the anticipated population increase over the next 20 years, the General Plan Land Use Element directs most new development into the French Valley Future Growth Area. The Land Use Element also includes policies that encourage development of mixed- ' use projects within three established Mixed-Use Overlay Areas to promote infill development and redevelopment of vacant/underutilized sites and aging commercial developments. In addition, Land Use Element policies establish a number of strategies designed to preserve rural areas and protect ' existing single-family residential neighborhoods. In the year 2025, SCAG projects a population of 96,967 persons within Temecula's corporate , boundaries. SCAG also estimates that Temecula will have 32,658 households and 62,416 jobs in 2025. This will produce a ratio of 1.70 jobs per household! These forecasts do not include areas within the sphere of influence or other non-incorporated parts of the Planning Area. The population ' growth rate between 2005 and 2025 estimated by SCAG will be 1.2 percent per year for the City and 2.9 percent per year for Riverside County. The General Plan Land Use Element provides capacity for a population of 113,421 within the current City limits in 2025 based on 13,094 net new housing units, an average of 3.223 persons per household, an occupancy rate of 95.8 percent, and ' an existing population of 72,715 as of January, 2002. If buildout is achieved by 2025, development pursuant to the General Plan results in a population increase of about 2.4 percent per year, or double SCAG's projections for the City. This 16.9 percent difference from SCAG projections , represents 16,454 additional persons. The apparent inconsistency is accounted for as follows. The General Plan's estimated increase to 113,421 persons by the year 2025 is based on planned , land uses - specifically, new housing units. By definition, these units, along with all planned development and additional amenities described in the General Plan, will accommodate the population growth. Additionally, land designated for housing will in many places be developed at a , higher density than what was typical in the past throughout the City, thus providing housing for a greater number of people per acre. The capacity to accommodate the expected population is therefore sufficient and consistent with growth management policies contained in SCAG's Regional , Comprehensive Plan and Guide, as described in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. Temecula also intends to accommodate future planned development within City boundaries to the ' extent feasible. As described in General Plan Implementation Program LU-15, prior to annexation of land to the City, an annexation plan and fiscal analysis must be completed to demonstrate how adequate levels of public services and facilities will be provided to serve the new development. ' Therefore all additional land - and proposed development on that land - added to the City's Ibid. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.11.2 ' Population and Housing ' jurisdiction will be carefully considered and analyzed to ensure that future annexations are beneficial additions to the City and impacts are minimized. SCAG's projections for the region allocate Riverside County a proportionally greater increase in population in the future, when compared to Temecula. SCAG estimates that the County's population will increase by 76 percent between 2002 and 2025, while Temecula's population will increase by 33 percent. However, historical trends indicate that Temecula has typically experienced a much greater rate of growth than the County. For example, Temecula grew at an average of 3,062 people a year from 1990 to 2000, an increase of 113 percent. Between 1990 and 2000, the County population grew by 32 percent. Thus, the General Plan Land Use Element includes policies and programs designed to accommodate City and regional population growth forecast to occur within the Planning Area by the year 2025. Considering these factors, Temecula's future population appears to be better ' represented by estimates derived from the land capacity established within the General Plan. Given historical growth patterns and growth management policies contained within the General ' Plan, implementation of the Plan will not substantially increase population beyond that already projected to occur within the Planning Area. Furthermore, as described in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning,-the General Plan is consistent with SCAG's growth management-policies, Impact will be less than significant. J'. Mitigation Measures Impact will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Level of Impact after Mitigation ' Impact is less than significant. 1 1 1 1 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL.IMPACT REPORT ' - 5.11-3 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Population and Housing ' This page is intentionally left blank. 1 1 ' 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.I I.4 , 1 5. 12 Public Services and Recreation 1 This section examines whether implementation of the General Plan will result in substantial adverse ' physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction . of . which could cause' a significant environmental impact. The public services/recreational facilities examined in this section are: fire protection and emergency services, police protection services, solid waste disposal, libraries, educational facilities, Flood control ' t facilities, and parks and recreation facilities. 1 Fire and Police Protection Services ' Figure 5.12-1 shows the location of existing community, protection facilities within the Planning Area. ' Environmental Setting . Fire Protection 1 The Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD),, operating in conjunction with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), provides'fire protection and emergency medical services. to the City of Temecula on a contract basis. The City contract provides funding for 55 firefighters, seven engine companies, two paramedic squads, and one,truck company.' As of 2003, five fire stations served the Temecula area. - The stations are staffed by both paid and volunteer ' personnel. Table 5.12-1 summarizes these fire facilities. Table 5.12-1 Summary of City of Temecula Fire Facilities. Facility Address Station 12 28830 Mercedes Street Station 73 27415 Enterprise Circle West Station 83 37480 Winchester Road Station 84 30650 Pauba Road Station 92 32364 Overland Trail (temporary location Source: City of Temecula. "Fire Department." Located at httn:/hvwM1v.cih,oftemecula ore/citvhall/oubiicSafety/fire htm. ' Figure 5.12-1 identifies the location of fire and police.facilities within the Planning Area. Fire prevention functions include information, education, law enforcement, and planning/engineering. The ,Fire Department provides school and community educational programs, arson investigations City of Temecula Fire Department. "Fire Department." Located at hitD:/hvww.citvoftemecula.ore/citvhall/oublic5afety/fire him. November 3, 2004. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLANUPDATE , Figure 5.12-1 Community Safety Facilities ' Legend a Border Patrol ® Fire Station city unle County of a Hospital Inoue. / Rherslde a a t/ ® Jail 0 Police Station © Caluans Road Yard Temecula City Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary Ww a P a Planning Area Source:T.W.GIs and Coum/Bridg.jA atn n� ' Q Of — —� T ---------- ' h •, 11+ I \ ' \ \ P i \ i � r fir\ N 0 5,000 10,000 W* F—i I---I B ®Feet , Miles ACUA S 0 1 2 G9NERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUU ' GENERAL PUN UPDATE 5.12-2 Public Services and Recreation ' and arrests, life and fire safety inspections of commercial businesses, and plan checks/field inspections for all new construction and building improvements to ensure fire-safe environments for ' all citizens. In addition to the five fire stations serving Temecula, the City began the F.A.S.T. program (Faster Ambulance Service in Temecula) on July 27, 1999. The program consists of a paramedic squad vehicle which responds to calls inside the City limits within five minutes. The ' Emergency Response Program handles all fire, life, and environmental emergencies within five minutes! ' Police Protection Temecula contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for law enforcement services. ' The current contract provides for the assignment of 76 sworn officers and 12 non-sworn officers to the City. Other resources such as bomb disposal, an emergency services team, and internal affairs investigations are provided through various divisions with the Sheriff's Department. The current personnel to population ratio established by the City is one full-time officer per 1,000 residents.' Figure 5.12-1 identifies the location of Sheriff's Department facilities in Temecula. Law enforcement ' services are coordinated from the Southwest Station, supplemented by three store-front office locations in Old Town Temecula, the Promenade Mall, and Temecula Town Center. Additionally, the Department operates a traffic unit, detective bureau, and special teams addressing drugs and gang-related issues. The Department offers innovative prevention and enforcement programs ' including "TAG"(Temecula Against Graffiti), a volunteer anti-graffiti program; "Trash busters," a joint Volunteer/Reserve/POP (Problem-Oriented Policing) team program focusing on illegal dumping; "ERACIT" (Enforce Responsible Alcohol Consumption in Temecula), a program using the traffic'unit, ' POP teams, and reserve officers to target alcohol related enforcement; and the "ORV Program," which utilizes reserve officers, POP teams, and the mounted posse for off road vehicle enforcement. In addition, the Department sponsors a variety of citizen-based outreach and patrol programs.' 1 Threshold Used to Determine Level of Impact ' Implementation of General Plan policy will result in a significant impact if the provision of new or physically altered government facilities is necessary in order to maintain acceptable emergency service levels, and the construction of such facilities results in substantial adverse physical impacts. ' Environmental Impact ' Fire Protection General Plan policies establish land capacity to accommodate substantial new development within the Planning Area. Implementation of the General Plan creates capacity for up to 25,005 net new housing units and 36.2 million net new square feet of nonresidential development over the next 20 years. Development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in ' increased demand for fire protection services and facilities, as well as increased demand for water resources for fire protection and other emergencies. This represents a significant impact. ' 'Ibid. 'City of Temecula Police Department. "Police Department." Located at htm://w"%M1v.citvoftemecula.ore/citvhall/oublicSafety/nolice.htm. August, 2004. 'Ibid. CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' S.123 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Public Services and Recreation ' 1 The Fire Department conducts final construction plan check reviews and issues certificates of ' occupancy for all new development projects. Projects within the City limits are also required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIF) to fund the expansion of fire protection and emergency services. Nonetheless, mitigation measures are required to reduce impact to a level below significance. ' The specific environmental impacts of constructing fire stations in the City cannot be determined at this level of analysis because no specific projects are proposed. However, the Riverside County Fire Department will require project-level analysis of impacts prior to approving occupancy certificates. , Police Protection General Plan policies establish land capacity to accommodate substantial new development within the Planning Area. Implementation of the General Plan creates capacity for up to 25,005 net new housing units and 36.2 million net new square feet of nonresidential development over the next 20 ' years. Development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in increased demand for police protection services and facilities. This represents a significant impact. Mitigation measures are required to reduce impact to a level below significance. ' The specific environmental impacts of constructing police stations in the City cannot be determined at this level of analysis because no specific projects are proposed. However, the Riverside County t Sheriffs Department will require project-level analysis of potential impacts prior to approving occupancy certificates. Mitigation Measures ' PSR-1. The City will periodically evaluate levels of sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, , based on changes in population and development, and will: 1) provide a minimum of one full-time officer per 1,000 residents for police protection services; 2) maintain facilities, staffing, and equipment necessary to maintain a five-minute response time for 90 percent of ' all emergencies; and 3) implement new programs to meet the changing needs of residents (General Plan Implementation Program GM-4). PSR-2. As part of the development review process, the City will require new development projects , to address fire and police protection proactively, through all-weather access street design, orientation of entryways, siting of structures, landscaping, lighting, and other security features; and will require illuminated addresses on new construction (General Plan ' Implementation Program GM-5). Level of Impact after Mitigation ' With implementation of mitigation, impact is less than significant. 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.12.4 ' Public Services and Recreation Schools ' Environmental Setting ' The Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) selves the City of Temecula, providing K-12 educational services and many special education programs. TVUSD service boundaries extend north to lean Nicholas Road in French Valley, south to the Riverside County-San Diego County line, ' east to Vail Lake, and west to the Temecula city limit. TVUSD maintains a full spectrum of educational facilities from elementary to adult schools.' Figure 5.12.2 illustrates the locations of school facilities. Table 5.12-2 identifies the public educational facilities in the City and lists the current (2004) enrollment levels of each facility. Table 5.12-2 ' School Facilities Name Location Student Enrollment as of May 2003 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS K-5 Alamos Elementary' 38200 Pacific Park Drive Opens 2004 Barnett Elementary 39925 Harveston Drive 747 French Valley,Elementa ' 36680 Cady Road n a ch Jackson Elementary 32400 Camino San Dimas 683 Nicolas Valley Elementary' 39600 N. General Kearney Road 801 ' Paloma Elementary 42940 Via Rami 829 Pauba Valley Elementary 33125 Regina Drive 820 Rancho Elementary 31530 La Serena Way 780 Red Hawk Elementary' 32045 Camino San lose 624 *s Reinke Elementary 43799 Sunny Meadows Drive 846 Sparkman Elementary 32225 Pic,Pico Road 646 Temecula Elementary 41951 Mora aRoad 820 ' Vail Elementary 29915 Mira Loma Drive 639 Vintage Hills Elementary 42240Camino Romo 969 MIDDLE SCHOOLS 6.8 Bella Vista Middle' 31650 Browning Road Opens 2004 Day Middle 40775 Camino Campos Verde 1,235 Gardner Middle 45125 Via Del Coronado n a Margarita Middle 30600 Margarita Road 1,000 ' Temecula Middle 42075 Meadows Parkway 1,277 Vail Ranch Middle 33340 Camino Piedra Rojo 1,369 HIGH SCHOOLS 9.12 Chaparral High 27215 Nicolas Road 2,251 Great Oak High 32555 Deer Hollow Way Opens 2004 Temecula Valley High 31555 Rancho Vista Road 3,322 ' Rancho Vista Continuation 31340 Rancho Vista Road n a ADULT SCHOOL Temecula Adult School 31350 Rancho Vista Road n a 1.Located within sphere of influence. ' Source: Temecula valley Unified School District,2004. 'City of Temecula website. "Schools." Located at httD://w-ww.citvoftemecLila.orp/homepage/Residents/tvtisd him. November 1,2004. - 1 CITY OF TEMECUTA - - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 5,12-5 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Figure 5.12-2 School Facilities ' CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Legend 0 Elementary Schoul Ciyo order ' County of O Middle School h InOrrc f Riverside Ox High School ! }T , Q Private School E•• " Temecula City Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary ' i- Planning Area r Scarce:Temecula CIS and cotton/Bndgn/Nsodatee Y•Ma 1 of ' r ---------- E f Y H t ' M E Q. M p ' P \ ',\ O E l 'y \ P E H P M L•\ f � •\ P H � E � � E ¢ \ P P E ' \ p M E rmmar..0 1 N. 0 5,000 10,000 H, rNE. ®Feet t (%FCULA Miles S 0 1 2 GENE.AL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.126 CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ' ' Public Services and Recreation In addition to public schools, Temecula has eight private schools, including Brentwood Montessori, Carden Academy, Hillcrest Academy, Linfield School, Rancho Community Christian School, St. ' Jeanne de Lestonnac School, Temecula Christian School, and Van Avery Prep Elementary School. Threshold Used to Determine Level of Impact ' Implementation of General Plan will have in a significant impact on schools if the generation of new students results in the need for development of new or expanded school facilities, the construction ' of which could result in potentially significant physical impacts to the environment. Environmental Impact ' General Plan policies*establish land capacity to accommodate substantial new development within the Planning Area. Implementation of the General Plan creates capacity for up to 25,005 net new housing units over the next 20, .years. Residential development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in demand for new or expanded education facilities to adequately accommodate new students. Table 5.12-3 reports the student generation rates used by the TVUSD to estimate the impact on TVUSD schools resulting from new residential development ' within its jurisdiction. ' Table 5.12-3 TVUSD Student Generation Factors by New Residential Dwelling Unit Type and Education Level ' Dwelling Proposed Unit Type Dwelling Education Generation Students Students Generated by Units Level Factor, Generated Education level ' Single- Elementary 0.3892 381 Elementary Family 980 Middle 0.1831 179 4,919 Detached High 0.1983 194 (Grades K-5) ' Single- - Elementary 0.2222 2,267 Middle Family 10,201 Middle 0.0994 1,014 (Grades 6.8) 2,532 Attached High 0.1111 1,133 Elementary 0.1652 2,271 High Multi-Family 13,744 Middle 0.0974 1,339 (Grades 9-12) 2,846 High 0.1105 1,519 . Notes: The General Plan proposes approximately 24,925new residential dwelling units. The distribution among ' dwelling unit type was determined by Cotton/Bridges/Associates based on the following assumptions: 1) New units in Hillside(HR), Rural(RR) and Very Low(VL) land use designations are entirely Single-Family Detached; 2) 3/4 of new units proposed in Low (L) density residential land use designation are Single-Family Detached and V. are Single-Family Attached; 3) '/z of new units proposed in Low Medium (LM) and Medium (M) density ' residential are Single-Family Attached and 'h are Multi-Family; and 4) All units proposed in High (H) density residential and the Mixed-Use Overlay(MIX)are Multi-Family. Source: Temecula Valley Unified School District and Cotton/Bridges/Associates, 2004. ' As shown in Table 5.12-3, implementation of the General Plan will result in approximately 4,919 net new elementary school students, 2,532 middle school students, and 2,846 high school students. ' The total number of students will be divided among all of TVUSD's current and future elementary, middle, and high schools. Capacity and enrollment figures also fluctuate within the district depending on the location and type of students, and capacity of nearby schools. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 5.12.7 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Public Services and Recreation t To meet future educational needs, TVUSD prepares Five-Year Facility Construction Plans. Future school construction projects within the current plan are summarized in Table 5.12.4. The projected ' opening date.of schools may change as a result of changes in school enrollment, levels of new home construction, and the availability of State funds for school construction/renovation. Table 5.12-4 1 Future TVUSD Schools Name Estimated Completion Date ' ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS uinta Do Lao French Valle 2005 ' Wolf Creek 2006 Morgan Hill 2005 Crowne Hill 2005 ' Old Town Beyond 2006 Rori au h Ranch Beyond 2006 MIDDLE SCHOOLS Rori au h Ranch Beyond 2006 ' Middle School #8(In Winchester 1800) Beyond 2006 French Valle HIGH SCHOOLS , High School #4(French Valley) Beyond 2006 Source: Temecula Valley Unified School District,November,2004. With adoption of Senate Bill 50 and Proposition lA in 1998, school districts that meet certain ' requirements now have the option of adopting alternative school fees, also known as Level 2 Fees and Level 3 Fees (Public Resources Code Sections 65995.5, 65995.6 and 65995.7). In general, alternative school fees, which are calculated for each school district, apply solely to residential , construction within a school district. In order to impose alternative*school fees on new residential construction within the District, TVUSD annually prepares and adopts a School Facilities Needs Analysis (SFNA) as required by State law. Additionally, the City works with developers and TVUSD ' to designate school facility locations when new residential projects are proposed.' TVUSD meets the educational needs of its student population through both permanent and interim facilities. Payment of alternative school fees will be used to offset the cost to TVUSD of providing education ' facilities to future students. The environmental effects of expansion, construction, and operation of additional school facilities will be evaluated by TVUSD in its efforts to plan for construction of new , schools or expansion of existing facilities. SB 50 states that for CEQA purposes, payment of fees to the affected school district reduces school facility impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures , No mitigation beyond the payment of school fees is required. ' `Temecula Valley Unified School District. Developer Fees. Located at hup://vvww.lvusd.kI7.ca.us/. November 2,2004. ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.12.8 , ' Public Services and Recreation ' Level of Impact after Mitigation Impact is less than significant. Libraries ' Environmental Setting The City of Temecula is a member of the Riverside County Library District, which operates 38 ' libraries throughout Riverside County. The Temecula Library is a full-service library offering a wide range of materials, programs, and services for all ages. The library's collection of over 80,000 items supports the needs of customers seeking in-depth information, leisure reading, children's books, videos, DVDs, magazines, and many other types of materials. As a member of the County Library System, the library affords customers access to over two million items located in branches throughout the system. A reference staff is on duty at all times to assist patrons, and the library ' offers Internet access on multiple workstations! The new Temecula Public Library, scheduled for completion in 2006, will be located on Pauba Road ' overlooking the Rancho California Sports Park and adjacent to Fire Station 84. The new library will _ encompass over 34,000 square feet and upon opening, will be equipped with over 96 computers. One of the many highlights of this building's design is the incorporation of a homework and ' technology center. This space will allow for 24 workstations configured with high-speed Internet and OPAC access, as well as software necessary to complete various homework-related tasks. In addition to this area, the Temecula Public Library will have a large community room with over 2,000 square feet. This space will accommodate over 200 people and will allow for special events, programs and large civic meetings. The Community Room will also be equipped with video conferencing capabilities to enhance educational, cultural and commerce goals well into the twenty- first century. The Riverside County Branch located off Winchester Road will remain open to service ' customers as well 8 Riverside County Library District standards call for 1.2 volumes and 0.5 square feet of library space per capita. The District currently provides 0.97 volumes and 0.13 square feet per capita Countywide. ' Threshold Used to Determine Level of Impact Implementation of the General Plan will result in a significant impact on libraries if the increased ' demand results in the need to construct new library facilities or expand existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. 7 City of Temecula website. "T`m h Public Library." Located at huo://m+w.ciNoftemecula.ora/homeoaze/Residents/librarv.htm. November 3,2004. °City of Temecula website. "Temecula Public Library Update." Located at httD://++vw.citvoftemearla.orz/homeoaee/Residents/librarvundate.htm. November 3,2004. CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.12-9 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Public Services and Recreation ' Environmental Impact ' General Plan policies establish land capacity to accornmodate substantial new development within ' the Planning Area. Implementation of the General Plan creates capacity for up to 25,005 net new housing units over the next 20 years. As described in Section 3.11, Population and Housing, the ' General Plan provides capacity for up to 169,184 persons within the Planning Area. This population level would require 203,020 volumes and 84,592 square feet of library space based on Riverside County Library District standards. The new Temecula Public Library will have 34,000 t square feet of library space and 80,000 volumes. Additional volumes are available through the Library District's branch library system and interlibrary loan agreements. Nevertheless, residential development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in demand for library resources beyond provided by the new Temecula Public Library. Even with the opening of ' the new library, the new development,associated with implementation of the General Plan will require the construction of new or expanded library facilities. Impact will be significant and mitigation measures have been added to the project. ' The specific impacts of constructing new library facilities in the Planning Area cannot be determined at this first-tier level of analysis because no specific project is proposed. However, Riverside County , Library District will be required to conduct project-level analysis of potential impacts. Mitigation Measures , PSR-3. The City will identify and solicit funding from additional sources to supplement library facilities and services. Such funding sources may include: State and federal grants and loans- ' public and private donations, sponsorships by local and national corporations, and other private individuals'and groups (General Plan Implementation Program GM-7). PSR-4. The City will coordinate with the County to determine location, facilities, and services of ' new branch libraries needed to serve the community (General Plan Implementation Program GM-7). , Level of Impact after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measures PSR-3 and PSR4 will reduce the impact to library facilities ' to a less than significant level. Parks and Recreation Environmental Setting 1 The City owns and maintains 29 parks, including a skate park and roller hockey arena. The City also ' 'has two recreation centers, an outdoor amphitheater, a gymnasium, two swimming pools, a senior center, the Temecula Museum, sports fields, and picnic shelter areas that can be reserved for parties 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.12.10 , 1 Public Services and Recreation ' or picnics 9 Table 5.12-5 presents a summary of the existing parks and recreational facilities within Temecula, and Figure 5.12-3 shows the location of these facilities. Table 5.12-5 City of Temecula_ Parks and Recreation Facilities ' Name Location Bahia Vista Park 41566 Avenida de la Reina ' Butterfield Stage Park 33654 De Portola Rd Calle Aragon Park 41621 Calle Aragon City Hall 43200 Business Park Dr ' Community Recreation Center CRC 30875 Rancho Vista Road Crowne Hill Park 33203 Old Kent Road Sam Hicks Memorial Park 41970 Moreno Road Kent Hinter ardt Memorial Park 31465 Via Cordoba ' Stephen M. Linen Jr. Memorial Park 44935 Nighthawk Pass Loma Linda Park 30877 Loma Linda Road Long Canyon Creek Park 40356 N. General Kearny Road ' John Magee Park 44656 Corte Veranos Margarita Community Park 29119 Margarita Road Meadows Park 43110 Meadows Parkway- Nakayama Park 30592 Nicolas Road at Joseph Road Nicolas Road Park 39955 Nicolas Road Pablo A is Park 33005 Regina Drive Pala Community Park 44900 Temecula Lane ' Paloma Del Sol Park 32099 De Portola Road ~a Pauba Ride Park 33407 Pauba Road Mary Phillips Senior Center 41845 6th Street ' ' Rancho California Sports Park 30875 Rancho Vista Road w Riverton Park 30950 Riverton Lane Rotary Park 28816 Pu'ol Street ' Temecula Community Center(TCC) 28816 Pu'ol Street Temecula Duck Pond 28250 Ynez Road Temecula Elementary School Pool 41951 Mora a Road .Temecula Middle School Fields 42075 Meadows Parkway ' Temecula Museum 28314 Mercedes Street Temecula Skate Park 42569 Margarita Road Temeku Hills Park 31367 La Serena Way ' Vail Ranch Park 32965 Harmony Lane Veterans Park 30965 La Serena Way Voorburg Park 39960 Nicolas Road ' Winchester Creek Park 39950 Margarita Road Pauba Ride Park 33407 Pauba Road Serena Hills Park 40747 Wolcott Road Source: City of Temecula website. htto://ww"v.citvoftemecuda.ore/recreate/narks/sites hlm. ' November 3, 2004. ' 'City of Temecula website. "Parks and Facilities." bttii://%% +M.Citvoftemectili.ora/recreate/narks/index htm. November 3, 2004. 1 . - CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Figure 5.12-3 Parks & Recreational Facilities ' Legend ' 1. VI+Y eW 1 I1.T Na,A lulbA S1+p P+M1 }LL T+nsad+Sla.hM1 ].CaE•MSm PaM1 11.V..hh M+p+P+A ll.Vm ,ftA L Yml H.=M+..w+I hA, U.Imtl C.n)s•C-1 hn L Sm NA u Stpa I,M—fl,h3 Cl • County o/ ).N.",—P.A M.PM.Aph P.A h o u0ueeG f Rimmide L T.o&ehh :L W1nA,nee,erwl P+M1 }f ).TH c H+l t,pe n 2&M+ dUPS.Mo PaA I.PA+Cn,anW t A ]L Chvd.1 Canmmih P+M1 ! 11. A.Dtl Sol hM1 30.pupN+ISun Hd+Mmpld hM1 , Il Yntlle 4lbmla Sporn hA J?Inutlbutlm a IS.RMAmhM1 SI.T.WHMa PA N. C. h.[eYF hM1 11. HS A IS.San IMtW Mamwld P+A 33, H— hA IL T—n Dod + CmSn 35.s— P.A hA 11.T+o�++tl+nR P. SS.Sm,u Hhhh t ILCme,Wly l.rn+Ibn Cmbl 36 P.oW[Ilpn NA 1 1 • Temecula City Boundary �- ----• Sphere of Influence Boundary ' Planning Area Source:T[me ula and Riverside County G1S,2001 n.wa, ,.+e+. t ' ♦ ��e '♦ ©� s ♦ mmm �• ♦a N 0 5,000 10,000 ' WW E Miles ECt.{1;A $ 0 1 2 CENEKAL.PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL RAN UPDATE 5.1312 ' ' Public 5ervice5 and Recreation 1 Temecula also has 20 neighborhood parks. Neighborhood parks are intended to. provide for the daily recreation needs of residents in the immediate area of the park. The neighborhood park usually serves residents within a half-mile radius. . Neighborhood park facilities include open field play areas, picnic areas, and tot lots. The optimum size of a neighborhood park is from three to ten acres, and the park should be easily accessible by pedestrians and bicyclists. ' The City also offers two specialty and five sports parks. Specialty parks are facilities that support one or two activities, such as the Temecula Skate Park designed to meet the needs of skateboarders and in-line skaters. Sports parks are larger and offer facilities for a variety of sports, including basketball, football, soccer, and/or tennis. The largest sports park in Temecula is the Rancho California Sports Park, which encompasses over 73 acres. In addition, the City maintains six recreational facilities, including a recreation center with an outdoor amphitheater, a community center, a senior center, two museums, and a historic chapel. Temecula has a total of 200 acres of park land and 60,000 square feet of recreational space. ' The City has a joint-use agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District which allows the City to light and utilize school facilities. These facilities are generally open to the public during non-school hours, weekends, and vacations, and as such are considered adjuncts to the citywide ' park system. The following school sites are presently joint-use facilities: • Temecula Middle School (illuminated baseball and soccer fields) ' Temecula Elementary School (pool) • Temecula Valley High (illuminated tennis courts). • Chaparral High School (pool) ' Private recreation facilities are included in several planned communities and apartment complexes. These facilities usually include tennis or basketball courts. The existing facilities are limited, but they ' help meet the demand for parks and recreation facilities,within the community.' Several commercial recreation facilities, including five golf courses, are located within the City and ' Planning Area. These facilities include the Temecula Creek Inn Golf Resort, Temeku Hills Golf Course, and the Redhawk Golf Club. Temecula residents can also enjoy the 600-acre Lake Skinner Regional Park, located several miles east of Temecula. The park offers overnight camping, fishing, ' swimming, sailing, picnicking, and other activities. Additional regional recreation facilities include the Cleveland National Forest southeast of the City. Given the City's current population of 72,715 residents and the parkland standard of five acres of ' City-owned parkland per 1,000 residents, the City should offer 364 acres of parkland. With only 200 acres of parkland, the City has a current deficit of 164 acres of parkland. ' Thresholds Used to Determine Level of Impact Implementation of the General Plan will result in a significant impact if it will: ' • Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would occur or be accelerated, or 1 • Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of facilities, which might have an adverse physical impact on the environment. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA EN`ARONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 5.12.13 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Public Services and Recreation ' The basic park acreage standard for the City of Temecula is 5.0 acres of usable City-owned parkland per 1,000 residents. This standard does not include special use facilities, natural open space, or ' trails. Environmental Impact ' General Plan policies establish land capacity to accommodate substantial new development within the Planning Area. Implementation of the General Plan creates capacity for up to 25,005 net new ' housing units and 40,706 net new residents over the next 20 years. Residential development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will require the City to provide 204 net new acres of parkland in addition to the existing 164-acre deficit. Sufficient acreage to meet the ' needs of existing residents is anticipated by the year 2013 through the acquisition and dedication of parks and school facilities within identified specific plan areas10. However, new development projects pursuant to the General Plan will result in increased use of existing neighborhood and ' regional parks, other recreational facilities, and trails that may cause or accelerate substantial physical'deterioration of these facilities. Impact will be significant, and mitigation measures are required. ' Mitigation Measures PSR-5. The City will identify potential sites for additional park land, monitor demand for park land ' and facilities concurrent with development approvals, and prioritize potential parkland acquisitions, expansions, and improvements within the five year Capital Improvement , Program, consistent.with the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan (General Plan Implementation Program OS-1). PSR-6. The City shall adopt a local Park Code that incorporates standards for parkland dedication ' and development. ' Specifically the City shall: 1) require the dedication of parkland or the payment of in-lieu fees and the development of recreation facilities for all new development; ' and 2) require developers of residential projects greater than 200 units to dedicate land based on the park acre standard of five acres of usable parkland to 1,000 residents, if the park is needed or available (General Plan Implementation Program OS-2). PSR-7. The City shall 1) implement policies and standards of the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways , Master Plan, including trail classifications, design standards, implementation mechanisms, and capital improvement programming; and 2) ensure that bike routes are provided or ' reserved concurrent with new development(General Plan Implementation Program 05-29). Level of Impact after Mitigation ' Implementation of Mitigation Measures PSR-4 through PSR-6 will reduce the impact to parks and recreation to a less than significant level. ' 10 City of Temecula General Plan Working Papers. November 2002. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.12.1 a ' 1 1 5. 73 Transportation ' This section of the EIR examines whether implementation of the General Plan will result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion, or exceed a level of service standard established by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) and/or City of Temecula for designated roads or ' highways. As indicated in the Initial Study (Appendix A), the project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, increase hazards due to road design features, result in inadequate emergency access or parking capacity, or conflict with adopted alternative transportation policies or plans. ' The information presented in this section is summarized from the City of Temecula General Plan Update Circulation Element Traffic Study(Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., November, 2004) included as ' Appendix D of this EIR. ' Environmental Setting Temecula's circulation network includes freeways, principal arterials, and a well-developed local ' road ,system. Interstate 15 (1-15) bisects the western portion of the Planning Area and provides connections to other regional freeways in Riverside County, San Diego County, San Bernardino County, and beyond. Interstate 215 (1-215), located north of the Planning Area, provides direct r7 access to the communities of Moreno Valley and Riverside. State Route 79 North (SR-79) provides access to Hemet and San Jacinto, while SR-79 South provides access to eastern Riverside and San 4 Diego Counties. 1-15 traverses north-south through the western portion of the Planning Area. Freeway interchanges 'S along 1-15 within the Planning Area include Winchester Road (SR-79 North), Rancho California Road, and SR-79 South. Within the Planning Area, Benton Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Nicolas Road, Rancho California Road, and SR-79 South serve as the primary east-west arterials. Primary north-south arterials include Winchester Road (designated as SR-79 North), Butterfield Stage Road, Meadows ,Parkway, Margarita Road, Ynez Road/De Portola Road, Jefferson Avenue/Old ' Town Front Street, Diaz Road,,and Pechanga Parkway. The City's non-motorized transportation facilities include bicycle routes, trails, and sidewalks. The ' City has an extensive network of multi-use trails providing connections for pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists. In addition to the multi-use trails, many of Temecula's roadways are designed to support bikeways of various types. The trail and bikeway system is composed of a network of Class ' I off-road trails located parallel to roadways and within residential subdivisions, and Class 11 and III bike lanes and routes located on arterial roadways. Class I facilities include bicycle paths with exclusive rights-of-way intended to serve cyclists with the safest means of travel. Pedestrians and ' equestrians also use these routes. Class 11 facilities are bicycle lanes along the curb lane of a street or highway; the path provides for one-way travel and is generally delineated with special striping and signs. Class III facilities are bike routes for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic. Signs are posted which indicate that the road also serves as a bike route, although no special. striping is provided for bicyclists. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.13.1 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. 1 Transportation Public transportation first became available in Temecula in 1991 when RTA established a local ' transit route within Temecula and initiated a pilot program providing commuter service between ' Temecula and Corona with stops in Murrieta and Lake Elsinore. To meet the needs of a growing population, public transit services have since been expanded. Table 5.13-1 summarizes the approximate origin and destination for each route currently serving the City. ' Table 5.13-1 RTA Bus Routes Serving Temecula Line Ori in Destination ' 23 Temecula Murrieta 24 Temecula Pechan a Resort Vail Ranch ' 79 Hemet Temecula 202 Murrieta Oceanside 206 Temecula Corona 208 Temecula Riverside ' Source: RTA, 2004 In addition to local routes, RTA provides limited stop service to Riverside, Corona, and Oceanside ' on Commuterl-ink. No regional or national passenger rail service is provided in Temecula. Methodology ' Two primary measures are used to evaluate the existing and planned capacity of the existing and planned roadway system within the Planning Area: volume and capacity. Volume is established ' either by a traffic count (in the case of existing volumes).or by a forecast for a future point in time. Capacity refers to the vehicle carrying ability of a roadway at free flow speed. The ratio between volume and capacity (V/C) is used to establish a level of service (LOS) for roadway facilities. LOS is ' a qualitative description of traffic operations for roadway facilities. LOS "A" indicates free flow conditions with little or no delay. LOS "F" indicates a high level of delay with severe congestion. LOS "C" indicates moderate delay. LOS "D" indicates marginally acceptable traffic operations in urban areas. The threshold of LOS "E" is the theoretical capacity of the street or intersection. Performance criteria are provided for two components of the circulation system: arterial roadways ' and freeway ramps. The following sections outline the performance criteria employed to analyze arterial roadways and freeway ramps. Arterial Roadways ' Analysis of the arterial road system is based on intersection capacity since intersections are the ' primary limiting factor within the roadway system. Levels of service .for arterial roadway intersections are determined based on operating conditions during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology is applied using peak hour volumes and considers the geometric configuration of intersections when measuring capacity. The ICU method , sums the V/C ratios for the critical movements of an intersection and is generally compatible with the intersection capacity analysis methodology outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Table 5.13-2 summarizes ICU ranges and corresponding LOS descriptions. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.13-2 ' 1 Transportation Table 5.13-2 Arterial Intersection Performance Criteria tICU Level of Service LOS 0.00 - 0.60 A ' 0.61 - 0.70 B 0.71 - 0.80 C 0.81 - 0.90 D 0.91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F Source: Austin-Foust Associates, 2004 ' The City of Temecula' has established an intersection capacity performance standard of 0.90 for peak-hour intersection operation impacts. This standard means that an intersection is operating at 90 percent of its capacity, corresponding to LOS D., ' Freeway Ramps ' Performance criteria for freeway ramps accessing 1-15 are based on A.M. and P.M. peak hour V/C ratios for each ramp. Carrying capacities for each ramp configuration within,the Planning Area are based on information contained in the July 1995 Caltrans Highway Design Manual and the January ' 2000 Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual. Caltrans' performance standard for freeway ramps is a maximum peak hour V/C of 1.00, corresponding to LOS E: Existing Traffic Conditions :r3 Traffic flow patterns _within the Planning Area are oriented around components of the regional 1=y roadway system, including 1-15 and SR-79. 1-15 traverses the western portion of the Planning Area. Fla SR-79 passes through the Planning Area in two separate north and south arterial highway segments, ' with 1-15 serving as a link between the two. Volumes on Winchester Road (SR-79 North) reach 62,000 average daily trips (ADT) near 1-15. Volumes on SR-79 South reach 47,000 ADT near 1-15. Freeway interchanges on 1-15 within the Planning Area are located at Winchester Road (SR-79 North), Rancho California Road, and SR-79 South.. Figure 5.13-1 depicts current (2002) 'ADT volumes on the roadway system. As discussed above in Methodology, LOS is defined according to peak-hour intersection_ performance using ICU values. Figure 5.13-2 identifies the intersections included in this evaluation, and Table 5.13-3 lists current ICU and corresponding LOS values for each intersection.' 1 , 1 Current traffic conditions are evaluated based on traffic counts conducted in 2002. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1 5.13.3 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE N 'W E 2 S NTS 'z MURRIf A � HOT SPRING J` CY1L p�P05 .eA a 13 N`Sp1,P5 1 w ° H 1 P 1'1V 1b 12 It cQy w r P y „b °3 SOLANA �OPFItA RO 8 p0 o 1p fr J �' y yr 34 fOPN � RANCHO rc, ° � �S1P RO � c �y RANCHO �y pp ep 4 13 $ !6 10 ♦ °`�n O z .n Q 14 05 p0 '° 72 SMECNA v RtOIA 93 32 OE 29 Q� I to >) AWK .a I SP 1 Figure 5.13-1 A �,tiPt Existing ADT Volumes (000s) cy A Legend mo rty 10�y ADT Volumes �d 1 City Limits Swrcx:AulO'Maa Assxia°y N.m b6 ,2004. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.13.4 1 1 1 N ' Figure 5.13-2 Location of Study wIV e Intersections s ' MS legend City Limits oe Sov�, AusiMouv Avoaaw,Norem6e/t00J. VAR � u MO f ' � 7 CAaE WOOS ' M 6 { 4 5 �W r` 3 �ft 9 p 2 ' + 1 10 SOL 4 17 OA TA RO M NANc 0 16 c� 14 1213 19 RM"t, pAVeA m ' 1 20 �Hp 21 23 lA p' yy-' �Ia 25 A may.AA 1p1 24 °E # >y `ram ' T Qp AK% p0 °f cy 1 ` 0 2m p? CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.13-5 GENERAL PUN UPDATE 1 1 Transportation - Table 5.13-3 Existing Intersection ICU Summary ' A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak hour Intersection ICU T LOS ICU LOS ' 1. Diaz Road&Winchester Road 0.33 A 0.64 B 2. Jefferson Avenue&Winchester Road 0.59 A 1.00' E 3. 1.15 Southbound & Winchester Road 0.66 B 0.80 C ' 4. 1-15 Northbound &Winchester Road 0.47 A 0.74 C 5. Ynez Road &Winchester Road 0.73 C 0.87 D 6. Margarita Road &Winchester Road 0.68 B 0.86 D , 7. Nicolas Road &Winchester Road 1.00` E 0.74 C 8. Jefferson Avenue & Overland Drive 0.47 A 0.82 D 9. Ynez Road & Overland Drive 0.39 1 A 0.73 C 10. Ynez Road &Solana Way 0.43 A 0.58 A ' 11. Diaz Road & Rancho California Road 0.52 . A 0.51 A 12. Old Town Front St. & Rancho California 0.59 A 0.96' E 13. 1-15 Southbound & Rancho California Rd. 0.79 C 0.89 D 14. 1-15 Northbound & Rancho California Rd. 0.50 A 0.67 B 15. Ynez Road & Rancho California Road 0.79 C 0.90 D 16. Margarita Road & Rancho California Road 0.59 A 0.74 1 C ' 17. Meadows Pkvvy& Rancho California Rd. 0.43 A 0.36 A 18. Butterfield Stage Rd & Rancho California 0.43 A 0.49 A , 19. Ynez Road-& Rancho Vista Road 0.84 D 0.82 D 20. Ynez Road & Pauba Road 0.69 1 B 0.64 B ' 21. Ynez Road & Santiago Road 0.50 A 0.64 B 22. 1-15 Southbound & Old Town Front Street 0.69 B 0.73 C 23. 1-15 Northbound & SR-79 South 0.61 B 0.74 C ' 24. Pechan a Parkway& SR-79 South 0.57 A 0.67 B 25. Redhawk Mar arita Road & SR-79 South 0.67 B 0.68 B 26. Butterfield Stage Road &SR-79 South 0.35 A 0.37 A , Does not meet performance standard Note: Based on 2002 Traffic Counts Source: Austin-Foust Associates,November 2004. As shown in Table 5.13-3, the following three locations do not meet the City's performance , standard of LOS D: Jefferson Avenue at Winchester Road - LOS E at P.M. peak hour ' Nicolas Road at Winchester Road - LOS E at A.M. peak hour • Old Town Front Street at Rancho California Road - LOS E at P.M. peak hour ' Table 5.13.4 summarizes current peak hour freeway ramp volumes and V/C ratios. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CRY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.13-6 , Transportation tTable 5.13-4 ' Existing 1-15 Peak Hour Ramp Summary A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Location Capacity Volume V C Volume V C ' Northbound On Winchester Rd. Direct On 1,500 750 0.50 1,370 0.91 Winchester Rd. Loop On 1,500 530 0.35 1,150 0.77 ' Rancho California Direct On 1,500 1,010 0.67 1,280 0.85 Rancho California Loop On 1,500 430 0.29 990 0.66 SR-79 South 1,500 1,600 1.07` 1,310 0.87 Sub-Total 7500 4,320 0.58 6,100 0.81 Southbound'On Winchester Direct On' 1,500 120 0.08 210 0.14 Winchester Loop On 1,500 740 0.49 490 0.33 Rancho California Road 1,500 910 0.61 '790 0.53 Old Town Front Street 1,500 1,040 0.69 440 0.29 Sub-Total 6,000 2,810 0.47 1,930 0.32 TOTAL ON 13,500 7,130 0.53 8,030 0.59 ' Northbound Off Winchester Road 1,500 790 0.53 .1,300 0.87 _ Rancho California Road 1,500 740 0.49 1,220 0.81 ''- SR-79 South 1,500 320.1 0.21 .810 1 0.54 Sub-Total 4,500 1,850 1 0.41 3,330 1 0.74 + Southbound Off, J Winchester Road 1,500 2 220 1.48' 1,910 1.27' Rancho California Road 1,500 2,050 1 1.37' 1,800 1.20' t Old Town Front Street 1,500 1 000 0.67 1,350 0.90 Sub•Total 4,500 5,270 1.17 5,060 1.12 TOTAL OFF 9,000 7,120 0.79 8,390 0.93 - ' Exceeds capacity Source: Austin-Foust Associates,November 2004. - As shown in Table 5.13-4, three ramps currently do not meet Caltrans performance standard of ' LOS E (maximum 1.00'V/C):' • SR-79 South Northbound On-ramp - LOS F at A.M. peak hour • Winchester Road Southbound Off-ramp - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hours • Rancho California Road Southbound Off-ramp - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour ' Related Regional Plans SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) ' The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a multi-modal, long-range planning document prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The RTP includes programs and policies for congestion management, transit, bicycles and pedestrians, roadways, freight, and financing. The RTP is prepared every three years to address a 20-year projection of needs. Each agency responsible for building and managing transportation facilities, including the City of ' Temecula, has implementation responsibilities under the RTP. The RTP relies on local plans and CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT _ 5.13.7 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Transportation policies governing circulation and transportation to identify the region's future multi-modal ' transportation system. Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP)/Community and Environmental ' Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) Western Riverside County is projected to grow from a current population of about 1.2 million to 2 ' million in 2020. In an effort to improve the quality of life for current and future residents, the County of Riverside, the RCTC, and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) ' embarked on a planning process to determine future placement of buildings, roads and open spaces within the County. This process was named the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) and resulted in three interrelated plans: a Riverside County General Plan for land use and housing, a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) to determine open spaces and conservation areas, and the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP), which identifies improvements for highways and transit systems. The main goals of CETAP are to: 1) identify and set aside areas for major transportation facilities; 2) ensure that transportation infrastructure will be in place to foster the economic development of , Riverside County; and 3) provide access to schools, jobs, shopping and other daily activities. One major component of the CETAP is to identify a location for the Winchester to Temecula Corridor, which will involve widening of I-15 and 1-215, as well as construction of French Valley Parkway, ' connecting the French Valley Future Growth Area to 1-215 and providing an alternate freeway access point to Winchester Road. Other goals include providing expanded rail service and express bus service throughout Riverside County. Decisions reached through the CETAP will affect transportation facilities and opportunities within Temecula. ' Riverside County Congestion Management Program ' Urbanized areas such as Riverside County are required under State law to adopt a Congestion Management Program (CMP). The Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP) is updated every two years. The goals of the CMP are to reduce traffic congestion, to improve air quality, and to provide a coordination mechanism between land development and transportation improvement decisions. The CMP is administered by the RCTC. In 1997, RCTC significantly modified the original CMP to meet federal Congestion Management System (CMS) guidelines. This , effort included development of an Enhanced Traffic Monitoring System, in which real-time traffic count data can be accessed by RCTC to evaluate the condition of the CMS, as well as meet other monitoring requirements at the State and federal levels. As a result, the submittal of Traffic Impact ' Assessments (TIAs) for development proposals to RCTC is no longer required. However, the City is required to maintain minimum LOS thresholds identified in the General Plan and continues to require TIAs on development projects. ' 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.13.8 ' 1 Transportation . ' Thresholds Used to Determine Level of Impact ' The Temecula General Plan Circulation Element and the Riverside County CMP recognize LOS D as the minimum acceptable standard at signalized intersections. Caltrans typically uses the performance standard of LOS E for freeway ramps. Thus, long-term implementation of the Temecula General Plan will have a significant impact on the roadway network if it: • Causes an intersection to operate at LOS E or F (peak hour ICU greater than 0.90) or Causes a freeway ramp to operate at LOS F (peak hour V/C greater than 1.00). 1 Environmental Impact Proposed Roadway Plan Community concerns expressed during the General Plan process indicate that Temecula needs better roadway circulation between residential areas and commercial/employment centers, and more efficient connections to regional transportation routes. Pass-through traffic accessing these ' regional routes from unincorporated areas is also a significant concern to residents. - As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the General Plan Circulation Element is comprised of the Roadway Plan (illustrated in Figure 3-3 in the Project Description), long-range plans for transit facilities and multi-use trails, and goals, policies, and programs to ensure that current transportation. facilities will be improved and new facilities constructed that provide adequate capacity to accommodate travel needs resulting from future development pursuant to the Land Use Element. ' Improvements to current roadways and construction of future roadways have also been designed to anticipate future development in the County of Riverside and the City of Murrieta. The Circulation Element establishes eight types of roadways, ranging from eight-lane high-capacity divided roadways to two-lane undivided roadways. The classifications are: . Urban Arterial (8-10 lanes divided within 134' right-of-way) • Principal Arterial (6 lanes divided within 110' right-of-way) • Major Arterial (4 lanes divided within 100' right-of-way) ' Secondary Arterial (4 lanes undivided within 88' right-of-way) • Modified Secondary Arterial (4 lanes undivided within 88' right-of-way, no curb and gutter) Limited Secondary Arterial (2 lanes divided with turn lanes where needed within 88' right-of- way) • Collector (2 lanes undivided within 66' right-of-way in residential areas, within 78' right-of- way in industrial areas) ' .Rural Highway (2 lanes undivided within 88-150' right-of-way) The Roadway Plan identifies several new roadways and intersection enhancements in addition to ' defining roadway classifications and widths. Proposed new roadways are identified in Figure 5.13- 3. 1 CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.13.9 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Figure 5.13-3 N Existing and Future Roadway we ' System s Legend NTS Proposed Future Roadway ' Existing Roadway + City Limits ' Source:AustimFousf Associates,November 3004. \HDUBsau RU BENrON PO AUm RD k p s BOREL ND EL � u MURplt.14 _ HOT pRlry 5 i 'M1 ptWs 1 b t ' �y y —wEwAw J 4 PpGP0.\�P O p0 L P yY 2 ftPNdO G RAN O � � F S � , ° q3 P ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.13-10 Transportation ' Key features of the proposed Roadway Plan include the following: River/Freeway Crossings The Roadway Plan includes two new crossings of Murrieta Creek at Overland Drive and Rancho Way. The Rancho Way crossing will also extend over Jefferson Avenue and 1-15 to intersect with ' Ynez Road and then further extend to Margarita Road. New Freeway Interchanges ' Two new 1-15 interchanges are included in the Roadway Plan. Caltrans has completed preliminary studies for the proposed French Valley Parkway interchange in the northwest portion of the Planning Area. This interchange will provide freeway access for a new north-south principal arterial ' roadway (French Valley Parkway) extending from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Diaz Road. At the south end of the Planning Area, a new interchange is proposed near the intersection of the current City boundary and 1-15. This interchange will provide freeway access for a new principal arterial roadway (the Southern Bypass) extending from 1.15 to Pechanga Parkway, and a further eastward Connection as a secondary arterial roadway to Anza Road. ' Southern/Eastern Bypass. The Roadway Plan proposes that current Anza Road be classified as a Rural Highway,.providing a continuous eastern and southern bypass route from.Auld Road in the northern part of the Planning Area to the new 1-15 interchange at the City's southern boundary. Western Bypass The Roadway Plan includes a western bypass route that connects the new French Valley Parkway at Diaz Road to Old Town Front Street and SR-79 South at the 1-15 interchange. This roadway is proposed as a major arterial around the southwestern edge of the City. A short portion is currently built (Via Industria), and the remainder will be built as a new four-lane roadway. ' Principal Intersections The orientation of Temecula's street system funnels many trips through a few key intersections. ' Failure of these intersections to perform at adopted performance standards significantly impairs the overall effectiveness of the transportation network. The Circulation Element refers to a set of principal intersections that are subject-to regular monitoring. Priority would then be given to any principal intersection that is not meeting LOS criteria when implementing roadway improvements. Figure 5.13-4 identifies the principal intersections. This initial set of principal intersections corresponds to those analyzed;within this traffic analysis. In the future, the City may add or remove intersections from the principal intersections list as traffic conditions in the Planning Area change in ' response to approved development projects and regional growth. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 5.13-1 1 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1 1 Figure 5.13-4 N Location of Principal WE 1 Intersections s NTS Legend _ , City Limits a Swrtc:AutiMad Avxialo,No�cmbei7004. � ' dairsov rm _ ' wi¢t tm 31 i1 32 I t a 7 2930 6 � 4 5 2 9 1 1 g 10 , 17 76 p � 5 1 4 1 21 26 22 29 oa' 25 1 S 24 o ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.13-12 1 Transportation ' Future Traffic Conditions ' Long-range implementation of the General Plan will create capacity for up to 25,005 net new housing units and 36.2 million net new square feet of nonresidential development in the Planning Area over the next 20 years. Development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in as many as 699,558 additional vehicle trips per day, for a total trip generation of approximately 1.43 million vehicle trips per day. This represents an increase of 96 percent over ' existing (year 2002) conditions, as shown in Table 5.13-5. Table 5.13-5 Planning Area Land Use and Trip Generation ' Existing 2002 Future 2025 Difference Land Use Category ADT Percent ADT Percent ADT Percent ' Residential 287,244 39% 478,918 33% +191,674 67% Commercial 296,539 41% 580207 41% +283,668 96% Office Industrial 87241 12% 300290 21% +213,049 244% ' Other 55,947 8% 67,114 5% +11,167 20% Total 726,971 1000/0 1,426,529 100% +699 558 96% Notes: ADT-average daily vehicle trips generated Other land uses include hotel/motel,schools, mining/agriculture,natural open spaces,institutional, golf courses, and Pechanga Entertainment Center. Source: Austin-Foust Associates,November 2004. As shown in Table 5.13-5, approximately 33 percent of the projected vehicle trips are attributed to residential land uses and the remaining 67 percent to non-residential uses. These proportions are roughly similar to current conditions, indicating a comparable composition of residential and non- residential land uses, and a slight expansion of non-residential uses as a proportion of total trip generation. Long-range ADT volumes for the Roadway Plan are shown in Figure 5.13-5. These volumes ' represent buildout of the Planning Area pursuant to the Land Use Element and 2025 land use projections in the surrounding area according to the RCIP, the San Diego County General Plan, and the City of Murietta General Plan. Comparing the future volumes to existing volumes shows the effect of additional trips generated by buildout of the proposed General Plan. For example, Table 5.13-6 shows aggregate east-west volumes just east of the 1-15 freeway. CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 5.13-13 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 7 6LF.R ' Figure 5.13-5 p N R f N Future Average Daily Traffic 8 we Volumes s 'RANTER RO J Legend NTs R rc � ADT Volumes(000s) New Roadway City Limits IR l A ' Source:Aurtlnioust Auociales,No.v ,100J. TA TNWRsox RD s a ZO 13 Y KNTON s a 13 @ U AULD RO $ � W p � a 90flF.L RO ]9 15 u BD" RO ! 1 J n � MU 6 ^ /ET" 11 % ♦R O Is NOi gR� T `y JP R 91' iyNc3' �f rC N\Ga'PS I ' \' 9 � P � LA I N♦ 13 D \A 13 1 'S ,e♦ G eR 0♦ P G RANOIO c g ♦P P II > 0 r � RANI � ♦00A � � }V ' 13 ONO VPV .. R 9 1t O O h R 1 t c � > J soNTAco ao = A ♦1 � > 3 16 ♦'1 '� � SR�'la 9 M1 J 59 11LP � >I 'Y d AM1( PO u SIN 48 ^f� SA 10 aN3f ZY � Cq O'Y ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.13-14 1 Transportation Table 5.13-6 East-West ADT Volumes ' Location Existing Future 2002 2025 ' French Valley Parkway n a 41,000 Winchester Road 62,000 78,000 Overland Drive 16,000 27,000 ' Rancho Way n a 22,000 Rancho California Road 58,000 66,000 Santia o Road 5,000 7000 SR-79 South 47,000 59,000 Southern Bypass/Anza Road n a 57,000 Total 188,000 357,000 Percent Increase 90% ' Source: Austin-Foust Associates, November 2004. As shown in Table 5.13-6, new roadways and freeway connections proposed in the Roadway Plan will have a key role in expanding system capacity because existing facilities, particularly Winchester Road and Rancho California Road, currently operate near capacity. The need for Butterfield Stage Road and Anza Road as north-south bypass routes due to additional development north and east of ' the City is demonstrated by projected future ADT volumes. Butterfield Stage Road has projected volumes that are within the capacity of the proposed Major Arterial classification. Likewise, Anza Road has adequate capacity as a proposed Rural Highway. Future daily and peak-hour traffic volumes on the proposed roadway network were estimated using General Plan land uses and traffic forecasts produced by the Temecula Traffic Model (TTM). ' Projected A.M. and P.M. peak-hour intersection performance of the City's proposed Critical Intersections in the year 2025 is summarized in Table 5.13-7. As discussed above in Existing Traffic Conditions, the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road currently operates at a deficient LOS E condition. As shown in Table 5.13- 7, this intersection will continue to operate at LOS E in 2025, although implementation of the General Plan is anticipated to improve the operation of the intersection from 0.96 ICU in 2002 to 0.91 ICU in 2025. The project does not create a new LOS E condition at this intersection or worsen its operation to LOS F. Impact to Old Town Front Street at Rancho California Road is therefore less than significant. ' However, long-range implementation of the General Plan will create new deficiencies at the following three locations: Ynez Road & Winchester Road - LOS E at P.M. peak hour Ynez Road & Solana Way - LOS E at P.M. peak hour ' • Ynez Road & Rancho California Road - LOS E at P.M. peak hour Impact will be significant at these intersections. Mitigation measures are required to reduce the ' level of impact. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 5.13-15 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Transportation Table 5.13-7 Future Intersection ICU Summary ' A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Hour Hour f Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Diaz Road & Winchester Road 0.76 C 0.77 C 2. Jefferson Avenue & Winchester Road 0.83 D 0.90 D ' 3. 1-15 Southbound &Winchester Road 0.69 B 0.83 D 4. 1-15 Northbound & Winchester Road 0.51 A 0.78 C 5. Ynez Road & Winchester Road 0.69 B 0.97` E ' 6. Margarita Road &Winchester Road 0.73 C 0.90 D 7. Nicolas Road &Winchester Road 0.83 D 0.84 D 8.Jefferson Avenue & Overland Drive 0.63 B 0.90 D 9. Ynez Road & Overland Drive 0.61 B 0.86 D ' 10. Ynez Road & Solana Way 0.53 A 0.92' E 11. Diaz Road & Rancho California Road 0.38 A 0.47 A 12. Old Town Front St. & Rancho California Road 0.73 C 0.91' E 13. 1-15 Southbound & Rancho California Road 0.77 C 0.79 C 14. 1-15 Northbound & Rancho California Road 0.59 A 0.74 C 15. Ynez Road & Rancho California Road 0.75 C 0.95' E ' 16. Margarita Road & Rancho California Road 0.61 B 0.76 C 17. Meadows Pkvvy& Rancho California Road 0.69 B 0.60 A 18. Butterfield Stage Rd & Rancho California Road 0.69 B 0.70 B ' 19. Ynez Road & Rancho Vista Road 0.62 B 0.83 D 20. Ynez Road & Pauba Road 0.55 A 0.75 C 21.Ynez Road & Santiago Road 0.62 B 0.58 A 22. 1.15 Southbound & Old Town Front Street 0.80 C 0.83 D ' 23. 1-15 Northbound & SR-79 South 0.66 B 0.82 D 24. Pechan a Parkway&SR-79 South 0.75 C 0.77 C 25. Redllawk Mar arita Road & SR-79 South 0.72 C 0.76 C ' 26. Butterfield Stage Road & SR-79 South 0.78 C 0.80 C 27.Jefferson Avenue & French Valley Parkway 0.72 C 0.86 D 28. 1-15 Southbound & French Valley Parkway 0.73 C 0.69 B ' 29. 1-15 Northbound & French Valley Parkway 0.54 A 0.45 A 30. Ynez Road & French Valley Parkway 0.74 C 0.72 C 31. Winchester Road & Murrietta Hot Springs Road 0.65 B 0.88 32. Butterfield Stage Rd. & Murrietta Hot Springs Rd. 0.55 A 0.56 A 33. 1-15 Southbound & Southern B ass Anza Road 0.89 D 0.72 C 34. 1-15 Northbound & Southern B ass Anza Road 0.69 B 0.76 C ' ' Exceeds performance criteria - Source: Austin-Foust Associates, November 2004. 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.13-I6 , Transportation ' Table 5.13-8 shows future year peak hour volumes and V/C ratios for the freeway interchange ' ramps within the Planning Area. Table 5.13-8 Future 1-15 Peak-Hour Ramp Summary A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour location Capacity Volume V C Volume V C ' Northbound ON French Valley Pkw . Direct 1,500 150 0.10 1,010 0.32 French Valley Pk . Loop 1,500 210 0.14 1,400 0.75 Winchester Road.Direct 1,500 1,010 0.67 1,660 1.03' Winchester Road Loop 1,500 660 0.44 1,700 1.07' Rancho California Rd. Direct 1,500 1,210 0.81 1,870 0.99 Rancho California Rd. Loop 1,500 520 0.35 1,160 0.55, ' SR-79 South 1,500 1,770 1.18' 1 850 0.95 Southern B ass AnzaR 0.19 1,050 037 Sudotal 12,000 5,820 0.49 11,7001 0.76 Southbound ON r French ValleyPk . Direct 1,500 101 0.01 1801 0.35 French Valley Pkvvy. Loop 1,500 720 0.48 580 0.39 ' Winchester Road Direct 1,500 180 0.12 �220 0.07 Winchester Road Loop 1,500 870 0.58 530 0.35 7--; Rancho California Road 1,500 .820 0.55 700 0.47 {,-_- Old Town'Front Street 1,500 1,040 0.69 1,350 0.59 ' Southern B ass Anza Rd. 1,500 1,760 1 17" 1,450 0.73 Subtotal WHO 5,400 0.51 5,010 0.42 . Total ON 22,500 11,220 0.50 16,710 0.60 Northbound OFF -- ' French Valley Parkway 1,500 660 0.44 270 0.22 Winchester,Road 1,500 660 0.44 1,150 1.15* ' Rancho California Road 1,500 890 0.59 1,220 0.79 SR-79 South 1,500 430 0.29 11090 0.75 Southern B ass Anza Rd. 1;500 860 0.57 1,410 0.89 Subtotal 7,500 3,500 0.47 5,140 0.76 ' Southbound OFF French Valley Parkway 1,500 2,230 1.49` 1,160 0.55 Winchester Road 1,500 2,780 1.85' 2 570 1.53' Rancho California Road 1,500 2,650 1.77" 2,610 1.62` ' Old Town Front Street 1,500 480 0.32 1,540 0.98 Soutern B ass Anza Rd. 1,500 1,000 0.67 730 0.37 Subtotal 7,500 9,140 1.22' 8,610 1.01 Total OFF 15,000 12,640 0.84 13,750 0.88 Exceeds performance criteria Source: Austin-Foust.Associates, November 2004. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 5.13-17 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1 Transportation As discussed in Existing Traffic Conditions, the SR-79 northbound on-ramp, Winchester Road southbound off-ramp, and Rancho California Road southbound off-ramp are all currently operating at a deficient LOS F condition. As shown in Table 5.13-8, these ramps will continue to operate at t LOS F in 2025. Long-range implementation of the General Plan does not create a new LOS F condition at these ramps. Impact to these ramps is therefore less than significant. However, as shown in Table 5.13-8, long-range implementation of the General Plan will create new deficiencies at the following six freeway ramps: • Winchester Road Direct northbound on-ramp - LOS F at P.M. peak hour ' • Winchester Road Loop northbound on-ramp - LOS F P.M. peak hour • Southern Bypass/Anza Road southbound on-ramp - LOS F at A.M. peak hour • Winchester Road northbound off-ramp - LOS F at A.M. peak hour • French Valley Parkway southbound off-ramp - LOS F at A.M. peak hour • Winchester Road southbound off-ramp - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hours ' Impact will be significant at these freeway ramps. Mitigation measures are required to reduce the level of impact. ' Gradually shifting the reliance of Temecula residents and employees from the private automobile to public transit would assist in reducing, but would not eliminate, these long-range impacts. The City of Temecula coordinates with RTA to develop future transit schedules and routes in Temecula, and , provides important transit support facilities, including park-and-ride lots and bus shelters. These ongoing actions are supported and expanded upon within the Circulation Element by policies directing the City to coordinate with public and private transit operators to provide fixed route , transit service connecting major activity centers; to coordinate with WRCOG to identify, protect, and pursue opportunities for light rail or high speed regional rail transit serving Temecula; to identify and reserve necessary rights-of-way for future regional transit facilities; and to encourage ' development of transit support facilities, such as park-and-ride lots, near the 1-15 Freeway and within Mixed Use Overlay Areas established in the Land Use Element (See Appendix F). Long-term implementation of these policies is a key priority established by the City within the proposed ' General Plan update. Mitigation Measures , The Roadway Plan in the General Plan Circulation Element will help manage automobile, transit, and truck Flow on the City's street system to accommodate new development anticipated within the , proposed General Plan Land Use Element. In addition to implementation of the Roadway Plan, the following mitigation measures are required to reduce significant impacts to three intersections and six freeway ramps: ' T-1. The City will: 1) prioritize, secure funding, design, and build new roadways and complete roadway improvements using the established Capital Improvement Plan process to , implement the circulation system shown on the proposed Roadway Plan concurrent with land development; and 2) require that new roadways meet roadway classification design specifications and performance criteria established in the proposed Circulation Element. ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.13-18 ' Transportation Table 5.13-9 summarizes new roadways and arterial widening projects required to implement the proposed Roadway Plan"(General Plan Implementation Program C-1). ' T-2 The City will monitor the performance of Principal Intersections on an ongoing basis and ensure that Principal Intersections approaching Level of Service D are prioritized for ' improvement within the City's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (General Plan Implementation Program C-3). ' T-3. The City will: 1) continue to update the Capital Improvement Plan on an annual basis to plan for and fund future improvements to the roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle systems; 2) identify available funding sources and establish a financing plan to guide construction and ' funding of transportation system improvements, and 3) require new development projects to construct and/or fund in whole or in part necessary traffic improvements associated with the proposed project, through the assessment and collection of traffic impact fees. Such improvements should address both automotive, as well as alternative means of transportation (General Plan Implementation Program C-5). T-4. The City will require additional dedication of right-of-way on all approaches to Principal Intersections. Such right-of-way shall be preserved for future intersection improvements that may be required at these intersections, such as full width auxiliary turn lanes and/or dual-left turn lanes (General Plan Implementation Program C-4). T-5. The City will implement the following procedures and requirements to minimize impacts of _„- proposed development projects on the City's circulation system, and to encourage increased use of alternative transportation:, Z • Evaluate development proposals for potential impacts to the transportation and ' infrastructure system. • Require *mitigation in the form of physical improvements and/or impact fees for significant impacts prior to or concurrent with project development. ' • Require dedication of adequate right-of-way along new roadways to permit pedestrian and bicycle facilities. • Update every three years, or as needed, buildout traffic forecasts to monitor the impact ' of development approvals and the adequacy of the Roadway Plan, and monitor the capacity and performance of Principal Intersections identified in Table 5.13-7. • Require new development to incorporate design features that facilitate transit service and encourage transit ridership, such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop facilities, efficient trail systems through projects to transit stops, installation of bike lanes, bikeways, and bicycle parking, and incorporation of pedestrian walkways that pass through subdivision boundary walls, as appropriate. • Require new specific plans, village centers, and projects within Mixed Use Overlay Areas to provide an internal system of pathways and trails. Trails should link schools, shopping centers, transit, and other public facilities in residential areas. ' • Require transportation demand management plans to be submitted for preliminary review at the Specific Plan or Development Plan stage of site development and submitted for final approval prior to issuance of building permits (General Plan Implementation Program C-6). 'The improvements described in Table 5.13.9 respond to the likely future operating conditions of the roadway network. ' Details regarding the configuration of proposed improvements represent the best options available based on current information. Actual improvements,particularly those at intersections,will be established through engineering design.- CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' i13-19 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Transportation Table 5.13-9 Roadway Improvements Required to Mitigate Long-Term Impacts Segment Improvement Classification I.Arterials(City of Temecula) New Roadways or Extensions(City) Anza Road Via Pascal to Rainbow Canyon New 4-lane arterial Major Anza Road Rainbow Canyon to 1-15 New Wane arterial Principal Anza Road Extension SR-79 South to Santa Rita Road Northward extension as 24ane roadway Rural Butterfield Stage Road Chemin Clinet to Auld Road New 4-lane arterial Major Butterfield Stage Road Nighthawk to Anza Road Southward extension as 44ane roadway Secondary Calle Cha os Walcott to Butterfield Stage Eastward extension as 2-lane roadway Collector De Portola Extension Butterfield Stage Road to Via Sabino Eastward extension as 4-1ane roadway Major El Chimisal Crestview to Via Pascal Southward extension as 2-lane roadway Collector French Valley Parkway Diaz Road to Via Industria New 44ane arterial Secondary French Valley Parkway Jefferson to Murreta Hot Springs New 6-lane arterial Principal Loma Linda Extension Via Rio Temecula to Loma Linda Southward extension as 4-lane roadway Secondary Morgan Hill Drive El Chimisal to Anza Road New 44ane arterial Secondary Murrieta Hot Springs Road Calislo a Drive to Butterfield Stage Road New 4-lane arterial Major Overland extension Commerce Center to Diaz Street Westward extension as 4-lane roadway Secondary Rancho Drive Extension Margarita Road to Diaz Street Westward extension as 44ane roadway Secondary Santiago Road John Warner Road to Avd de San Pas ual Eastward extension as 44ane roadway Modified Secondary Southern Bypass Avd Alvarado to Old Town Front Street New 44ane arterial Ma or Unnamed Street#1 bisects Wolf Valle Road North of Wolf Valley to South of Wolf Valley New 2-lane arterial Collector Ynez Road North of Winchester to French Valley Parkway Northward extension as 4-lane roadway Ma or Parallel Winchester Road#1 Auld Road to Hunter Road New 4-lane arterial Secondary Parallel Road#2 Auld Road to Benton Road New 2-lane arterial Collector Roadway Widenin s(City) Butterfield Stage Road Rancho California to Rancho Vista Widen to 4-lanes Major Diaz Road Dendy Parkway to Zevo Drive Widen to 4-lanes Major Diaz Road Winchester SR-79 North to Rancho California Widen to 44anes Major La Paz Roadway SR-79 South to Ynez Road Widen to 4-lanes Secondary La Serena Way Margarita Road to Walcott Lane Widen to 4-lanes Secondary Margarita Road Pauba to Jedediah Smith Widen to 44anes Major Margarita Road Solana Way to Avd Cima del Sol Widen to(-lanes Principal Margarita Road Pio Pico Road to SR-79 South Widen to 4-lanes Ma or Meadows Parkway La Serena to Rancho California Widen to 4-1anes Major Mora a Road Margarita Road to Rancho California Widen to 44anes Secondary Overland Drive Jefferson Avenue to Commerce Center Widen to 44anes Secondary Overland Trail Margarita Road/Re hawk to Vail Ranch Parkway Widen to 44anes Secondary Pechan a Parkway Via Gilberto to South City Limits Widen to 4-lanes Major Pechan a Parkway SR-79 South to Via Gilberto Widen to 6-lanes Principal Pauba Road Ynez to Via Deanda Widen to 4-lanes Secondary Pauba Road Butterfield Stage to East City Limits Widen to 4-lanes Limited Secondary ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.t 3.20 Transportation- Table 5.13-9 Roadway Improvements Required to Mitigate Long-Term Impacts: Segment lm rovement Classification I.Arterials(City of Temecula cont - - " Roadway Widenin s(City) cont -Peppercorn Drive Redhawk Parkway to Deer Hollow Widen to 4-lanes Secondary Rainbow Canyon - Pechan a-Parkway to South City Limits Widen to 4-lanes Secondary Rancho California - Business Park to Old Front Street Widen to 6-lanes -Major Rancho California East of Meadows Parkway to Butterfield Stage Widen to 4-lanes Major Rancho California East of Ynez to Margarita - - Widen to 6-1anes Principal Rancho California Old Front Street to Ynez Road - Widen to 8-lanes Urban- Rancho Vista Road Meadows Parkway to Butterfield Stage Road Widen to 4-lanes - - Secondary - SR-79 South 1-15 to Pechan a Parkway .Widen to 8-lanes Urban Santiago Road- Old Town Front Street to Ormsby Road Widen to 4-lanes - Secondary Winchester SR-79 NorthJefferson to.Hunter Road Widen to 8-lanes Urban Winchester SR-79 North Calle Patron to Diaz Road Widen to 4-lanes- " Secondary Ynez Road De Portola Rancho Vista to Pauba Road - Widen to 4-lanes - - Major Ynez Road De Portola Rancho Vista to Rancho California Widen to 6-1anes Principal - Ynez Road De Portola Pauba Road to Santiago Road Widen to 4-lanes - Secondary Ynez Road De Portola Santiago Road to Margarita Road Widen to 4-lanes Modified Secondary Ynez Road De Portola Margarita Road to Meadows Pkvvy Widen to 4-lanes Major 11.Arterials SOI - - - _ New Roadways or Extensions Sol " Anza Road Vino Way to Buck Road - Northward 2-lane connection - Rural Bore]Road Sky Canyon Drive to Pourroy Road New 4-lane arterial Secondary Jean Nicholas Road Winchester SR-79 North to Pourroy Road New 4-lane arterial Secondary Leon Road Thompson Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road - New 4-lane arterial Major Pourroy Road Auld Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road New 4-lane arterial Major Pourro Road .Auld Road to Winchester SR-79 North New 4-lane.arterial ' Secondary Thompson Road Leon to Washington Street - New 4-lane arterial Secondary Unnamed Street N4 - Abelia Road to Thompson Road New 4-lane arterial Secondary Abelia Road Winchester SR-79 North to Washington Street New 4-lane arterial Secondary Roadway Widenin s (SO/)- Auld Road Winchester SR-79 North to Pourroy Road - Widen to 4-lanes Secondary Auld Road - Pourro Road to Washington Street Widen to 4-lanes - Major Benton Road Leon Road to Washington Street - Widen to 4-lanes Major Benton Road - Winchester SR-79 North to Leon Road Widen to 6-lanes Principal Borel Road Winchester SR-79 North to Sky Canyon Road Widen to 4-lanes Major - Murrieta Hot Springs Road Winchester 5R.79 North to Calisto a Drive Widen to 4-lanes Major III. Intersections French Valley Parkwa interchan a Construct new interchan e Anza Road interchange Construct new interchan e CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - 5.13-21 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Transportation ' T-6. The City will: 1) identify local streets that are currently closed that may benefit citywide circulation if the street was re-opened or construction of the street was completed; 2) ' assess the feasibility of opening previously closed streets or completing construction of local connecting streets that benefit citywide circulation on a case-by-case basis, providing ample opportunity for both neighborhood residents and the community at-large to comment on such proposals, and 3) establish a review process for the future closing of any local street ' that requires City Council determination that the closure does not have an adverse affect on citywide circulation (General Plan Implementation Program C-7). T-7. The City will: 1) continue to work with WRCOG, SCAG and others to advocate future ' commuter or high speed rail service connecting Temecula to Los Angeles, Riverside and San Diego; 2) ensure that any future commuter rail corridor serving Temecula is located on the ' west side of 1-15 to reduce noise impacts on residential areas; and 3) require new commercial, industrial, or mixed use development in areas surrounding proposed stations to include transit-oriented design amenities (General Plan Implementation Program C-12). ' T-t3. The City will promote the use of alternative work weeks, Flextime, telecommuting, and work- at-home programs among employers in Temecula, and continue to enforce provisions of the ' City's Trip Reduction Program Ordinance, including requirements for preparation of Trip Reduction Plans (TRPs) for qualifying development projects and employers (General Plan Implementation Program C-13). T-9. The City will implement the adopted Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan to complete ' design and construction of a comprehensive alternative transportation network, promote safe use of the trail system, and ensure accessibility of pedestrian facilities to the elderly and ' disabled (General Plan Implementation Program C-15). T-10. The City will continue to improve transit service and encourage ridership through the , following actions: • Require transit facilities in major new development and rehabilitation projects. ' • Coordinate with providers to get more frequent service and broader transit coverage serving employment, shopping, educational, recreational, and residential areas. • Work with providers to identify and receive additional funding sources for additional , transit services. The City will also collaborate with providers to identify needs and provide special transit , services beyond fixed-route buses. Potential services include, but are not limited to: • Subscription or dial-a-ride service for lower density residential areas , • Offering limited transit service between outlying residential areas and the City's commercial/employment core ■ Shuttle or trolley service between Old Town and other destinations along the 1-15 commercial corridor, and expanded service to other areas, including the wineries along , Rancho California Road, as opportunities arise • Providing bicycle carrying racks on buses (General Plan Implementation Program C-16) T-11. The City will encourage carpooling and use of public transportation in Temecula through 1 the following measures: 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.13-22 Transportation _ 1 1 • Develop and promote park and ride and Transit Oasis facilities within the City. • Encourage preferred parking for ride sharing and low emission vehicles (General Plan Implementation Program C-18). ' Level of Impact after Mitigation ' Even with implementation of mitigation measures, significantly impacted intersections and freeway ramps cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. These facilities include: ' • Ynez Road and Winchester Road (P.M. peak hour) • Ynez Road and Solana Way (P.m. peak hour) • Ynez'Road and Rancho California Road (P.m. peak hour) ' a Winchester Road Direct north bound_on-ramp (P.M. peak hour) • Winchester Road Loop northbound on-ramp (P.m. peak hour) • Southern Bypass/Anza Road southbound on-ramp (A.M.peak hour) ' Winchester Road northbound off-ramp (P.m.-peak hour) • French Valley Parkway southbound off-ramp (A.M. peak hour) - Winchester'Road southbound off-ramp(A.m. and,P_rn. peak hour) .. ' Impact is significant and unavoidable. • xt� 1 1 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.13-23 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Transportation. ' .. 1 1 1 1 This page is intentionally left blank. ' . 1 1 EN'IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.13-24 ' 5. 14 Utilities and Service Systems This section examines whether implementation of the General Plan will require the construction of new water supply, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage facilities, exceed the projected water supply, or generate substantial refuse volumes that cannot be accommodated by current or ' planned landfills. Water Supply Environmental Setting 1 Temecula is served by two water companies: the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Figure 5.8-1 in 5ection 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality identifies the service areas for both districts within the Temecula Planning Area. RCWD's service area encompasses,almost 100,000 acres. RCWD provides retail water supply for a variety of agricultural, industrial, and residential uses in the City, portions of the City of Murrieta, and unincorporated Riverside County. RCWD's water supplies are derived from water from local groundwater sources and imported water from Metropolitan Water. District (Metropolitan). The Temecula and Pauba aquifers underlying the region represent significant groundwater sources. RCWD currently has 52 wells producing potable water from these aquifers. It also imports 77 million gallons per day of treated water from Metropolitan, has an artificial recharge/recovery ' project, and.operates a recycled water'system.' Present and future projected water supply sources are listed in Table 5.14-1. ' Table 5.14-1 Rancho California Water District Water-Sources (Acre-Feet per Year) ' Source. Present 2000 Future 2020 Groundwater 27,400 29;500 ' Imported Treated Water 20,600 62,000 Recharged Groundwater 13,100 11,600 Recycled Water 2,700 9,700 ' Imported Raw Water n/a 4,000 Total 63,800 116,800 ' Source: Rancho California Water District, 2000 Urban Water - Management Plan. Historically, demand for water in the Temecula Valley has primarily been from agricultural users. ' Demand for water is now almost evenly divided between residential and agricultural uses. In 2000, ' Rancho California Water District. RCWD 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. December, 2000. 1 CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 5.14-1 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Utilities and Service Systems domestic water consumption was 21,545 acre-feet (af), with an estimated population of 82,000 ' persons within RCWD's service area. Thus, RCWD assumes an average water consumption rate of ' 234 gallons per day (gpd) per capita.' The EMWD was formed in 1950 and annexed to Metropolitan in 1951. EMWD serves a 555-square- mile area including six incorporated cities and unincorporated portions of Riverside County, including ' French Valley. EMWD utilizes a variety of water supplies to meet the needs of its customers. Current supplies include imported water purchased from Metropolitan, locally produced groundwater, and recycled water produced by five regional water reclamation facilities. The majority of groundwater supply is produced from groundwater subbasins in the Hemet/San Jacinto area. Slightly over 3,000 of per year are produced from the Perris and Perris South subbasins and blended with imported water for use in the western portions of EMWD's service area.' The current and projected, water ' supplies for EMWD through 2020 are shown in Table 5.142. Table 5.14-2 ' Eastern Municipal Water District Current and Projected Water Supplies (Acre-Feet per Year) Source Present 2000 Future 2020 ' Purchased Water 67390 11,012 Groundwater 17,218 17,280 Transfers N/A 4500 ' Recycled Water 25,000 39,000 Desalination N/A 12,000 Total 109,608 182,792 ' Source: Eastern Municipal Water District,2000 Urban Water Management'Plan. In 2000, EMWD water use by EMWD customers totaled approximately 84,608 af, of which 63,463 ' of were consumed by domestic nonagricultural users. With an estimated service area population of 438,345 persons in 2000, water consumption is estimated to be 129 gpd per person.' ' In accordance with the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act, the City requires that all landscape designs facilitate the implementation of landscape maintenance practices which foster long-term conservation. All development proposals must include landscaping and irrigation plans that comply ' with the water purveyor's water-efficient landscaping requirements.' Thresholds Used to Determine Level of Impact , A significant impact will result if long-term implementation of the General Plan will result in demand for water that exceeds planned future supply. ' 1 'Ibid. , I Eastern Municipal Water District. EMWD 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. December 31, 2000. 4 Ibid. City of Temecula Municipal Code. Chapter 17.32-Water-Efficient Landscape Design. , ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.14-2 ' Utilities and Service Systems ' Environmental Impact ' General Plan implementation will over the long term, result in new residential and non-residential development that will demand additional domestic water. RCWD's planned water supplies include groundwater, imported treated and raw water from Metropolitan, and recycled water.6 Table 5.14 ' 1 shows the District's planned water resources in 2020. RCWD anticipates supplying water to 167,460 persons within its service area in 2020. Projected future demand for water within the district in 2020 is estimated to be 116,800 of/yr, of which 55,991 of/yr will be consumed by ' domestic users.' The General Plan assumes a year 2025 population of 169,184 within the Planning Area, a portion of which will be served by RCWD. The RCWD 2000 Urban Water Management Plan estimates that total system per capita domestic water use averages 234 gpd, therefore, users within ' the Planning Area will have a total demand of 44,350 of/yr, a portion of which will be served by RCWD. Buildout of the General Plan will not result in demand for water service that exceeds RCWD's planned future supply in 2020. Impact on the RCWD's ability to provide water will be less than significant. However, increased demand by agriculture and other water users within RCWD's service area could lead to an impact on future water supply. Therefore, mitigation measures are recommended that direct the City to assist RCWD in planning for future water supplies, to promote water conservation programs, and to maximize City use of recycled water. . To meet increased customer service demand through 2020, EMWD plans to bolster water supplies by desalinating brackish groundwater and expanding groundwater recharge programs. These planned programs, in conjunction with continued expansion of the District's water recycling program, will provide a high degree-of supply flexibility to meet the growing demand for water within the district's service area'. Table 5.14-2 shows the District's planned water supplies through 2020. EMWD anticipates supplying water to 756,699 persons within its service area in 2020. Projected future demand for water is estimated to be 105,421 of/yr of water, excluding agricultural uses' The General Plan assumes a year 2025 population of 169,184 within the Planning Area, a ' portion of which will be served by EMWD. The EMWD 2000 Urban Water Management Plan estimates that total system per capita domestic water use averages 1,23 gpd; therefore, users within the Planning Area will have a total demand of 24,736 of/yr, a portion of which will be served by ' EMWD. Buildout of the General Plan will not result in demand for water service that exceeds EMWD's planned future supply. Impact on EMWD's ability to provide water will be less than significant. However, increased demand by other water users in the district's service area could ' lead to an impact on future water supply. Therefore, mitigation measures are recommended that direct the City to assist EMWD in planning for future water supplies, to promote water conservation programs, and to maximize City use of recycled water. Mitigation Measures ' The following mitigation measures will reduce future demand for water within the Planning Area: USS-1. The City shall assist the Rancho California and Eastern Municipal Water Districts in the process of updating their urban water management plans to be responsive to the population Rancho California Water District. RCWD 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. .December,2000. 'Ibid. ° Eastern Municipal Water District EMWD 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. December 31,2000. 'Ibid. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT • 5.14.3 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Utilities and Service Systems ' and housing unit capacities-established by the General Plan (General Plan Implementation ' Program GM-8). USS-2. The .City shall 'review the adopted Uniform Building Code and require new, development ' projects to include water conservation features to reduce consumption, including, but not limited to: use of reduced-flow plumbing fixtures, low-flow toilets, drip irrigation systems and ' xeriscape landscaping (General Plan Implementation Program OS-4). USS-3. The City shall ensure that discretionary projects implementing the General Plan (zone ' changes, land divisions, and conditional use permits) comply with California Water Code Section 10910, requiring the preparation of a water supply assessment indicating that a long-term water supply for a 20-year time frame is available. Written acknowledgement that ' water will be provided by a community or public water system with an adopted urban water management plan that includes consideration of the project's water consumption and supply. shall constitute compliance with this requirement ,(General Plan Implementation , Program OS-37). USS-4. The City shall: 1) require drought-tolerant landscaping .in new development projects; 2) ' where feasible, incorporate reclaimed water systems into landscape' irrigation plans; 3) prepare and adopt a recycled water ordinance in accordance with the requirements of Senate Bill 2095, Water Recycling in Landscaping Act; and 4) convert existing City of ' -Temecula non-domestic water uses, to recycled water use in accordance with Sections . .13550-13556 of the State Water Code (General Plan Implementation Program OS-7). Level of Impact after Mitigation ' Implementation of Mitigation Measures USS-1 through'USS-4 will reduce water supply impact to a , less,than significant level. Wastewater ' Environmental Setting , Wastewater treatment services within the Planning Area are provided by EMWD under regulations , enforced by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board., EMWD's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility serves Temecula, and portions of the city of Murrieta. The facility has .capacity to treat 12 million of gallons per day(mgd)of wastewater and to store an additional 25.million ' gallons.on site. Because the Temecula facility is the smallest of EMWD's five reclamation plants, some wastewater is pumped from the Temecula facility ten miles north to a 450-million-gallon storage facility in Winchester.1' Based on a conservative factor of 90 percent of water used becoming wastewater, , approximately 10.8 mgd of wastewater were produced within the Planning Area in 2002. 10 Eastern Municipal Water District. Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Located at , littp://www.emwd.org/news/insightsAnsights temecula od. November 8,2004. ' EM'IRONWNTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.14.4 ' ' Utilities and Service Systems ' Threshold Used to Determine Level of Impact ' A significant impact will occur if long-term implementation of the General Plan will result in demand for wastewater service that exceeds planned future capacity. ' Environmental Impact ' Implementation of the General Plan will result in up to 77,504 net new residents, 25,005 net new dwelling units and 36.2 million net new square feet of non-residential construction over the 20-year horizon of the General Plan within the Planning Area. The increase in population and development will require additional wastewater treatment capabilities. EMWD uses generation factors of 100 ' gallons per day per person for residential development and 3,000 gallons per day per acre of commercial development to estimate sewage generation. Residential development will be the major generator of wastewater, with a maximum additional population of 77,504 persons generating an additional 7.8 mgd. New commercial projects within the Planning Area constructed pursuant to the General Plan will result in development of up to an additional 932 acres and will generate approximately 2.8 mgd. Combined with existing wastewater generation within the Planning Area (10.8 mgd), future wastewater generation under the proposed General Plan will be approximately 21.4 mgd. The ultimate planned expansion of EMWD's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility is projected provide a capacity of 54 mgd." Estimated future wastewater treatment demand required to support the project is within the existing capacity of District facilities currently serving Temecula, and represents less than 40 percent of the capacity of the planned expansion of the Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Impact will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures ' Impact will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. ' Level of Impact after Mitigation Impact is less than significant. Stormwater Drainage ' Environmental Setting ' The City's Department of Public Works Maintenance Division is responsible for the maintenance of storm drains and sewers, including pumping stations and catch basins.12 The City does not maintain a master drainage plan or a system to assess drainage fees. New developments are required to build the ' appropriate infrastructure to connect to the City's storm drain system. The City's Stormwater drainage ' Ibid. "City of Temecula website. "Maintenance Division." Located at http://"A .ciNpftemecula.or¢/citvhall/pub works/maintenance.htm. November 10, 2004. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 5.14.5 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Utilities and Service Systems ' infrastructure consists of underground systems and a channel system and is designed to handle a 100 ' year flood storm event. As described in Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water ' Quality, regional flood control facilities, including major channels and storm drains, are under the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD). In ' most cases, RCFCWCD does not maintain storm drain inlets or pipes less than 42 inches in diameter. The RCFCWCD is also responsible for construction of new facilities called for in its adopted Master Drainage Plan. The Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan, implemented by the ' RFCWCD, requires collection of drainage fees for developments. Fee revenues are used to support infrastructure improvements and expansion within the City of Temecula. Murrieta Creek presents some flood control concerns even though it has been channelized (in part) ' and improved for flood control since the 1930s. Flooding problems in the Murrieta Creek watershed are common and related to inadequate capacity of the existing drainage network, , particularly in Old Town. Frequent overtopping of the Murrieta Creek channel by floodwaters in a number of,channel reaches, flood inundation of structures with attendant damages, and other water-related problems are caused during major rainstorms, resulting in increased emergency costs, , automobile damage, and traffic disruption." Threshold Used to Determine Level of Impact ' A significant impact will occur if long-term implementation of the General Plan will require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ' construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Environmental Impact ' Construction of new housing units and commercial and industrial projects throughout the Planning Area, especially on currently undeveloped lots, will increase the amount of impervious surfaces, ' thereby increasing the amount and speed of runoff. Development projects implementing General Plan land use policy will require construction of additional stormwater drainage facilities throughout the Planning Area. ' The RCFCWCD is addressing the flood control within Temecula through an improvement project in progress through a contract with the The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The ACOE is currently working on Phase 1 of the Murrieta Creek Flood Control Environmental Restoration and , Recreation Project, extending downstream from Old Town Temecula.to just short of the 1" Street Bridge. This phase of the ACOE flood control project is addressing the past flooding problems within the channel reaches that affect Temecula through channel improvements such as bank ' enhancements and developing channel capacity to accommodate a 100-year flood. 14 1 " Riverside County Flood Control District. "Murrieta Creek." httD/hvww floodcontrol co riverside ca us/MCdescriution is . October 19, 2004. ' 1d Martinez,Albert,Civil Engineer, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Pets.Comm. November 22, 2004. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA , GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.14.6 ' Utilities and Service Systems 1 To ensure that adequate flood control capacity is available to support new development, all proposed development projects within the Planning Area are reviewed by the District prior to ' approval by the City of Temecula or Riverside County. New development projects are required to provide on-site drainage connecting to the City s' drainage system and to pay area drainage fees of $2,291 per acre of development. Drainage fee revenues from the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage ' Plan are used to support capacity expansion within the local storm drain system.15 In addition, all proposed development projects are reviewed by the RCFCWCD. ' Proposed General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs address the impact to City storm drain facilities. Implementation Program GM-9 directs the City to maintain an effective, safe, and environmentally compatible flood control system through the following actions: ' • Reviewing developer-funded. improvements to determine compatibility with existing and proposed regional, primary and secondary flood control facilities. ' • Identifying and prioritizing areas of-excessive flooding, and 'working with the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to construct appropriate flood control facilities to ensure public safety. Participating in the preparation of.a master drainage plan to establish a basis for funding and construction of primary and secondary flood control facilities: Compliance with existing regulations and,General Plan Implementation Program GM-9 will ensure a less,than significant impact. tVJ ' Mitigation Measures �T Impact will be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Level of Impact after Mitigation. Impact is less than significant. ' Energy ' Environmental Setting Southern California Edison (SCE) supplies electricity,to users in Temecula via both underground and overhead lines. SCE's main substation is located on Mira Loma Drive in Temecula. SCE is a public utility and therefore functions on demand. Natural gas is provided by the Southern California Gas ' Company (Gas Company). Plastic and steel underground lines are located throughout the City. A small number or residents not serviced by the Gas Company utilize bottled propane or butane fuel. "Riverside County Flood Control District. "Area Drainage Fees." October 19, 2004. http://`� wv.floo(tcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/Dowiiloacis/Area Drainage_Plain_Summarv.Ddf. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 5.14.7 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Utilities and Service Systems ' Threshold Used to Determine Level of Impact ' A significant impact will occur if long-range implementation of the General Plan results ill demand ' for energy that exceeds the capacity of existing distribution systems or treatment facilities. Environmental Impact ' General Plan policies establish land capacity to accommodate substantial new development within ' the Planning Area. Implementation of the General Plan creates capacity for up to 25,005 net new housing units and 36.2 million net new square feet of nonresidential development over the next 20 years. Development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in ' increased demand for energy resources. Tables 5.14-5 and 5.14-6 report the anticipated increases in demand for electricity and natural gas. Table 5.14-5 , Estimated Current and Future Electricity Demand Estimated Estimated ' Usage Factor Existing Usage (kwh/month/ Existing Usage Proposed at Buildoul Change Land Use du or ksf) du/ksf mwh month du/ksf mwh month mwh month Single-Family 5,700/du 2,008'du 11.45 3,259 du 18.58 7.13 ' Residential Multi-Family Residential 3,940/du 27,260 du 107.40 49,445 du 194.81 87.41 Commercial 20 sf 11,837 ksf 0.24 18,553 ksf 0.37 0.13 ' Light Industrial and 17/ksf 13,431 ksf 0.23 38,313 ksf 0.65 0.42 Office Community Facilities 8/ksf 11 083 ksf 0.09 16 344 ksf 0.13 0.04 Mixed Use 20 f 3,940/d N/A 0.00 u 1,760 du 6.93 . ' 6.97 2,245 ksf 0.04 TOTAL 29,268 du 119 41 54,464 du 221.51 102.10 36 351 ksf 75,455 ksf Notes:kwh=kilowatt hours; mwh=megawatt hours;du=dwelling units;sf=square feet;ksf=thousand square feet. ' This table does not include open space land use designations. Source of Generation Factors: South Coast Air Quality Management District. The demand for electricity is anticipated to increase by about 102.1 megawatt hours (mwh) per ' month. SCE will construct additional electricity facilities as necessary to meet increased demand. The future energy supply for the Temecula and the state is considered a major task for long-range planning. SCE will need to consider the future generation of electricity with careful consideration of , the anticipated peak usage for their service areas. Individual development projects proposed pursuant to the General Plan will be required to assess project impacts during the environmental review process to ensure that SCE has sufficient electricity supplies to meet demand. Additionally, ' new developments will be required to comply with the current energy performance standards of the California Energy Code, Part 6 of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24).. . 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.14.8 ' Utilities and Service Systems ' Table 5.14-6 Estimated Current and Future Natural Gas Demand ' Usage Estimated Estimated Factor Existing - Usage ' (cf/month/ Existing Usage Proposed at Buildout Change. Land Use du or ks du/ksf mcf month du f mcf month mcf month Single-Family Residential 6 665.0 du 2,008 du 13.38 3,259 du 21.72 8.34 ' Multi-FamilyResidential 4 011.5 du 27,260 du 109.35 49,445 du 198.35 89 ' Commercial 2.9 sf 11 837 ksf 0.03 18,553 ksf 0.05 0.02 Light Industrial and 2.0/ksf 13,431 ksf 0.03 38,313 ksf 0.08 0.05 Office Community Facilities 2.0 ksf 11,083 ksf 0.02 16,344 ksf 0.03 0.01 1 Mixed Use 4,011.5/du N/A 0.00 1,760 du 7.06 707 2.9 ksf 2 245 ksf 0.007 TOTAL 29,268 du 122.81 54,464.du 227.30^ 104.49 36 351 ksf 75 455 ksf ' Notes: cf=cubic feet; du=dwelling unit;sf=square feet; mcf=million cubic feet;ksf=thousand,square feet This table does not include open space land use designations., Source of Generation Factors: South Coast Air Quality Management,District.; The demand for natural gas is anticipated to increase by approximately.104.49 million cubic feet (mcf) per month. The Gas Company will work with the community as new developments are proposed to construct additional natural gas infrastructure as necessary to meet demand. The Gas ? ' Company will need to consider the future gas supply for their service areas with attentive consideration since the majority of gas consumed in California is transported from out of state sources. Individual development projects proposed pursuant to the General Plan will be required to ' assess project.impacts duringahe environmental review process to ensure that the Gas Company -• has sufficient natural gas supplies to meet demand, s ' Proposed.General Plan goals, policies, and'implementation programs address the impact of new development to energy'services. The General Plan emphasizes the efficient development and use of modern technologies that can minimize energy demand and consumption. ' To ensure that future energy supplies are available to support additional development pursuant to the General Plan, mitigation measures are required. With implementation of mitigation, impact on energy supplies will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures . . ' USS-5. The City-shall coordinate with Southern California Edison, the Southern California Gas Company, and other responsible companies to provide for the continued maintenance, ' development, and expansion of electricity and natural gas systems (General Plan Implementation Program GM-11). USS-6. The City shall participate in the formation of regional siting plans and policies for energy facilities (General Plan Implementation Program OS-15). ' USS-7. The City shall coordinate with Southern California Edison and the Southern California Gas Company to jointly determine what new energy options are appropriate as development proceeds (General Plan Implementation Program OS-16). 1 CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.14-9 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Utilities and Service Systems ' USS-8. The City shall implement land use and building controls that require new development to ' comply with the California State Energy Regulation requirements (General Plan Implementation Program OS-1 7). USS-9. The City shall 1) enforce all current residential and commercial California Energy Commission energy conservation standards, 2) encourage public institutions to use high- efficiency heating and cooling systems, advanced lighting systems, and passive solar systems to reduce energy use; and 3) adopt project-related energy conservation guidelines that are ' incorporated within the development approval process to promote and require conservation strategies as development occurs (General Plan Implementation Program CIS- 18). ' Level of Impact after Mitigation Implementation of mitigation measures USS-5 through USS-9 will reduce-impact to a less than t significant level. Solid Waste Environmental Setting ' Temecula currently contracts for solid waste disposal with CR&R, Inc. The City offers residential ' curbside recyclable, greenwaste, and household hazardous waste collection.76 In 2002, Temecula diverted 47 percent of the waste generated within the City from landfills to recycling or composting , programs." The City has provided curbside recycling services since 1991. Curbside recycling is the easiest, most convenient method of recycling. Recyclable materials are picked up and transported to a center in Perris for processing. Garden materials are hauled to a separate facility for composting, and the remaining waste is hauled to the EI Sobrante and Badlands Landfills in ' Riverside County. Temecula adopted a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) in 1993 and continues to use the SRRE to address issues related to solid waste disposal. Temecula's nonrecyclable solid waste is transported to the El Sobrante and Badlands Sanitary 1 Landfills. El Sobrante Landfill began operating in 1986 and has a disposal area of 90 acres. The landfill is authorized to accept as much as 10,000 tons of waste per day; however, the facility ' currently accepts on average 8,000 tons of waste per day on weekdays and about 4,000 tons on Saturdays. At current rates, El Sobrante has approximately one year of capacity left. The landfill has proposed a 405-acre expansion, which could extend landfill capacity to 2035.1 ' Badlands Sanitary , Landfill has a 141-acre disposal area with sufficient capacity through 2010. The landfill has a proposed 851-acre expansion area, which could extend landfill capacity through 2033." 16 City of Temecula. Trash and Recycling Information. Located at ' hi[o://www.citvoftemecula.ore/citvhall/commserv/DeveloomentServices/trash htm. November 5, 2004. ' "California Integrated Waste Management Board. Jurisdiction Profile of the City of Temecula. Located at htto://www.ciwmb.ca.aov/Profiles/luris/iurProfile2.aso7RG=C&IURID-529&IUR=Temecula. November 5, 2004. 1°Riverside County Waste Management Department. Located at httn://www.rivcowm.ore/. November 5, 2004. 19 ibid. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.14-10 , ' - Utilities and Service Systems - 1 A portion of Temecula's waste is also sent to the Commerce Refuse-to-Energy Facility in Los Angeles County, which is operated by the County of Los Angeles Sanitation Districts. The facility has a ' capacity of 1,000 pounds per day." As shown in Table 5.14-7, Temecula currently generates an estimated 451,172 pounds of solid waste per day. ' Table 5.14-7 Estimated Current and Future Solid Waste Generation ' Exiting Solid Increase in Solid Generation Waste Net Waste Factor(Ibs/du Existing Generation Future Increase Generation Land Use or ksQ du/ksf Ibs da du/ksf du/ksf Ibs da ' Single-Family 10/du 2,008 du 20,080 3,259 du 1,251 du 12,510 Residential Residential R ntial 7/du 27,260 du 190,820 49,445 du 22,185 du 155,295 Reside ' ' Commercial,Light Industrial and Office 6/ksf 25,268 ksf 151,608 56,866 ksf 31,598 ksf 189,588 . Public Institutional 8/ksf 11,083 ksf 88,664 16,344 ksf 5,261 ksf 42,088 Facilities Overlay Designation 7 du/6 ksf N/A N/A 1,760 du 1,760 du 12,320 2,245 ksf - 2 245 ksf 13,470 TOTAL 29,268 du - 4S1,172 54,464 du 25,196 du 425,271 ' - 36 351 ksf 75,455 ksf 39,104 ksf Notes:du=dwelling unit,ksf=thousand square feet Table does not include solid waste calculations for Vineyards/Agriculture,Open Space and Tribal Trust Lands. Source:Modified by Cotton/Bridges/Associated from Riverside County Waste Management Department. ' lZ: Threshold Used to Determine Level of Impact rd ' A significant impact will result if long-term implementation of the General Plan generates solid waste in a quantity that exceeds local and/or regional disposal capacity. ' Environmental Impact General Plan policies establish land capacity to accommodate substantial new development within the Planning Area. Implementation of the General Plan creates capacity for up to 25,005 net new housing units and 36.1 million net new square feet of nonresidential development over the next 20 ' years. Development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in increased demand for both solid waste collection and disposal capacity. Table 5.14-7 compares existing solid waste generation to projected solid waste generation at buildout of the General Plan. ' As shown in Table 5.14-7, solid waste generation is anticipated to increase by 425,271 pounds per day, for a total of about 876,443 pounds per day at General Plan buildout. The City currently offers ' a residential recycling program that diverts nearly 50 percent of the solid waste generated. Furthermore, the Riverside County Waste Management Department expects to expand the capacity of both El Sobrante and Badlands Sanitary Landfills. The City will also continue to implement solid waste reduction programs in compliance with Section 40050 et seq. of the California Public ' 30 California Integrated Waste Management Board. Commerce Refuse-to-Energy Facility Facility/Site Details. Located at httu://www.ciwmb.ca.zov/swis/Detaii.aso?PG=DET&SITESCH=19-AA-0506&OLJT=HTML. November 5, 2004. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 5.14.11 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Utilities and Service Systems ' Resources Code. Thus, although implementation of the General Plan will result in new ' development and redevelopment within the Planning Area and related increases in solid waste ' generation,impact will be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure ' USS-10. The City will 1) assist the Riverside County Solid Waste Management Department to implement the County's Solid Waste Management Plan, and when feasible and ' appropriate, assist the County in locating cost effective and environmentally acceptable solid waste sites and facilities; and 2) promote awareness of recycling options for businesses (General Plan Implementation Program GM-10). USS-11. The City will require incorporation of recycling as a condition of approval for all multi-family ' residential, commercial and office projects, and will work with the private sector,contractor providing solid waste services to ensure that appropriate recycling containers; procedures, t and education are readily available (General Plan Implementation Program GM-14). USS-12. The City will investigate the feasibility of composting green waste collected from landscape t and park maintenance (General Plan Implementation Program GM-15). Level of Impact after Mitigation ' Implementation of mitigation measures will reduce impact to a less than significant level. 1 1 1 1 EWRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 5.14-12 I 6. 0 Alternatives to the Project ' The following discussion considers alternatives to the proposed General Plan update, and examines the potential environmental impacts resulting from each alternative. Through comparison of these alternatives to the project, the relative advantage of each can be weighed and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines require that a range of alternatives be addressed, "governed by a rule of reason that requires the EIR set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice" (Section 15126.6[fj). ' The CEQA Guidelines also state that the discussion of alternatives must focus on options capable of either eliminating any significant environmental effects of the proposed project or reducing them to ' a less than significant level; while achieving most of.the major project objectives. According to the analysis presented in the prior sections, adoption of the proposed project will result in unavoidable significant impacts with regard to short-and long-term air quality impacts and transportation impacts to intersections and :freeway ramps. All other impacts will be less than significant or can be ' mitigated to a less than significant level. The following analysis also examines.variations of the General Plan considered during preparation ' of the plan and that may be considered further during the public hearing process. The following project alternatives are examined here: n ' Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 2: Extension of North General Kearney Road from La Colima Road to Nicolas Road Alternative 3: 15 Percent Growth Reduction ' None of the above alternatives involves an alternative location. The goals and policies of the Temecula General Plan are specific to the geographic context of the planning area, which consists ' of properties contained within the City's corporate limits and sphere of influence, as well as portions of unincorporated Riverside County currently outside the City's sphere of influence. Full implementation of the proposed General Plan would achieve the following project objectives from ' the General Plan community vision, outlined in Section 3, Project Description of this EIR: A family-focused lifestyle enjoyed by residents while promoting a strong local business community and agricultural, technological, and manufacturing industries. 1 • The community continues to be a'regional destination for those seeking the desirable atmosphere of the wineries and historic Old Town. ' • A strong business community, quality housing stock, scenic open space, and cultural amenities make Temecula a desirable place for higher education facilities to locate. The local circulation system meets the needs of Temecula residents and businesses while calming traffic in residential neighborhoods and near schools. Within this ' circulation system, pedestrians and cyclists are able to' travel safely and quickly throughout the community and appropriate pedestrian-oriented mixed commercial and office uses are concentrated within village centers. 1 ' CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 6-1 GENERAL PLANUPDATE Alternatives to the Project I • Commercial, office, and light industrial uses locate and thrive in Temecula, providing ' fiscal stability to the City and a revenue source to finance community improvements and open space resources, including cultural art centers, community centers, and ' parks. • Diverse housing options are available to meet the needs of all segments of the ' community while protecting the character and value of single-family neighborhoods. • High quality education is offered and children are provided strong role models and ' training for a successful future. • Properties are well maintained so the community remains an attractive and enjoyable ' place to live, work, and play. The alternatives analyzed in the EIR are general in nature, as is the project. The degree of specificity used in the alternatives analysis is related to the programmatic approach used in the analysis of the t proposed Temecula General Plan. Development across the entire Planning Area is addressed in the alternatives analysis rather than specific development projects. Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d) states, "The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow ' meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project ... If an alternative would cause one or more significant environmental effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail ' than the significant effects of the proposed project (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1981 j 124 Cal.App.3d 1)." No additional alternative was considered and rejected as part of the General Plan process. t Alternative 1 : No Project , The No Project Alternative assumes that the 1993 General Plan remains as the adopted long-range planning policy document for the Planning Area. The No Project Alternative represents conditions t that would exist in the year 2025 if development with the Planning Area and the region continued to grow at the pace permitted in the 1993 General Plan, and if the 1993 General Plan policies were implemented by the year 2025. ' The No Project Alternative, similar to the proposed project, would not have significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, geology and soils, and cultural , resources. Under both the proposed project and the No Project Alternative all new development would be subject to City, State, and federal regulations applicable to these issue areas. Compliance with these existing regulations would result in less than significant levels of impact. Other potential , environmental effects of the No Project Alternative are discussed below. Aesthetics As with the project, the No Project Alternative would result in additional development throughout ' the Planning Area. All future development would result in increased nighttime lighting impacts resulting from streetlights, automobile headlights, security, and outdoor lighting. The 1993 General , Plan includes policies and programs to minimize nighttime lighting to protect the Palomar Observatory and minimize impacts to surrounding uses that are similar to those in the proposed 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY Of TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 62 ' Altematives to the Project General Plan update. Thus, this alternative would have similar aesthetic impacts relative to the proposed project. 1 Agricultural Resources The 1993. General Plan does not designate Rural Preservation Areas described in the Land Use ' Element of the proposed General Plan. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not protect rural areas and vineyards/agricultural lands from conversion to residential uses as effectively as the proposed General Plan. Development of parcels identified within Rural Preservation Areas would proceed in accordance with current underlying zoning designations. The No Project Alternative would therefore result in a greater impact to agricultural resources relative to the project. ' Air Quality Air pollutant emissions are tied to traffic volumes. Under the No Project Alternative, traffic volumes on key roadways throughout the Planning Area will increase, as the No Project Alternative would ' place a similar number of vehicle trips on a roadway network that does not include the intersection improvements and proposed roadway widening projects proposed in the Circulation Element Roadway Plan, nor does it include new policies addressing the need for public transit and increased emphasis on the need for regional rail solutions in Temecula. Increased vehicle trips and increased ' delays at intersections located throughout the Planning Area would increase emissions of PM,,. CO hot spots could also be created at some intersections. Thus, the No Project Alternative would have a greater adverse impact to air quality than the project. Biological Resources The City.of Temecula is a participant in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat ' Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP was ratified in 2003. All new development within the Planning Area under either the proposed project or the No Project Alternative would be expected to comply with the Western Riverside MSHCP. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have an ' similar impact to biological resources relative to the project. Land Use and Planning ' The No Project Alternative would result in development in accordance with existing policies, including the existing General Plan, Development Code, and Redevelopment Plan.. With or without the proposed project, development in the Sphere of Influence and other unincorporated portions of the Planning Area would occur in accordance with Riverside County's Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), the Riverside County Zoning Ordinance, and any Riverside County specific plans applicable within the Planning Area.. With or without the proposed project, all development within the Planning Area would be required to comply with the California Water Code Sections 10910- ' 10915. However, as discussed in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, development pursuant to the SWAP, ' particularly within the French Valley area, will result in significant impacts to traffic, air quality, and resources that will be beyond the City's ability to control. In addition, the 1993 General Plan contains policies and programs to ensure that development within the French Valley Airport area of ' influence does not conflict with the previously adopted French Valley Airport ALUCP, but does not include diagrams, policies and programs responsive to the 2004 update of the ALUCP, which are found in the proposed project. ' The No Project Alternative would not implement the proposed Circulation Element Roadway Plan to improve traffic flow in accordance with the Southern California Association of Governments' 1 CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 6-3 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Alternatives to the Project , (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan. This alternative would not provide for mixed-use , development, which is intended to reduce vehicle trips and intensify development in close proximity to employment centers. In addition, it would allow for a larger population than is ' anticipated by the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would conflict with applicable SCAG plans and policies, as well as with the currently adopted French Valley Airport ALUCP. Impacts to land use and planning would thus be greater , under the No Project Alternative than the proposed project. Noise ' New development will generate additional traffic that will increase noise levels along the roadway network. More development would be expected to occur with the No Project Alternative than with the proposed Project. Thus, the No Project Alternative would have greater noise impacts than the ' proposed Project. Population and Housing ' The 1993 General Plan was intended to accommodate housing, employment, and public services for 193,909 persons within the City and Sphere of Influence, which roughly approximates the Planning Area boundary for the proposed project'. This is approximately 24,725 more persons than ' is expected to result from the proposed General Plan. Therefore, population and housing impacts would be greater with the No Project Alternative than the proposed project. Public Services and Recreation , The No Project Alternative would result in 24,725 more persons than the proposed project. Thus, impacts to public services, including parks and recreational facilities, police and fire services, libraries, and schools would be greater with the No Project Alternative relative to the proposed ' project. Transportation ' According to the traffic analysis described in Section 5.13, Transportation, three intersections (Jefferson Avenue at Winchester Road, Nicolas Road at Winchester Road, and Old Town Front Street at Rancho California Road) do not currently meet the performance standard of level of ' service (LOS) D or better. Three freeway ramps (SR-79 South Northbound On-ramp, Winchester Road Southbound Off-ramp, and Rancho California Road Southbound Off-ramp) do not meet Caltrans' performance standard of LOS E. Under the No Project Alternative, impacts to these ' intersections would not be mitigated through traffic improvements incorporated in the proposed project. Therefore, these intersections would continue to operate below the applicable performance standard with the No Project Alternative. Further, the traffic analysis indicates that a ' 90 percent increase in average daily trips will occur over the 20-year planning horizon based on the average growth rate (see page 5.13-12). As described in Section 5.13, the project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to three intersections and six freeway ramps. Proposed Circulation Element policies direct the City to identify and reserve necessary rights-of-way for future regional transit lines and facilities, and to encourage the provision of regional public transportation services and support facilities, particularly ' near the 1-15 freeway and within Mixed Use Overlay areas (See Appendix F). Focusing a portion of future growth within the identified Mixed Use Overlay Areas would contribute fewer vehicle trips ' City of Temecula. 1993 General Plan Land Use Element,Table 2-3. Page 2.19. The existing General Plan also accounts ' for an additional 30,526 persons within an Environmental Study Area located northwest of the City ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ,CITY OF TEMECUIn ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 6-4 Alternatives to the Project ' relative to comparable developments along the urban periphery. Further, the proposed Circulation ' Element includes numerous roadway improvements that are identified on the Roadway Plan (see Figure 3-3 in Section 3.0, Project Description) and detailed in Table 5.13-9. The proposed roadway improvements are expected to correct existing operational deficiencies and help the City better accommodate existing and anticipated new development throughout the Planning Area. Because the No Project Alternative would provide for more development than the proposed project and the updated Roadway Plan would not be implemented, the No Project alternative would have greater impacts to transportation than the proposed project. Utilities and Service Systems Under the No Project Alternative, buildout would result in a total population of 193,909 persons by ' the year 2025. This would result in 24,725 more persons than anticipated within the proposed project. This additional population will increase demands on water supply, wastewater facilities, solid waste facilities, and energy supplies. Although all new development under the No Project ' Alternative would comply with local, State, and federal requirements, including the City's solid waste reduction ordinance and mandatory water conservation measures, the increase in buildout population associated with the No Project Alternative would result in greater impact to utilities and ' service systems than the proposed project. Conclusion: ' Development under the No Project Alternative would not implement the policies and programs of the proposed General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements. Development would continue ' ' pursuant to the policies of the 1993 General Plan. As a result, the local circulation system would r not meet the needs of Temecula residents and businesses while calming traffic in residential neighborhoods and near schools because the existing transportation system is not sufficient to provide for the efficient flow of traffic throughout the Planning Area. The No Project Alternative does not specifically provide for mixed-use areas, but rather designates numerous "village centers" throughout Temecula, several of which have already developed into other more traditional commercial uses. Therefore, concentrated areas adjacent to 1-15 with an appropriate pedestrian- oriented mix of commercial, office, and residential uses would not result under the No Project Alternative. Further, the No Project Alternative would not establish agricultural preservation areas, the lack of which would hinder the City's objective to be a regional historical and viticultural ' destination. In summary, the No Project Alternative would not meet most of the identified project objectives. 1 Alternative 2: Extension of North General Kearney Road ' from La Colima Road to Nicolas Road This alternative was conceived as a means of reducing environmental impacts of the proposed project by reducing transportation impacts to several roadway segments and intersections in the northwestern portion of the City, In the Meadowview neighborhood, a number of streets originally planned to provide access into and out of the community. are currently closed. The extension of North General Kearney Road from La Colima Road to Nicolas Road would add a roadway connection to an area where intersection levels of service are close to or worse than LOS D. Under 1 CITVOF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 6.5 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Alternatives to the Project this Alternative (hereinafter Alternative 2), all other provisions of the General Plan update would be ' implemented. Year 2025 volumes were forecast for a roadway network with and without the North General ' Kearny connection. Table 6-1 presents the comparative average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. Table 6-2 compares intersection capacity utilization (ICU) for both options. Table 6-1 2025 ADT Comparison Summary —with and without North General Kearny Road Connection ADT Volumes in 1000s , Location Base Case' With Connection Difference Winchester Road south of Nicolas Road 56 49 -7 , Nicolas Road east of Winchester Road 15 12 -3 Margarita Road south of Winchester Road 52 45 -7 Overland Road west of Margarita Road 18 20 +2 General K earnearn east of Margarita Road 5 20 +15 G era: ' en K south of Nicolas Road 1 10 +9 'Base Case is without General Kearny Connection(as per proposed Highway Plan) Source: Austin-Foust Associates, November 2004. ' Table 6-2 2025 ICU Comparison Summary —with and without North General Kearny Road Connection Base Case' With Connection Intersection AM PM AM PM 5. Ynez Road &Winchester Road 0.69 0.97 0.67 0.95 ' 6. Margarita Road &Winchester Rd. 0.73 0.90 0.72 0.86 7. Winchester Road & Nicolas Road 0.83 0.84 0.68 0.81 'Base Case is without General Kearny Connection(as per proposed Highway Plan) ' Source: Austin-Foust Associates,November 2004. Transportation The City's standard of LOS D will be exceeded at three intersections in the year 2025 due to the proposed project: Ynez Road and Winchester Road, Ynez Road and Solana Way, and Ynez Road and Rancho California Road. The intersection of Ynez Road and Winchester Road is in the vicinity of the North General Kearny Road extension. , Since the proposed Land Use Policy map does not differ between the proposed project and Alternative 2, Alternative 2 would not reduce overall trip generation in the Planning Area. As shown ' in Table 6-1, under Alternative 2, ADT volumes would decrease on three roadway segments (Winchester Road south of Nicolas Road, Nicolas Road east of Winchester Road, and Margarita Road south of Winchester Road), and traffic would be redirected to three other roadway segments (Overland Road west of Margarita Road, General Kearney Road east of Margarita Road, and General Kearney Road south of Nicolas Road) with a lower base case ADT. Table 6-2 shows peak A.M. and P.M. ICU both for the base case and with the extension at the three closest study intersections to the North General Kearny Road extension. While all three intersections would be expected to decrease ICU under Alternative 2, study intersection #5 (Ynez Road and Winchester EWRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECUTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 6.6 1 Alternatives to the Project ' Road) would remain deficient and would operate at LOS E during the P.M. peak hour. Thus, impacts to transportation would be similar with Alternative 2 relative to the proposed project. Air Quality Air quality impacts are typically most closely tied to traffic_ volumes. Because no change is ' proposed to the Land Use Policy Map, the trip generation for Alternative 2 would remain the same as for the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, as a result of increased vehicle trips and increased delays at intersections located throughout the Planning Area, air pollutant emissions of PM,o would be expected to increase in excess of the SCAQMD threshold of significance. More efficient functioning of the intersections surrounding the proposed extension may lead to reduced idling times and lower emissions in the localized area. However, this impact reduction cannot be reliably predicted. Therefore, air quality impacts must be considered similar compared to those of the proposed project. ' Other Environmental Effects Alternative 2 would have comparable environmental impacts to all other issue areas as the proposed project because all other provisions of the proposed project would be implemented. Conclusion: ' During the preparation of the General Plan, the public expressed an interest to keep a number of streets in the Meadowview area closed to through traffic. The extension of North General Kearney Road from La Colima Road to Nicolas Road was thus not included on, the Circulation Element Roadway Plan. Alternative 2 would add the extension of North General Kearney Road to the ' Roadway Plan, and would slightly improve the.-.operating conditions of surrounding roadway segments and intersections. Alternative 2 would not, however, achieve the project objective of creating a local circulation system that meets the needs of Temecula residents and businesses while calming traffic in the residential neighborhoods of the Meadowview area. ' Alternative 3: 15 Percent Growth Reduction This alternative was conceived as a means .of reducing environmental impacts of the proposed Project by reducing development capacity within-the Planning.Area to levels comparable with projections published by,the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). As discussed in Section 5.11, Population and Housing, Temecula has a 2004 total population of 77,460 persons.' In the year 2025, SCAG projects a population of 96,967 persons within Temecula's corporate boundaries.' These forecasts do not include areas within the sphere of ' influence or other non-incorporated parts of the Planning Area. The population growth rate between 2005 and 2025 estimated by SCAG is 2.9 percent per year for Riverside County. Therefore, under this Alternative (hereinafter Alternative 3), the City would adopt the proposed General Plan, but modifications would be made to the proposed Land Use Element and map and the Circulation Element Roadway Plan such that net new residential development would be =State Department of Finance. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates,2004, Revised 2001.2003, with 2000 DRU Benchmark. May 2004. ' Southern California Association of Governments. Regional Transportation Plan Population Forecasts. May 2004. Located at htto,/hvwwscae.ca.Rov/forecast/downloads/2004G1.xI5. 1 ' CITY OF TEMECUTA EWRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 6.7 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Alternatives to the Project reduced by 15 percent across the board compared to the proposed project. This would result in a ' total population of approximately 96,407 persons living in 31,141 housing units within the current , City limits, and a total of 143,806 persons living in 46,484 housing units within the Planning Area in the year 2025. These figures are more comparable to the adopted SCAG 2025 forecasts for Temecula than the proposed project. All other goals and policies of the proposed Project would remain the same, including the establishment of Mixed Use Overlay Areas, Rural Preservation ' Areas, and the French Valley Future Growth Area, as well as the introduction of the Vineyards/Agriculture designation as specified in the proposed Land Use Element. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would not have significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, geology and soils, and cultural resources because all future development would be subject to City, State, and federal regulations applicable to these ' issue areas. Compliance with these existing regulations would result in less than significant impacts. Notable environmental effects of Alternative 3 relative to the project are as follows: Aesthetics , As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would result in additional development throughout the Planning Area, which will increase the amount of nighttime lighting. Development in the Planning Area would continue to be guided by proposed General Plan policy and City Development Code requirements restricting the type of lighting than can be used with the Palomar Observatory lighting impact zones. As this alternative would result in less overall development than the proposed ' project, Alternative 3 would have reduced aesthetic impacts. Agricultural Resources. Alternative 3 would result in approximately 15 percent less development than the proposed project, , but would not affect the land use designation of areas east of Temecula as Vineyards/Agriculture or the assignment of valuable farmland areas to Rural Preservation Areas, as described in the Land Use Element of the proposed project. Thus, Alternative 3 would result in no greater conversion of land from agricultural to nonagricultural uses compared to the project and impact to agricultural resources would be similar under this alternative. Air Quality , Air quality impacts are most closely tied to traffic volumes. Alternative 3 would lead to a buildout population 15 percent lower than the proposed Project and would therefore be expected to result ' in fewer vehicle trips. Air pollutant emissions of PM,o would also be expected to decrease relative to the proposed project. However, given strong regional growth forecasts for Western Riverside County, the imposition by the City of Temecula of a growth limitation would most likely lead to ' increased development pressure in surrounding and nearby communities, including within sphere areas currently controlled by Riverside County, and possibly within the City of Murrieta. With the I- 15 Freeway and SR-79 passing through the City, increased growth outside of Temecula would still ' generate substantial traffic and yield significant and adverse air quality impacts within the Planning Area. Therefore, Alternative 3 would be expected to have a similar air quality impact relative to the project. Biological Resources , All new development under Alternative 3 would be expected to comply with provisions of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and biological resource implementation programs established , within the General Plan and described in Section 5.4, Biological Resources of this EIR. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have a similar impact to biological resources relative to the project. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 6.8 ' Alternatives to the Project t Land Use and Planning Alternative 3 would allow future development to occur at a level consistent with projections adopted for SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and Regional Transportation Plan. Therefore, this alternative would not exceed SCAG growth projections would thus have a lower ' level of impact to land use and planning relative to the proposed project. Noise Noise impacts are most closely tied to traffic volumes. Alternative 3 would create capacity for development generating approximately 85 percent of the total traffic volume of the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would have a reduced noise impact relative to the project. ' Population and Housing As described above, this alternative assumes growth in accordance with SCAG population projections, which will result in '25,378 fewer persons than the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in reduced impacts to population and housing relative to the proposed project. ' Public Services and Recreation Alternative 3 would result in 25,378 fewer persons than the proposed project, resulting in a decreased demand for public facilities relative to the proposed project. Impacts to public facilities, =s including parks and recreational facilities,,police and fire services, libraries, and schools would thus _ be reduced with Alternative 3 relative to the project. Transportation Changes in allowable densities and land use designations required within the Land Use Element and map under Alternative 3 would result in,a reduced population at buildout and fewer average daily -' vehicle trips compared to, the project. This could reduce identified traffic impacts on roadways, _ freeways, and intersections. However, given strong regional growth forecasts for Western Riverside County; the imposition by the City of Temecula of such a growth limitation would most likely lead ' to increased development pressure in surrounding and nearby communities, including within sphere areas currently,controlled by Riverside County, and possibly within the City of Murrieta. With the 1- 15 Freeway and.SR-79 passing tHrough the City, increased growth outside of Temecula would still ' yield significant and adverse transportation impacts within the Planning Area. Therefore, Alternative 3 would be expected to have a similar transportation impact relative to the project. Utilities and Service Systems Alternative 3 would result in reduced demand for all utilities and service systems, including water supply, wastewater service, solid waste disposal service, and energy supplies. All new development, like the proposed project, would be required to comply with existing federal, State, and local ' regulations regarding solid waste diversion, and General Plan policies directing the City to encourage the use of low-Flow toilets and other applicable water conservation measures. However, lower population expected under Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to utilities and service systems relative to those of the proposed project. Conclusion: Although development in accordance with SCAG population projections would reduce impacts to aesthetics, land use and planning, public facilities and recreation, and utilities and service systems, it CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 6.9 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Alternatives to the Project , would not achieve a number of critical project objectives. Alternative 3 would not fully implement t the proposed Circulation Element'Roadway Plan, which is intended to ensure that the local ' circulation system meets the needs of Temecula residents and businesses while calming traffic in residential neighborhoods and near schools, as not all identified roadway improvements may be required under the reduced trip generation associated with this Alternative. Reduced development , would not ensure that diverse housing options are available to meet the needs of all segments of the community while protecting the character and value of single-family neighborhoods, as residential densities may need to be reduced and housing construction may need to be restricted in order to ensure that population targets are not exceeded. Both of these actions may lead to higher , housing costs and restrict the diversity of housing options available in Temecula for all income ranges. Further, Alternative 3 could compromise the development of a strong business community, quality housing stock, scenic open space, and cultural amenities that make Temecula a desirable , place for higher education facilities to locate because development would be restricted in such a way that not all aspects of the City would be permitted to grow. Alternative 3 would reduce population growth to a level, more consistent with SCAG projections. However, it does not achieve many of the most critical project objectives as effectively as does the proposed project. Environmentally Preferred Alternative ' Table 6-3 summarizes the impacts of each of the Alternatives relative to the project. Based on the above analysis, the proposed project is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative. The No Project Alternative would have several of the same significant unavoidable impacts as the proposed project and would introduce several new significant impacts related to agricultural resources,. air quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems. Further, the No Project Alternative would fail to meet many of the project objectives. ' Alternative 2 has the potential to achieve a modest reduction of the significant unavoidable air quality impact, but this impact reduction cannot be reliably predicted. As such, comparable or , increased traffic and air quality impacts must be assumed. However, this alternative does achieve most project objectives. The ability of Alternative 3 to address significant unavoidable cumulative traffic and air quality ' impacts is also uncertain. Growth pressure in western Riverside County is strong; a development curtailment in Temecula would likely lead to increased pressure for development north of the ' Planning Area, which would use roadways and freeways traversing the City. This alternative would, however, result in reduced environmental impacts to aesthetics, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, and utilities and service systems. This alternative would fail to meet many critical project objectives. ' The proposed project is thus the Environmentally Preferred Alternative in that it results in the lowest level of significant unavoidable impacts and best achieves the project objectives relative to the , other alternatives considered. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 6-10 ' ' Alternatives to the Project ' Table 6-3 ' Comparison of Impacts of Alternatives Relative to Impacts of the Project Alternative 2: Extension of Alternative 3: 15 ' General Kearney Percent Growth Impact Category No Project Road Reduction Aesthetics Similar Similar Reduced ' Agriculture Resources Greater Similar Similar Air Quality Greater Similar Similar Biological Resources Similar Similar Similar Cultural Resources Similar Similar Similar ' Geology and Soils Similar Similar Similar Hazards and Hazardous Materials Similar Similar Similar Hydrology and Water Quality Similar Similar Similar Land Use and Planning Greater Similar Reduced Noise Greater Similar Reduced Population and Housing Greater Similar Reduced ' Public Services and Recreation Greater Similar Reduced Transportation Greater Similar Similar Utilities and Service Systems Greater Similar Reduced Meets objectives of theproject? No No No 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OE TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 6.11 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Alternatives to the Project 1 1 This page is intentionally left blank. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 6.12 1 7. 0 Cumulative and ' Long-Term Effects The CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 et.seq. requires the discussion of cumulative impacts, growth- inducing impacts, and significant irreversible environmental changes of a project. The following sections address each of these issues as they relate to adoption and implementation of the General ' Plan. ' Cumulative Effects The CEQA'Guidelines (Section 1.5355) defrie a cumulative impact as"an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR`together with other projects causing related impacts." The Guidelines further state that "an EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the evaluated project." Section 15130(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of cumulative impacts of a project "when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable." Cumulatively considerable, as ' defined by.Section 15065(c), "means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects,of'other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." The Guidelines allow for the use of two alternative methods to determine the scope of projects for the cumulative impact analysis: ' List Method - A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency. • Regional Growth Projections Method - A summary of projects contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document or.in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact (Section 15130). The project is a comprehensive update of the Temecula General Plan, which affects the City and surrounding areas within and beyond the City's sphere of influence (referred to together as the Planning Area) as a whole. Cumulative citywide impacts have been addressed in the preceding analysis in this EIR. A broader examination of cumulative impacts considering the project together with growth within the region is also required: Therefore, the Regional Growth Projections Method is an appropriate methodology for evaluating cumulative impacts as it provides general growth projections for the region and considers long-term growth. Table 7-1 shows SCAG population and household projections for the City of Temecula (a portion of the Planning Area) and the Western Riverside County Council of Governments (WRCUG) region ' (which encompasses all lands within Riverside County west of the San Jacinto Mountains and ' CITY OP TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 7-1 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Cumulative and Long-Term Effects including San Gorgonio Pass cities east to Beaumont). Figure 7-1 shows the geographic extent of ' the WRCOG. ' Table 7-1 Population and Household Projections Total Population Households Geography Year Buildout Year Buildout 2000 2025 2000 2025 Temecula 58,477 96,967 18,658 32,658 WRCOG 1,205,301 2,230,185 385,947 776,168 Source:SCAG, 2004. ' Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analysis ' Except where noted, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) generally defines the geographic scope of the cumulative analysis. In the following discussion, the WRCOG area is referred to as "the region." Aesthetics ' Light levels throughout the Temecula Valley will increase as new housing units and commercial, ' industrial and institutional projects are developed pursuant to the General Plans of Temecula, Murrieta, and Riverside County. Depending upon the location and scope of individual development projects, the impact to surrounding uses could be significant, and mitigation measures ' are required. If future development increases the amount of nighttime lighting throughout the region, operations of the Palomar Observatory may be compromised. The City of Temecula has addressed its contribution to potential light pollution through the implementation of mitigation ' measures identified in Section 5.1, Aesthetics. Riverside County and Murrieta have adopted similar regulations. Therefore, no cumulative impact will result. Agricultural Resources Future development throughout the region will result in the continued conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. As discussed in Section 5.2, Agricultural Resources, within the Temecula Planning Area, land use policy will result in the conversion of approximately 0.01 percent (one one-hundredth of one percent) of the land currently in agricultural use.. The Temecula General Plan includes several policies that recognize agricultural uses and vineyards both' as important , historic uses within the Planning Area, as well as valuable contributors to the region's economy. The General Plan also allows continuation of agricultural businesses that wish to operate in the short term or indefinitely. Since the City will implement the mitigation measures identified in Section 5.1, ' Aesthetics, it will not contribute to any cumulatively significant loss of agricultural resources. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 7-2 , 1 � Figure 7-1 SAN BERNARDINO ' Planning Area and COUNTY WRCOG Region , r , 1 Legend Imo. l City Boundaries �e� o• CALIMESA I San Bernardino { R National Forest Temecula Planning Area Santa Ana ' Temecula City Boundary Temecula Sphere of Influence Boundary RIVERSIDE II Westem Riverside Council i BANNING of Governments(WRCOG) ae CO MORENO VALLEY ' County Boundaries a Source Watan PWerg&COG.70f11. 1 CORONA fake BEAUMONT lake Cleve d PERRIS Perri 1 tltewsG6„Ya 4groR! r Nationa SAN fA71TO ' Forest 1 ec Qla p �o 1 HEMET RIVERSIDE c COUNTY LAKE ;� CANYON ELSINOR �, LAKE ' ORANGE ,, +•y.ye r- Di and Valley Lake Hemel - COUNTY Isinore�•.�D —""^'�---�- ke ' San Bernardino National Forest Li La ke URRIET � Cleveland National i Forest I • TEMECULA Pacific Ocean 99YY Cleveland ' '�•^�' National Forrest N 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 - =� Feet W e Miles SAN DIEGO s D 2 4 6 B COUNTY CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 7.3 GENERAL PUN UPDATE Cumulative and Lon&Term Effects Air Quality ' The geographic scope for air quality is the South Coast Air Basin (the Basin). Air pollutant levels in the Basin regularly exceed State-and federal air quality standards. Development forecast for the region will generate increased emission levels from*construction, transportation, and stationary sources. Cumulative impacts will be partially reduced by the implementation and achievement of emissions levels identified in the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan and air quality ' components within the County of Riverside General Plan and General Plans of other local jurisdictions. However, combined emissions from Temecula and other developed areas within the Basin are expected to continue to exceed State and federal standards. Potential short- and long- term cumulative air quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable despite mitigation incorporation described in Section 5.3, Air Quality. Biological Resources Several sensitive habitats and species are known to exist within the Planning Area and throughout ' the region. Although all sensitive species and habitats are protected by CEQA and are subject to regulation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), adoption and implementation of the General Plan, together with implementation of General Plans of other regional jurisdictions, could result in cumulatively significant impacts to a variety of sensitive habitats and species as a result of grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with construction of community facilities, private development projects, and street and utility improvements. In addition, implementation of development projects could produce deleterious edge effects that will adversely modify native vegetation located adjacent to development areas. ' To address regional biological resource preservation and protection concerns, Riverside County, Temecula, and other jurisdictions in the region are active participants in the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Direct and indirect cumulative impacts on ' biological resources will generally be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with existing federal and State regulations, implementation of the MSHCP, and implementation of the mitigation measures detailed in Section 5.4, Biological Resources. With these measures, cumulative biological resources impacts will be less than significant. Cultural Resources Development pursuant to the Temecula General Plan and General Plans of other regional jurisdictions will occur on vacant sites that could contain archaeological or paleontological resources. Unknown archaeological sites, structures, and fossils could be unearthed during excavation and grading activities for development projects. In developed areas, development activity facilitated by Plan policies could impact historic resources. At the regional level, compliance ' with CEQA requirements regarding prehistoric resources, as set forth in Sections 21083.2 and 15064.5, will avoid impact. Temecula will guard against impact on historic and paleontological resources through long-term application of mitigation measures identified in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources . No cumulative impact will result. 1 ' CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 7.5 GENERAL PUN UPDATE Cumulative and Long-Term Effects ' Geology and Soils ' The General Plan Public Safety Element includes goals, policies and programs that direct the City to ' identify and mitigate adverse impacts of geologic hazards at the project level, to apply and enforce seismic design standards and building construction codes for new development, to monitor the , potential for seismic events, and to establish development management techniques to lessen the potential for erosion and landslides. Nevertheless, development pursuant to the General Plan, combined with similar development activities throughout the reigon, may lead to increased erosion ' or loss of top soil. Within Temecula, impact will be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures identified in Section 5.5, Geology and Soils. Regionally, developers will be required to comply with local grading and runoff control regulations. Cumulative impact will be less than significant. ' Hazards and Hazardous Materials Development of new residential, commercial, and industrial land uses throughout the Temecula ' Planning Area and the region will result in increased use of hazardous materials and increased transport of such materials regionally. Such materials are strictly regulated to avoid risk of upset and ' exposure of persons to associated hazards. Development activity may also result in the reuse of contaminated properties. Any new development that involves contaminated property will necessitate the clean up and/or remediation of the property in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local requirements and regulations. All land use development entitlements within the area of influence of French Valley Airport must be ' approved by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, ensure continued orderly use of the airport, and prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. With regard to wildland fire hazards, the City will continue to , reduce the potential for dangerous fires by concentrating development in previously developed areas where the risk of wildland fire is lower; by protecting hillside areas from further expansion of the urban-wildland interface; by encouraging residents to plant and maintain drought-resistant, fire- , retardant landscape species on slopes to reduce the risk of brush fire and soil erosion; and by working with the County Fire Department to control hazardous vegetation. Regional jurisdictions that rely upon the County Fire Department for service will be subject to similar requirements. Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations and plans regarding hazardous ' materials, Flooding, and wildland fire will result in a less than significant cumulative impact. Hydrology and Water Quality ' To avoid groundwater depletion, a conjunctive use program has been negotiated between RCWD, EMWD, and Western Municipal Water District to recharge the Murrieta-Temecula groundwater ' basin and other groundwater basins serving the City and other jurisdictions served by these water agencies. The 1940 Stipulated judgment in Santa Margarita v. Vail and Appropriations Permit 7032 issued by the State Water Resources Control Board establish yearly safe yield groundwater ' withdrawal amounts for each of the water service providers. The water master determines the safe annual yield based on annual audits of the groundwater basin, including how much water was withdrawn from and recharged to the aquifer. Water service providers must purchase imported , water or utilize recycled water supplies based on the water master's yearly determination. Compliance with these existing agreements will ensure a less than significant impact to water ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 7.6 ' 1 Cumulative and Long-Term Effects ' suPPIY� However, increased development throughout region, especially on currently undeveloped ' lots, will increase the amount of impervious surfaces, thereby increasing the amount and speed of runoff, which may impact water quality. Thus, new development projects are required to provide on-site drainage and pay area drainage fees. Compliance with existing regulations, including NPDES regulations applicable to construction activities and larger developments, will ensure a less than significant cumulative water quality and supply impact. ' Land Use and Planning The Temecula General Plan has been drafted with recognition of land use policies of surrounding ' jurisdictions, particularly at interface areas. Implementation of policies within the Land Use Element will riot alter existing land use patterns in well-established parts of the City, and will establish a framework to control phasing of development, project design, and infrastructure improvements in the French Valley area through a long-range annexation strategy. Mitigation measures identified in Section 5.9, Land 'Use and Planning will ensure' compatibility with the Southwest Area Plan, Redevelopment Plan, and Riverside County Airport Land Use. Compatibility Plan. Cumulative impact will.be less than significant. Noise ' Increased development at the regional level will increase traffic volumes and associated noise levels. Significant noise levels already exist along many of the Transportation corridors traversing the Planning Area and the region. Implementing the City and County noise ordinances, constructing buildings according to State acoustical standards,.and implementing the Land Use Plan to avoid land/use noise compatibility conflicts will ensure cumulative noise impacts will be less than significant. Population and Housing r The proposed General Plan,creates capacity for development of up to 25,005 net new residential dwelling units, providing housing for up to 77,504 additional persons. As shown previously in Table 7-1, Temecula comprised approximately 5 percent,of overall WRCOG population and households in 2000. At buildout of the proposed General Plan'in 2025, these proportions are projected to remain constant. Proposed General Plan Land Use Element policies and programs are designed to accommodate ,. City and regional population growth forecast to occur within the Planning Area by the year 2025. Given historical growth patterns and growth management policies contained within the proposed ' General Plan, implementation of the Plan will not substantially increase population beyond that already projected to occur within the Planning Area. Furthermore, as described in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, the proposed General Plan is consistent with SCAG's growth management ' policies. The proposed General Plan will not contribute to significant cumulative population and housing impacts. Public Services and Recreation Future regional growth will result in increased demand for law enforcement services, fire protection and emergency services, schools, libraries, parks and recreation, and other public facilities. Service CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 7.7 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Cumulative and Long-Term Effects - providers must continue to evaluate the levels of service desired and the funding sources available to meet increases in demand. Although the ability of local service providers to provide specific ' levels of service varies throughout the region, each jurisdiction within the region must coordinate with service providers. General Plan policies for Temecula direct the City to meet the public service and recreation needs of future residents in a measured manner to pace development with the availability of services Through implementation of such policies and the mitigation measures ' identified in Section 5.12, Public Services and Recreation, Temecula will do its part to reduce potential cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. Transportation , The traffic analysis conducted for this project accounts for both new trips generated by the project, ' and regional growth through 2025 according to land use plans within the RCIP, the San Diego County General Plan, and the City of Murietta General Plan. As described in Appendix C and summarized in Section 5.13, Transportation, the analysis indicates that significant impacts will result ' at three intersections and six freeway ramps at buildout in 2025.. As development occurs within the Planning Area pursuant to the General Plan and within the region pursuant to plans adopted by neighboring jurisdictions, traffic volumes carried by the regional circulation system will increase.. , While implementation of the proposed Circulation Element Roadway Plan will reduce cumulative transportation impacts to some extent, traffic generated by new development in the Planning Area and throughout the WRCOG region over the next 20 years will continue to contribute to overall , traffic congestion in the region. Cumulative impact on roadways and intersections will be significant and unavoidable. Utilities and Service Systems ' New development throughout the region must comply with the Rancho California Water District's ' and/or Eastern Municipal Water District's water and sewer service master plans. Fees will be paid as required to fund infrastructure and thus avoid cumulative impact. Future development in the region will add substantial volumes of solid waste to the waste stream. ' The California Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires all cities to reduce waste within their boundaries through source reduction and recycling. All jurisdictions within the region will be ' required to continue to reduce waste generation and divert materials from regional landfills. Compliance with existing local, county, and State regulations ensures a less than significant cumulative impact. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 7.8 1 Cumulative and Long-Term Effects, 1 Growth-Inducing Impacts CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires that an EIR discuss the growth-inducing impact of the project. Growth inducement includes, "ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which could remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more ' construction in service areas)." The General Plan will allow for an increase of approximately 25,005 net new housing units and 36.2 ' million net new square feet of nonresidential development. The associated increase in population and employment-generating uses has the potential to induce growth in areas outside of the Planning Area through extension of urban development and services. However,the Planning Area is already ' surrounded by residential uses in unincorporated Riverside County.' Future growth in these areas is controlled by the County of Riverside General Plan land use policies and transportation plans, as described in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. The General Plan is specifically,intended to provide for orderly development and redevelopment in Temecula, to define the limits of such development, and to act as,a mechanism to accommodate and control future development. .The project does not have the potential to induce growth in surrounding areas since these areas have been and will continue to be developed pursuant to the Southwest Area Plan, which is part of the County of Riverside General Plan. The General Plan represents the City's primary opportunity to control phasing of development, project design, and ' infrastructure improvements by annexing properties into the City prior to project approvals by the County., To achieve these purposes, the City has developed a land use plan for the French Valley Area (shown on the Land Use Policy Map) and has designated this area as a Future Growth Area. The intent of these steps is to ensure that future annexations are beneficial additions to the City and to minimize impacts of future development in unincorporated Riverside-County on City roads and infrastructure. Thus, the General Plan is not deemed to have any growth-inducing effect.. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes For EIRs prepared for the adoption of a plan, CEQA Guidelines Section 15127 requires a discussion of irreversible environmental changes. Development pursuant to the General Plan will result in consumption of non-renewable energy resources and thus will have an irreversible effect on such resources. The General Plan will result in development of urban uses in areas that are currently vacant. Once land is developed, reverting to a less urban use or open space is highly unlikely. ' Development in the Planning Area pursuant to the General Plan will also constrain future land use options. ' Several irreversible commitments of limited resources will result from implementation of the General Plan. These resources include, but are not limited to the following: lumber and other related forest products; sand, gravel, and concrete; asphalt; petrochemical construction materials; steel, copper, lead and other metals; and water consumption. Development pursuant to the General Plan will result in a long-term commitment to the consumption of fossil fuel oil, natural gas, CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 7.9 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Cumulative and Long-Term Effects and gasoline. These increased energy demands relate to construction, lighting, heating and cooling ' of residences, and transportation of people within, to, and from the Planning Area. ' Unavoidable Significant Impacts , The analysis in Section 5 of this EIR concludes that implementation of the General Plan will result in 'significant, unavoidable, project-level and cumulative impacts in the following areas: , Air quality _ Transportation Implementation of mitigation measures.identified.in this EIR will reduce these impacts to the extent feasible. However, impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Areas. of No Significant Impact ' CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires a statement indicating the reason that various possible significant effects are determined not to be significant and therefore are not discussed in the EIR. , Such a statement is contained in the Initial Study in Appendix A for the following issue: Mineral Resources ' The following areas are analyzed as part of this EIR and were found to be less than significant. • Agricultural Resources ' Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Populalion and Housing , 1 / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 7.10 1 , 8. 0 Preparers of the EIR 1 p Lead Agency City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 David Hogan, Principal Planner ,. Planning Department 1 Tel: (909) 694-6400 Fax: (909) 694-6477 Email: hogand@cityoftemecula.org ' Consultants to the Lead Agency 1 Environmental Consultant ' 1 Cotton/Bridges/Associates A Division of P&D Consultants, Inc. _ 800 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 270 ' Pasadena, CA 91 101 Principal-in-charge: John Bridges, FAICP Project,Manager: Jeff Henderson, AICP EIR Manager: Melissa Hatcher Environmental Planners: Mira Cook Pete Choi 1 Justine Hearn Graphics: Enabell Diaz Paul Levinson Tel:.(626) 304-0102 Fax: (626) 304-0402 1 Email: cba@cbaplannij)g.conT 1 1 1 CITY OF TEMECULA - - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1 8.1 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Preparers of the EIR ' Traffic Consultant ' Austin-Foust Associates ' 2020 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 108 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Principal: Terry Austin ' Transportation Planner: Cassandra Carlin Tel: (714) 667-0496 Fax: (714) 667-7952 1 Noise Consultant Wieland Associates, Inc. ' 23276 South Pointe Drive, Suite 114 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 ' Principal: David Wieland Tel: (949) 829-6722 ' Fax: (949) 829-6670 Email: dlwieland@wielandassoc.com , Biological Consultant ' Merkel & Associates 5434 Ruffin Road ' San Diego, CA 92123 Project Manager: Diana Jensen , Tel: (858) 560-5465 Fax: (858) 560-7779 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 8.2 , 1 9. 0 References Persons and Agencies Contacted ' California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. "Important Farmland Mapping Categories and Soil Taxonomy Terms." August 2004. http://www.consrv.ca.aov/DLRP/fmmi)/pubs/soil criteria.pdf. ' California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List). Located at htti)://www.dtsc.ca.gov/Calsites/. August 28, 2004. ' California Integrated Waste Management Board. Commerce.Refuse-to-Energy Facility Facility/Site Details. Located at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/swis/Detail.asp?PG=DET&SITESCH=19-AA- 0506&OUT=HTML. November 5, 2004. ' California Integrated Waste Management Board. Jurisdiction Profile of the City of Temecula. Located at = ' http://wN%tiv.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/luris/lurProfile2.asp?RG=C&IURID=529&IUR=Temecula. November 5, 2004. 1 . City of Temecula. www.ci.temecula.ca.us. City of Temecula Fire Department. "Fire Department." Located at ' http://ww%v.citvoftemecula.or¢/citvhall/publicSafety/fire.htm. November 3, 2004. -- City of Temecula Police Department. "Police Department." Located at ' http://www.citvoftemecula.ors/citvhall/DublicSafety/t)olice.htm. 'August, 2004. City of Temecula website. "History,of Temecula." Located at ' http://www.citvoftemeculA.ora/temecula/history/index.htm. October 8, 2004. City of Temecula website_ "Maintenance Division." Located at httD://www.cityoftemecula.ora/citvhall/Dub works/maintenance.htm. November 10, 2004. City of Temecula website. "Parks and Facilities." http://www.cityoftemecula.org/recreate/parks/index.htm. November 3, 2004. City of Temecula website. "Schools." Located at http://www.cityoftemecula.org/homepage/Residents/tvusd.htm. November 1, 2004. 1 City of Temecula website: "Temecula Public Library." Located at htti)://www.citvoftemecula.orz/homepaze/Residents/library.htm. November 3, 2004. City of Temecula website. "Temecula Public Library Update." Located at http://www.citvoftemecula.ora/homepage/Residents/libraryupdate.htm. November 3, 2004. CITY OF TEMECUTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 9.1 GENERALPIAN UPDATE References ' 1 City of Temecula. Trash and Recycling Information. Located at ' http://www.citvoftemecula.org/citvhall/commserv/DevelopmentServices/trash.htm. November 5, 2004. City of Temecula website. "What does Temecula mean?" Located at ' http://www.citvoftemecula.org/temecula/city/. October 8, 2004. County of Riverside. Outdoor Lighting Regulations - Ordinance 655. Effective July 6, 1988. County of Riverside. Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Adopted June 17, 2004. ' Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. HOV Facility Inventory http://hovi)fs.oi)s.fhwa.dot.gov/inventory/inventory.htm. , Eastern Municipal Water District. "Conservation Corner." httr)://ww\v.emwd.org/conservation/water-watch.html. October 19, 2004. ' Eastern Municipal Water District. EMWD 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. 2000. Located at http://v`tiwv.emwd.org/water service/2000 uwmp.Pdf. ' National Parks Service, National Register of Historic Places, National Register Information System. Located at ITttr)://wmv.cr.nps.gov/nr/research/. October 8, 2004. Rancho California Water District. "Frequently Asked Questions." http:/Avww.ranchowater.com/. 1 October 19, 2004. Riverside County Flood Control District. "About the District." ' http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/zonemai).asp. October 19, 2004. Riverside County Flood Control District. "Area Drainage Fees." October 19, 2004. ' http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/Downloads/Area Drainage Plain Summarv.pdf. Riverside County Flood Control District. "Murrieta Creek." ' htti3://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/MCdescrir)tion.asp. October 19, 2004. Riverside County Waste Management Department. Located at ham://www.rivcowm.org/. ' November 5, 2004. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego ' Basin (9). 1994. Located at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rvvocb9/programs/basinplan.html. Southern California Association of Governments. Regional Transportation Plan Population ' Forecasts. May 2004. Located at http://vAvw.scag.ca.gov/forecast/downloads/2004CF.xis. State Department of Finance. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 2004, Revised , 2001-2003, with 2000 DRU Benchmark. May 2004. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY Of TEMECULA ' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 9-2 ' References. 1 Temecula Valley Unified School District. Developer Fees. Located at http://www.tvusd.kl2.ca.us/. November 4 2004. ' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Envirofacts information about Temecula." Located at http://oasi)ub.epa.pov/enviro/. August 8, 2004. 1 Documents California Geological Survey. "Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones." htto://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ar) . October 11, 2004. ' City,of Temecula. City of Temecula General Plan Update. September 2003. ' City of Temecula. City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Element. Page LU-29. July 2004. City of Temecula. City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Element. Page LU-38. July 2004. ' City of Temecula. City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Element. Page LU•-42. July 2004. ' City of Temecula. City of Temecula Municipal Code. Chapter 17.32 Water-Efficient Landscape Design. City of Temecula. Historic Resources Inventory. September 1, 2004. City of Temecula. Old Town Specific Plan. Revisions adopted August 10,,2004 ' Cotton/Bridges/Associates. General Plan Working Papers. November 2002. County of Riverside. County of Riverside General Plan, Safety Element. ' http://www.rcir).org/documents/general plan/gen ,plan 2.4-03/book1-6-safetv.pdf. Adopted Eastern Municipal Water District.. EMWD 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. December 31, ' 2000. Eastern Municipal Water District. Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Located at http://www.emwd.org/news/Insights/insights temecula.pdf. November 8, 2004. Letter to David Hogan, Principal Planner, City of Temecula from Andrew L. Webster, Planning & Capital Projects Manager, Rancho California Water District. July 1, 2003. Rancho California Water District. RCWO 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. December, 2000. ' Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document. Riverside County Land Use Commission. 1-1. April 2004. ' Riverside County Flood Control District. "NPDES/Municipal Storm Water Management Program." http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us/waterqualitynpdes.asp. October 19, 2004. CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' 9.3 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE References . 1 Riverside County Land Use Commission. Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document. April 2004. ' South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1997 Air Quality Management Plan. November 1996. ' South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook. November, 2001 (Version 3). ' Southern California Association of Governments. 2001 RTP Growth Projections. 2001. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 9-4 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appendices 1. 1 1 Appendix A Notice of Preparation/Initial Study and NOP Responses 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 1 City of Temecula ' Planning Department Notice of Preparation ' To: Distribution List(Attached) Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental'ImPact Report tLead Agency: City of Temecula • Consulting Firm: Planning Department Firm Name: Cotton/Brldges/Associates ' 43200Business Park Drive Street Address: 800 E. Colorado Blvd.#270 Temecula, CA 92590 City/State/Zip; Pasadena, CA 91101 ' Contact: David Hogan, Principal.Planner Contact: Jeff Henderson Phone Number: (909)694 64pp Phone Number: (626) 304-0102 ' The City of Temecula Planning Department will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency.will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and initial environmental study are contained in the attached materials. Due to the time limits mandated by ' State law,your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not/atertheri 30 days after receipt of this notice. A scoping meeting for agency representatives will be held on Wednesday, June 25, 2003,at 2:00 p.m, at ' Temecula City Hall,43200 Business Park Drive,Temecula, California 92590. Please contact Mr. Hogan at the number listed above to,confirm your attendance. Please.send your response to David Hogan at.the address shown above. We will need the name for a ' contact person in your agency. ' Project Title: Temecula General Plan Update Project Location: City of Teinectila planning Area,"Riverside County, Califomia - ' Project Description: In 2001, the City of Temecula began a comprehensive update program for the General Plan. The updated General Plan addresses the seven State mandated general plan elements ' (land use, housing, circulation,safety,open space, conservation,and noise),as well as.other issues that are important to the community, including growth management, economic development, air quality, and community design. The Housing Element was recently updated in 2002, and thus is not being ' comprehensively updated as part of this program. Please refer to the attached project description for further information. 6 4 d Director of Plan Date ' uWaning\1200s\7270.00\CMAUS\NOPAoc 1 City of Temecula Planning Department Agency Distribution List ' PROJECT: Temecula General Plan Update ' DISTRIBUTION DATE: June 6, 2003 CASE PLANNER: David Hogan ' CITY OF TEMECULA: RIVERSIDE COUNTY: ' Building & Safety ...................................( x ) Airport Land Use Commission............... ( x ) Fire Department.....................................( x ) Engineer................................................ ( x ) Sheriff ....................................................( x ) Flood Control......................................... ( x ) 1 Parks & Recreation (TCSD)...................( x ) Health Department ................................ ( x ) Planning, Advance.................................( x ) Parks and Recreation............................ ( x ) ' Public Works..........................................( x ) Planning Department............................. ( x ) Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) ( x ) ' Riverside Transit Agency....................... ( x ) STATE: Transportation ....................................... ( x ) Caltrans .................................................( x ) Fish & Game..........................................( x ) Mines & Geology....................................( x ) CITY OF MURRIETA: Regional Water Quality Control Bd........( x ) Planning ................................................ ( x ) ' State Clearinghouse (15 Copies)...........( x ) Water Resources...................................( x ) ' UTILITY: Eastern Municipal Water District ........... ( x ) Inland Valley Cablevision ...................... ( x ) , FEDERAL: Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve ... ( x ) Army Corps of Engineers.......................( x ) Southern California Gas. . . . . . . ... . ... ( x ) Fish and Wildlife Service .......................( x ) Southern California Edison.................... ( x ) ' Bureau of Land Management ................( x ) Temecula Valley School District............ ( x ) Metropolitan Water District.................... ( x ) , Verizon .................................................. ( x ) REGIONAL: Air Quality Management District ............( x ) ' Western Riverside COG ........................( x ) OTHER: Pechanga Indian Reservation ............... ( x ) Eastern Information Center................... ( x ) ' Local Agency Formation Comm ............ ( x ) RCTC ................................................... ( x ) Homeowners' Association ..................... ( x ) County of San Diego, Planning Dept.....( x ) U\ptenning11200s%1270.0MCE0AVS1N0P.doc ' 1 1 1 1 Initial Study 1 1 Temecula General Plan Update 1 1 1 1 June, 2003 1 1 1 Lead Agency: City of Temecula 1 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-3033 1 Contact: David Hogan, Principal Planner 1 (909) 694-6400 1 Consultant to the City: Cotton/Bridges/Associates A Division of P&D Consultants, Inc. 1 800 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 270 Pasadena, CA 91101 1 City of Temecula 1 P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist ' Project Title Temecula General Plan Update ' Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 ' Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number David Hogan, Principal Planner ' (909) 694-6400 Project Location City of Temecula Planning Area, Riverside County Project Sponsor's Name and Address Same as Lead Agency General Plan Designation Various ' Zoning Various Description of the Project ' The City of Temecula adopted its first General Plan in 1993. In 2001, the City began a comprehensive update , program for the General Plan. The project is the adoption and implementation of the City of Temecula General Plan Update. The updated General Plan addresses the seven State mandated general plan elements (land use, housing, circulation, safety, open space, conservation, and noise), as well as other issues that are ' important to the community, including growth management, economic development, air quality, and community design. The Housing Element was recently updated in 2002, and thus is not being comprehensively updated as part of this program. ' The updated General Plan will guide physical development within the Temecula Planning Area over the next 20 years. The General Plan establishes a vision for the City, emphasizing a family-focused lifestyle while promoting a strong local business community and agricultural, technological, and manufacturing industries, so , that the community remains an attractive and enjoyable place to live, work, and play. Regional Setting ' Temecula is located in southwestern Riverside County. The City is bordered by the De Luz area to the west, the City of Murrieta and Murrieta Hot Springs to the north, unincorporated County of Riverside land to the east, , and the Pechanga Indian Reservation, Bureau of Land Management lands, and unincorporated portions of San Diego County to the south. Interstate 15 bisects the western portion of Temecula from north to south. SR-79 North (Winchester Road) provides regional access between Temecula and the Hemet/San Jacinto area. The ' two major east-west roadways are SR-79 South and Rancho California Road. Figure 1 shows the city's location in a regional context and outlines the Planning Area. 1 1 �'��,r�n�7J�� •.�TIILaJ� �� u�uili�y 1 Planning Area ' The Temecula Planning Area consists of properties contained within the City's corporate limits and sphere of ' influence, as well as portions of unincorporated Riverside County currently outside the City's sphere of influence. The sphere of influence consists of open space, undeveloped land, some residential development, vineyards/agricultural land, the French Valley Airport, and the Pechanga Indian Reservation. The remainder of the Planning Area consists primarily of undeveloped land and vineyards/agricultural land. The entire Planning , Area encompasses 31,542 net acres, with 14,766 acres within the City corporate limits and 16,776 acres within the sphere of influence and the remainder of the Planning Area. Purpose and Objectives of the General Plan 1 The General Plan establishes a comprehensive community vision for Temecula with regard to land use, ' housing, circulation, safety, open space/conservation, noise, growth management, and economic development. The vision for the community is based on the following principles: • A family-focused lifestyle enjoyed by residents while promoting a strong local business community and ' agricultural, technological, and manufacturing industries. • The community continues to be a regional destination for those seeking the desirable atmosphere of the , wineries and historic Old Town. ■ A strong business community, quality housing stock, scenic open space, and cultural amenities make ' Temecula a desirable place for higher education facilities to locate. • The local circulation system meets the needs of Temecula residents and businesses while calming traffic in ' residential neighborhoods and near schools. Within this circulation system, pedestrians and cyclists are able to travel safely and quickly throughout the community and appropriate pedestrian-oriented mixed commercial and office uses are concentrated within village centers. ' • Commercial, office, and light industrial uses locate and thrive in Temecula, providing fiscal stability to the City and a revenue source to finance community improvements and open space resources, including ' cultural art centers, community centers, and parks. • Diverse housing options are available to meet the needs of all segments of the community while protecting ' the character and value of single-family neighborhoods. • High quality education is offered and children are provided strong role models and training for a successful future. ' • Properties are well maintained so the community remains an attractive and enjoyable place to live, work, and play. Based on these principles, the General Plan defines long-term community goals and decision-making policies through text and maps in each of ten elements (or chapters). Each element also includes implementation ' programs describing actions or strategies corresponding to adopted goals and policies. The recommended implementation programs serve as the basis for future programming decisions related to the assignment of staff and expenditure of City funds. , City of Temecula Initial Study ' 4 Temecula General Plan Update 1 ' Project Characteristics In terms of guiding physical development within the Planning Area, the General Plan components of primary importance are the Land Use and Circulation Elements. Other Elements of the General Plan are Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, Economic Development, and Housing. The General Plan also contains an Introduction chapter that establishes the tplanning context for Temecula and defines an overall vision to guide planning and decision making. Land Use Element tThe Land Use Element describes the economic, social, physical, and 'cultural aspects of the Temecula Planning Area. Determining the future location, type, and intensity of new development and reuse projects, ' and establishing the desired mix and relationship between such projects are the primary objectives.. The proposed land use designations identify the types and nature of development permitted throughout the Planning Area, providing a mix of land uses to achieve a suitable inventory of housing for a range of income groups, a viable commercial and employment base for residents and surrounding communities, ample open space and recreational opportunities, adequate public facilities and services, and high-quality urban and rural lifestyles for residents and visitors to enjoy. The residential land use designations are: • Hillside Residential (0 —0.1 dwelling units/acre) • Rural Residential (0—0.2 dwelling units/acre) • Very Low Density Residential (0.2— 0.4 dwelling units/acre) Low Density Residential (0.5 —2 dwelling units/acre) ' Low Medium Density Residential (3-6 dwelling units/acre) • Medium Density Residential (7— 12 dwelling units/acre) • High Density Residential (13— 20 dwelling units/acre) ' Commercial and industrial designations_include the following, with intensity of'development allowed within each designation expressed as a;range of Floor-area ratios, or FARs: ' Neighborhood C6mmercial'(0.20—0.40 FAR) • Community Commercial (0.25— 1.0 FAR) , • Highway/Tourist Commercial (0.25- 1.0 FAR) • Service Commercial (0.25— 1.5 FAR) • Professional Office (0.30— 1.0 FAR) • Industrial Park (0.30 — 1.5 FAR) ' Designations to accommodate public, institutional, agriculture and open space uses include the following: ' • Public/Institutional Facilities (0.20— 0.70 FAR) • Vineyards/Agriculture (0.01 —0.1 FAR and/or 0— 0.1 dwelling unit/acre) • Open Space (0.01 —0.1 FAR) ' Future development potential exists both within the City's corporate limits, and within the sphere of influence and remainder of the Planning Area. The General Plan responds with goals, policies, and implementation programs to ensure that a high quality of life is preserved as the City faces increased growth pressures. Figure ' 2 shows the Preliminary Draft Land Use Policy Map. 1 City of Temecula Initial Study ' 5 Temecula General Plan Update Figure ? — Proposed Land Use Policy Map CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN RESIDENTIAL -� — I i _. — - - Hillside(0-0.1 Du I, ax) Pat Rd � Spf �� - I—± ' ali 4d ® Rural i0 U.' Du A .41az; m a vt Very Low 10.2-0.4 Du:A: Vaxi f a.Nkhd>w !� Lost (0 5-1 Du,AC Maal Lo�� hlediunt i3 i G.. - City of Murrieta County of - Sphere ofiPH4nee - Medium I i-1_' Du �A, .. 9 3S Riverside 9 High i 13 20 Du Ac Ltat) � COMMERCIAL/OFFICE Neighborhood wrnui ito Comn1�er(al iai .- _- Hi hwa TUu',. _ Service Cci -a � Professional UIL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL - ® Y Industrial Park � PUBLIC USES&OPEN SPACERe w AV I V Public Institutional Fa.'' _ Vineyards/AgriculIU- t ® I Bor BoM Rd q Pro"ti City of ;p Murrieta Murri \'� � Buck Rd .04 10 \\ - � { �• � tiaptho t5oa Rtl _ C d a' - yvec nga [in i • t--� fnfennment\ Cenfer / , —•� Temecula City Boundary ��• Sphere of Influence Boundaro - - i Planning Area Source.Teciea la 6;S.m0 ConavBudRa.iaaa.ae+ ? N 0 -1.500 5,000 7 5()6 I O 000 r er, i w' A E Cu LA l Ds G_ -ER-AL PLAN Initial Study City of Temecula o Temecula General Plan Update ' The Land Use Element addresses infill residential and commercial development within the City through the designation of three Mixed Use Overlay Areas. These. areas are located within the City's Redevelopment Project Area and generally surround the 1-15 corridor. These overlay areas provide'for development with a ' mix of residential and non-residential uses guided by underlying land use designations. Each Mixed Use Overlay Area has different density and intensity standards, responding directly to the available capacity of the surrounding roadway network, defined using a daily trip cap applicable to each area. Within the daily trip cap, ' flexible, high-quality design and creative mixes of adjacent uses are encouraged. Rural areas are addressed in the Land Use Element through the designation of four Rural Preservation Areas, with the following specific goals for each area: Nicolas Valley. Promote continued development of large lot, Very Low Density Residential units; provision of rural infrastructure services; and conservation of open space surrounding Santa Gertrudis Creek. East Rancho California: Recognize the important role that wineries and agriculture play in the history and future success of Temecula by designating a large portion of the area Vineyards/Agriculture; and promoting only Rural and Very. Low Density Residential development that is compatible with these uses. Anza Road at SR-79: Preserve rural residential densities in the area surrounding the Morgan Hill Specific Plan by promoting only Rural Residential development, supplemented by open space buffers ' and greenways defining the urban edge of Temecula. • Rainbow Canyon and Great Oak Ranch: Preserve the hillsides in the southern portion of the Planning Area and prevent residential encroachment upon BLM preservation areas by promoting only Hillside, Rural, Very Low or Low Density Residential development, and conserving a significant portion of the area as open space. Land Use Element policies also establish a French Valley Future Growth Area, located north of the current City boundary. Within this area, the City will adopt a land use plan (shown on the Preliminary Draft Land Use Policy Map) to direct development in the area in order to improve traffic conditions within the City, avoid ' developing more land than necessary at urban densities, and meet infrastructure needs. Circulation Element ' The Circulation Element addresses needed improvements to the existing transportation system, including local and regional roadways, transit, railways, and multi-use trails, to meet increased demands over the next 20 ' years. Open Space/Conservation Element The Open Space/Conservation Element contains goals, policies and implementation programs that encourage conservation and management of natural resources, including: biological/ecological resources, water resources, energy resources, agricultural resources, and open space. The Element also ensures the provision of parks and recreation opportunities and preservation of the City's historic and cultural heritage. Growth Management/Public Facilities Element The purpose of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element is to promote orderly growth and development dependent on the provision of adequate public facilities and services. This element sets forth goals, policies, implementation programs and performance standards that ensure future development is coordinated with the availability of public facilities and services operating at desired levels. ' City of Temecula Initial Study 7 Temecula General Plan Update Public Safety Element , The purpose of the Public Safety Element is to identify and address natural features, characteristics and human activities in or near Temecula that represent potential hazards to residents, structures, public facilities, , and infrastructure. The Public Safety Element establishes policies to minimize potential danger to persons and property, establishes programs to regulate development in hazard-prone areas, and identifies actions to manage emergency situations. Potential natural hazards addressed in the Element include geologic instability, ' seismic events, wild land fires, flooding, and dam failures. Potential human-caused hazards addressed in the Element include hazardous materials and waste handling, nuclear power production (at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, located 25 miles west of the Planning Area), and criminal activity. ' Noise Element The policies and programs provided in the Noise Element are designed to protect the quality of life within ' residential neighborhoods, schools, and other noise-sensitive uses, and to protect these sensitive areas from the persistent hazards of excessive noise. Air Quality Element 1 The Air Quality Element establishes a policy foundation to implement local air quality improvement measures and provides a framework for coordination of air quality planning efforts with surrounding jurisdictions. Community Design Element , The Community Design Element addresses the physical aspects of Temecula that contribute to the image and character of the natural and built environments. This element establishes a policy foundation to implement both city-wide and focused area design criteria. Economic Development Element The Economic Development Element provides policies to improve the economic viability of Temecula through the provision of balanced employment and housing opportunities, the attraction and retention of businesses, and the promotion of fiscal strength and stability in the community. ' General Plan elements that are not part of this project Housing Element The City's Housing Element was recently updated in 2002. The City adopted a Negative Declaration for the , Housing Element. Therefore no comprehensive update to this Element is included in this update program. 1 City of Temecula Initial Study 8 Temecula General Plan Update ' Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ' The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one Impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact'as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Mineral Resources X Agriculture Resources X Nolse X Air Quality X Population and Housin X Biological Resources X Public Services ' X Cultural Resources X Recreation X Geology and Soils X Transportation/Traffic X Hazards and Hazardous Materials X Utilities and Service S stems X H drolo and Water QualityX MandatoryFindin s of Si nificance X Land Use and PlannIn Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. T.N I rind that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not ; ' be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by ^� the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant Impact"or"potentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed In an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and (b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the ro osed project.nothing further is required b� 04 Signs ure Date Printed name For t ' Gly of Te.e ulo Inlliel Study 9 Temecvlo Generol Plan Upda4 1 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: ' Potentially ' Potentially SiBnifiranl Unless Lass Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Soun es Impact Into rated Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1.e. through 1.c. The natural features of the Temecula Planning Area provide a scenic setting for the community. Topographical features include the western and southern ridgelines, hillsides in the northern area, and water features including Murrieta and Temecula Creeks and the Santa Margarita River. The Planning Area contains a number of ' wineries and agricultural resources, as well large expanses of open space, particularly in the sphere of influence. The City's built environment contains parkways and slopes along roadways that function as open space amenities. Temecula's location and natural setting provide spectacular views of local wineries, agriculture and the rolling hills of the southern, eastern, and western areas, as well as of Murrieta and Temecula Creeks. 1 The goals and policies of the Open Space/Conservation Element are intended to conserve open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features. The Land Use Element ' contains Rural Preservation Areas to preserve the rural nature of specific areas, including viticulture within the Planning Area. The Community Design Element preserves the natural and historical aspects of the community's rural character and viewsheds through the following goals and policies: Goal 5 Protection of public views of significant natural features. I ' Policy 5.1 Work with the County of Riverside to protect surrounding hillside areas from inappropriate grading and ' development that affects the visual backdrop of the valley. Policy 5.2 Retain critical escarpment and major hillside areas to preserve open space areas on the west and south edges of the City. Policy 5.3 Establish a program to acquire, or permanently protect, critical hillside areas from development. Policy 5.4 Promote development of turn-outs on scenic roads. , Policy 5.5 Require re-vegetation and maintenance of graded slope areas. Policy 5.6 Promote and implement underground utilities (cable, power, etc.)where feasible. , To preserve public views of significant natural resources, all new public and private development projects will be reviewed ' to ensure that they will not obstruct public views of scenic resources, such as the hillsides, scenic roads, or significant open space areas. During the review of individual projects, the Community Development Department may require site redesign or place height limits on projects that have the potential to block views. New projects will also be reviewed to ensure that the proposed landscaping and tree planting will not obstruct views of significant natural resources. ' Implementation of the identified policies through this review process will ensure that impact will be less than significant on a project-by-project basis. 1.d. Some future development pursuant to the General Plan may generate shadows or glare depending on the type of , building materials used and/or placement of the building. This issue will be addressed in the EIR. City of Temecula Initial Study ' 10 Temecula General Plan Update 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether Impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site ' Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing Impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Potentially ' Potentially Significanl Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Im act a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of X 1 Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? ' b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? C. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to X ' their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 2.a. and 2.c. The Planning Area contains approximately 2,247 acres of land designated for agriculture and vineyard use, some of which is Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland according to the California Resources Agency. Agricultural land in the Planning Area is used primarily for viticulture in vineyard areas. Future development pursuant to land use designations established in the proposed Land Use Element may result in the conversion of approximately 17 acres of farmland to non-agricultural use. The General Plan Land Use Element goals and policies are intended to maintain as much existing farmland as possible because the vineyards and agricultural resources of Temecula are an important part of the City's rural culture. In addition, the Land Use Element provides for four Rural ' Preservation Areas, two of which are dedicated to maintaining the rural character of agricultural and vineyard areas. However, some limited residential and agriculture-related development may occur on lands currently used for agricultural purposes. These issues will be addressed in the EIR. ' 2.b. There are no Williamson Act contracts in the Planning Area. No impact will result. 1 1 1 1 City of Temecula - Initial Study ' I I Temecula General Plan Update 1 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality 1 management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation significant No ' Issues and supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality Ian? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an X existing or projected air quality violation? C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality ' standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X , concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? 3.a. The Air Quality Element of the General Plan addresses compliance with the current Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin. The Air Quality Element is designed to ensure City land use decisions work to implement and comply with federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to air quality. No conflict with the regional air quality plan will ' result, and no adverse impact will occur. 3.b. through 3.d. The increase in population and growth facilitated by the General Plan will generate additional vehicular trips that will produce exhaust emissions. These emissions may affect sensitive receptors, result in carbon monoxide hot , spots, and contribute to regional pollutant emissions. Impact may be significant given that the South Coast Air Basin is a non-attainment area for ozone and PMtO. These issues will be addressed in the EIR. 3.e. Development anticipated to occur pursuant to the General Plan will be predominantly residential and commercial ' uses consisting of retail stores, offices and business parks. Each new development will be required to comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's guidelines regarding odor control. Compliance with these existing regulations will ensure that impact will be less than significant. ' 1 1 City of Temecula Initial Study ' 12 Temecula General Plan Update 1 ' 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project? PotentiaNy Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation significant No Issues and Supporting Information sources Impact incorporated MDaCt kn act a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through X ' habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurser sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation X ' Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation Ian? 4.a. through 4.d. Temecula is located within an area largely developed for residential, commercial, and agricultural uses, ' which limits the extent and connectivity of wildlife habitat. Identified native vegetation communities, and to some extent the non-native categories, are expected to support a suite of locally common, as well as sensitive species. Thirteen vegetation communities have been identified in the Planning Area. Temecula is also located in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) area. The overall goal of the MSHCP is to maintain and restore biological diversity and natural ecosystem processes that support diversity in natural areas within Western Riverside County known to support threatened, endangered, or key sensitive populations of plant and wildlife species. The MSHCP identifies five locations within the Planning Area that may contain regional wildlife corridor linkages. Since ' development of the Planning Area pursuant to the General Plan may affect some of these locations, impact may be potentially significant and this issue will be examined in the EIR. t4.e and 4.f. All new development will comply with City policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, including tree preservation policies. The updated General Plan provides policies and implementation programs that fully support adopted habitat conservation plans. No impact will result. 1 1 City of Temecula Initial Study 13 Temecula General Plan Update 1 S. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: ' Potentially ' Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Signifiant No Issues and Supporting Information sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? ' b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X , or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries? 5.a. Some sites within Temecula, particularly in the Old Town area, are known historic resources and are listed on the , California Inventory of Historic Resources. The potential for future development pursuant to the General Plan to affect such resources will be examined in the EIR. 5.b. through 5.d. According to the California Archaeological Inventory, 23 archaeological sites are recorded within Temecula. It is not unusual in the Temecula area for a single location to contain evidence of occupation from prehistoric through the historical period. Isolated prehistoric and historical human remains, as well as those associated with known ' cemeteries have been found in the Temecula area. Therefore, these issues will be examined in the EIR. 1 1 1 1 City of Temecula Initial Study 14 Temecula General Plan Update ' 1 ' 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Potentially ' Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and supporting Information Sources Impact Into led Impact Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ' effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death Involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most X recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by ' the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv. Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that X would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-13 of the X Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic X tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 6.a.l. and 6.a.ii. Temecula is located in a seismically active area of Southern California. The City is traversed by several active traces of the Elsinore fault and has historically experienced earthquakes of moderate magnitude. The Elsinore fault zone has been designated an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone by the California Geological Survey. This designation, ' under State law, limits the types of construction and other activities that can occur within the fault zone. Other regional faults located around Temecula include the San Andreas, San Jacinto, San Gabriel, Newport-Inglewood, and Sierra Madre-Santa Susana-Cucamonga faults. Since Temecula is located in a seismically active area, projects developed pursuant to the General Plan will expose additional people and structures to groundshaking hazards associated with earthquakes. These issues will be addressed in the EIR. ' 6.a.lii. and 6.a.iv. Liquefaction can occur in locations where high groundwater levels interact with loose, unconsolidated soils, causing them to lose cohesion when subject to seismic groundshaking. In accordance with the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, the California Geological Survey has evaluated liquefaction and landslide susceptibility for the Planning ' Area. Portions of the Planning Area are mapped as liquefaction zones, including areas along Santa Gertrudis Creek and Temecula Creek. Landslides are most likely to occur on hillside locations where rock strata parallels surface slopes, high clay content absorbs excess water, displacement has fractured a fault zone, or the base of a slope has been removed by erosion or people. Areas along floodplains and large drainages have generally been designated as areas where historic ' occurrences of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical, and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements. Strong groundshaking may cause the densiffcation of soils, resulting in local and regional settlement of the ground surface. During strong groundshaking, soil grains may become more tightly packed due to the collapse of voids or pore spaces, resulting in a reduction of the thickness of the soil column. This type of ground failure typically occurs in loose granular, cohesionless soils, and can occur in wet or dry conditions. Portions of the Temecula Planning Area that may be ' susceptible to seismically induced settlement are generally the floodplains and larger drainages underlain by late Quarternary alluvial sediments, such as Santa Gertrudis and Temecula creeks. ' Strong ground motions can worsen existing unstable slope conditions, particularly if coupled with saturated ground conditions. The most widespread type of landslide generally consists of shallow failures involving surficial soils. City of Temecula Initial Study 15 Temecula General Plan Update o ' Landslide conditions exist in the hillside areas located in the southwestern portion of the City, although no recent landslides have occurred in the area. ' These issues will be addressed in the EIR. 6.b. Future development may occur on undeveloped land. During the construction phase of individual projects, grading , and earthwork will be necessary to prepare sites for development and exposed rock and soil may increase the chance of soil erosion, mudslides, and landslides if these surfaces are left unprotected during periods of high winds and rain. -This issue will be addressed in the EIR. ' 6.c. and 6.d. Portions of Temecula are located on relatively loose, unconsolidated soils that are susceptible to liquefaction, subsidence, and landslides. The potential for liquefaction and subsidence is particularly high along Santa ' Gertrudis and Temecula creeks. Landslides are likely to occur in the hillside areas located in the southwestern portion of Temecula. These issues will be addressed in the EIR. 6.e. All development in the City is connected to a sewer system for the disposal of wastewater. Development in the ' Planning Area pursuant to the General Plan will also be connected to a sewer system, with the exception of some Vineyards/Agriculture, Rural and Very Low Density Residential designated areas. Septic systems may be used in those areas and this issue will be addressed in the EIR. ' 1 1 . 1 City of Temecula initial Study ' 16 Temecula General Pion Update ' 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Maigabon Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X ' through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X ' through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X ' hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1 d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to ' the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where X such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the X project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working ' in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted X emergency response plan or emergency evacuation Ian? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury X ' or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 7.a. through 7.c. Businesses and operations involving the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials will only proceed in strict compliance with extensive federal, Slate, and local hazardous materials regulations. The General Plan maintains the goal of protecting "the public and environmental resources from hazards related to hazard materials and waste, and nuclear power production"(Goal 2, Public Safety Element). Four policies are included to carry out this goal: Policy 2.1 Minimize the risks associated with hazardous materials through careful land use planning and coordination 1 with responsible federal, State, and County agencies. Policy 2.2 Participate in local and regional programs that facilitate the proper disposal of household hazardous waste. Policy 2.3 The policies and programs of the current Riverside County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (HWMP) are herby adopted by reference. Policy 2.4 Coordinate with local, State, and federal agencies to reduce the risks related to nuclear power production. 1 Implementation of these policies, together with compliance with existing regulations will result in a less than significant impact. ' 7.d. No sites in Temecula are included on the Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substance List (Cortese List). According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there is one "archive" Superfund site located within Temecula. Archive status means that, to the best of EPA's knowledge, the EPA has completed its assessment of the site, and no further steps will be taken to list the site on the National Priority List (NPL). Impact will be less than significant. City of Temecula Initial Study ' 17 Temecula General Plan Update 1 7.e. and 7.f. The French Valley Airport is located within Temecula's sphere of influence, east of Winchester Road. The ' Airport is owned and operated by the County of Riverside. The French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) establishes an area of influence surrounding the airport. All land use development entitlements within the area of influence must be approved by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission in order to protect the public health, ' safety, and welfare, ensure continued orderly use of the Airport, and prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. The General Plan proposes new development within the area of influence. This issue will be addressed in the EIR. 7.g. Temecula has adopted a Multi-Hazard Functional Plan to ensure the effective management of City personnel and 1 resources in responding to emergency situations stemming from natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense emergencies. The plan includes a responsibility matrix that delineates specific responsibilities to City ' departments or personnel in the event of an emergency. The plan also includes a comprehensive hazard analysis that addresses the following potential hazards: earthquake, hazardous materials incident, flooding, dam failure, major fire/wildfire, nuclear incident, and transportation incident. The Public Safety Element of the General Plan includes the goal ' of"an effective response of emergency services following a disaster" (Goal 4, Public Safety Element), and five policies to carry out this goal as follows: Policy 4.1 Provide for and maintain a coordinated emergency services response to reduce community risks and property 1 damage in the event of a disaster. Policy 4.2 Support the development and implementation of local preparedness plans and multi-jurisdictional cooperation for emergency situations consistent with the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). 1 Policy 4.3 Coordinate emergency response planning with Riverside County and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1 Policy 4.4 Encourage community-wide emergency preparedness among City residents and the business community. Policy 4.5 Regulate location of critical facilities to ensure they continue to function after a disaster. 1 Implementation of these policies, along with the continued implementation of the City's Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, will ensure a less than significant impact with regard to emergency preparedness. 1 7.h. The Temecula Planning Area is subject to potential natural wild land fires. The most critical times of year for wild land fires are late summer and fall when Santa Ana winds bring hot, dry desert air into the region. Increased human presence in wild land areas and development on the fringes of major forests and brush areas increases the potential for ' human-induced wild land fires. This issue will be addressed in the EIR. 1 i 1 i i 1 City of Temecula Initial Study 1 18 Temecula General Plan Update 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: ' Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X ' requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would ' be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been ' granted)? C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream ' or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream ' or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g: Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped X on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other Flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X ' would impede or redirect Flood Flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury X or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X 8.a. All new development will be required to comply with existing water quality standards and waste discharge regulations ' set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego region. Impact will be less than significant. 8.b. The Rancho California Water District supplies most of the domestic and commercial water to Temecula. RCWD water is drawn from the Murrieta-Temecula groundwater basin and supplemented with imported water from the ' Metropolitan Water District (MWD). Temecula is also served by the Eastern Municipal Water District, which derives its water primarily from MWD but also draws groundwater from wells in the Hemet and San Jacinto areas. Since new development in the Planning Area will increase consumption of ground water, this potentially significant impact will be examined in the EIR. 8.c.through 8.e. Future development throughout the Temecula Planning Area, especially on currently undeveloped land, will increase the amount of impervious surfaces, thereby increasing the amount and speed of stor mwater runoff. ' Increased runoff volumes and speeds may create nuisance flooding in areas without adequate drainage facilities. These potentially significant impacts will be evaluated in the EIR. ' 8.1, Each new development will be required to comply with stormwater regulations set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego region, including NPDES regulations. Compliance with existing regulations on a project-by- project basis will reduce potential impact to a less than significant level. ' 8.g. through 81 Temecula contains several FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). These areas, corresponding to the 100-year floodplain, have the potential to become flooded when major rainstorms cause streams to overflow. City of Temecula Initial Study 19 Temecula General Plan Update Murrieta Creek is the most flood-prone creek in Temecula, and Temecula Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek are also subject to flooding. Therefore, specific building standards apply to flood prone areas, including anchoring, building with ' flood resistant materials, providing adequate drainage paths,, and elevating the structure to or above the base flood elevation. The City participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which makes flood insurance available to affected property owners within the 100-year floodplain. The City also reviews development plans for projects within ' the floodplain to ensure compliance with City and FEMA floodplain development requirements. *No development of any kind will be allowed in the floodway portion of the 100-year floodplain. These measures will reduce the risk from flooding to a less than significant level. Portions of Temecula are subject to flood inundation from dam failure. Lake Skinner is a 43,800 acre-feet earthen dam located northeast of Temecula. Failure of the Lake Skinner Dam could result in flooding along Tucatota Creek and Benton Road. Vail Lake is located to the east of Temecula. Dam failure of this 51,000 acre-feet facility could cause ' flooding in the Pauba and Temecula valleys. 1-15 and an adjacent 3-mile area could also flood. The City maintains a Dam Inundation Evacuation Plan as part of the Multi-Hazard Functional Plan and coordinates with the State Office of Emergency Services to ensure that dam safety plans reflect the level of development within the community. In addition, the General Plan Public Safety Element includes a policy to "provide and maintain adequate flood control facilities and. ' limit development within the 100-year floodplain and potential dam inundation areas" (Policy 1.6, Public Safety Element). Therefore, impact will be less than significant. 8.j. The Planning Area is not subject to tsunamis due to its inland location. Seiches have not historically occurred within , the Planning Area. The potential for mud and debris flows is addressed in Section 6.c. - Geology and Soils. Impact will be less than significant. 1 . 1 1 • r City of Temecula Initial Study ' 20 Temecula General Pion Update 1 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Inwrporated Impact Impact a. Physical[ divide an established community? X ' b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation X of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, ' or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservation plan? ' 9.a. The majority of undeveloped land in the Planning Area is located north of Temecula in the sphere of influence. No physical division would result from development pursuant to the General Plan. No impact will result. 9.b. The unincorporated portions of the Temecula Planning Area are within the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside. Within these unincorporated areas, previously-approved specific plans and the County's Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) determine future land uses. The updated Temecula General Plan defers to previously-approved specific plans to determine future land uses. However, the City's General Plan land use designations differ from those proposed by the SWAP at'a few locations within the sphere of influence and Planning Area that are not the subject of specific plans. This issue will be addressed in the EIR. ' 9.c. Temecula is located within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) planning area. The overall goal of the MSHCP is to maintain and restore biological diversity and natural ecosystem ' processes that support diversity in natural areas within Western Riverside County known to support threatened, endangered, or key sensitive populations of plants and wildlife species. The MSHCP establishes a Conservation Area and implementation program to preserve biological diversity and maintain the region's quality of life. In response to the MSHCP, the Open Space/Conservation Element of the General Plan includes the goal of "conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern, wildlife movement corridors, and general biodiversity' (Goal 3, Open Space/Conservation Element). This goal is supported by policy to"coordinate with the County of Riverside and other relevant agencies in the implementation of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan" (Policy 3.3, Open Space/Conservation Element). The General Plan supports applicable habitat conservation plans and no impact will result. 1 1 1 City of Temecula Initial Study 21 Temecula General Plan Update 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: ' Potentially ' Potentially Significant Unions Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporbrig Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the ' state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral X resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, spec.fic Ian or other land use Ian? 10.a. and 10.b. According to the California Geological Survey, no known mineral resources exist in Temecula. ' Development pursuant to the General Plan will not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. No impact will result. 1 1 1 1 1 City of Temecula Initial Study 22 Temecula General Plan Update ' 11. NOISE. Would the project result In: ' Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Lass Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess X ' of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X roundborne vibration or g,oundbome noise levels? C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the, X project vicinity above levels existing without theproject? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise X levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where X such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the X project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ' 11.a. through 111 The primary source of noise in the City is vehicular traffic. Traffic is projected to increase on 1-15, Winchester Road, SR-79 South, Pechanga Parkway, and other City roads. The French Valley Airport is located north of the city within Temecula's sphere of influence. The sphere of influence consists mostly of undeveloped land that is ' expected to be developed during the 20-year planning period of the General Plan. Aircraft will continue to use the French Valley Airport while the area surrounding the airport will become increasingly developed. Thus, noise levels will increase both in the short- and long-term, and may exceed standards established in the General Plan Noise Element. These ' issues will be addressed in the EIR. 1 1 1 City of Temecula Initial Study ' 23 Temecula General Plan Update 1 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: ' Potentially ' Potentially Significant Unless Lass Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Im act Inn act a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly X (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or ' indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating X ' the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 12.a. The General Plan will allow for future growth, including new housing and an associated increase in population within the City and the Planning Area. The General Plan estimates a population increase of approximately 78,700 people over the next 20 years. This issue will be discussed further in the EIR. , 12.b. and 12.c. The General Plan will allow the development of a variety of uses on currently undeveloped land. However, this new development will not displace substantial numbers of housing units or people. No impact will result. 1 1 1 1 1 City of Temecula Initial Study 24 Temecula General Plan Update ' 1 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. ' Potentially Potentially significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Soumes Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts ' associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause ' significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fireprotection? X ' Policeprotection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? X 13.a. Residential, commercial and industrial development pursuant to the General Plan will occur throughout the Temecula Planning Area. As development occurs, incremental increase in demand for public services will result. The ' Growth Management/Public Facilities Element includes goals, policies, and performance standards for new development, relative to the provision of each of the public services listed above at desired service levels. The relationship between the timing of new development and related public service facilities and improvements will be addressed in the EIR. 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Temecula Initial Study ' 25 Temecula General Pion Update 14. RECREATION. ' .. Potentially Potentially significant Unlass Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Support in Information Sources. Impact - Incorpotated Impact Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood X and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that t substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the X , construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 14.a. and 14.b. The City operates 22 parks totaling 222 acres. Most of the parks are smaller neighborhood parks. In ' addition, the City maintains 3 recreational centers, a skate park, and 4 larger parks with picnic facilities and field rentals. The City also has joint use agreements with the Temecula Valley Unified School District, which allows residents to utilize school facilities for recreational purposes during non-school hours. The Temecula Middle School and the Temecula ' Valley High School fields are regularly used for youth sports leagues. The City has prepared a Master Plan of Parks and Recreation to comprehensively address the long-term park and recreation needs of residents- Residential, commercial and industrial development pursuant to the General Plan will occur throughout the Temecula Planning Area. As development occurs, incremental increase in demand for both current and new park land will result. The Open Space/Conservation Element includes goals, policies, and performance standards for new development, relative to the provision of park land. The relationship between the timing of new development and provision of park ' improvements will be addressed in the EIR. 1 1 City of Temecula Initial Study 26 Temecula General Plan Update ' 1 15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project: ' Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to X ' the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion at ' intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service X standard established by the county congestion management aqency for designated roads or highways? ' C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an X increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., X sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X ' f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting X alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ' 15.a. and 15.b. Growth anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will generate additional vehicular trips that may have the potential to contribute to both local peak-hour and regional congestion. This issue will be examined in the EIR. ' 15.c. The French Valley Airport is located within Temecula's sphere of influence. Growth pursuant to the General Plan is not anticipated to change air traffic patterns. The County is planning to update the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for ' French Valley Airport in response to additional region-wide demand for airport services and the impacts of the increased airport use will be subsequently analyzed. Impact will be less than significant. 15.d. The Circulation Element addresses the importance of compatibility between design issues and land use compatibility. However, new development is expected to result in additional roadways. All new roadways will be built in accordance with all requisite City and County design requirements. No significant impact will result. ' 15.e. The City has a Multi-Hazard Functional Plan in place. In addition, the Public Safety Element calls for regular reviews by the City to assess response times and incorporate newly developed areas to ensure adequate fire and police protection. Impact will be less than significant. ' 15.f. All new development pursuant to the General Plan will provide parking in compliance with City standards for the particular use. No significant impact will result. ' 15.g. One of the key components of the Circulation Element is to promote the use of alternative transportation modes, including bicycling and walking. Public bus service is provided by RTA. The City is committed to ensuring that public transportation becomes a viable alternative to the automobile for residents. The Circulation Element also emphasizes the network of Multi-Use Trails planned for in the City s Multi-Use Trails Master Plan. Impact will be less than significant. 1 1 City of Temecula Initial Study ' 27 Temecula General Plan Update 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: 1 Potentially , Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and supporting Information Sources Impact incorporated Impact Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X ' Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant ' environmental effects? C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the , construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or ' expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate ' capacity to serve the projectes projected demand in addition to theprovider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the ro'ect's solid waste disposal needs? ' g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? 16.a. The General Plan will guide long-term growth and development in Temecula over the next 20 years. All new ' development pursuant to the General Plan will discharge wastewater to the Eastern Municipal Water District's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. The facility operates in compliance with the applicable State treatment standards. The General Plan will not result in development of any uses that could result in exceeding the established ' treatment standards. All new development will be required to comply with existing wastewater treatment requirements set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego region. Impact will be less than significant. 16.b. through 16.e. Water in Temecula is primarily ground water provided by the Rancho California Water District and ' the Eastern Municipal Waster District, both of which supplement their supplies with water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District. Development pursuant to the General Plan will increase demand for water and wastewater services, particularly in the sphere of influence area. These issues will be addressed in the EIR. , 16.f. Future development pursuant to the General Plan will generate additional solid waste within the Planning Area, requiring landfill disposal. This issue will be discussed in the EIR. 16.9. Each development approved pursuant to General Plan policy will be required to comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to the disposal of solid waste. No adverse impact will result. Energy Conservation: In addition to the issues addressed above, CEQA guidelines require consideration of energy ' conservation in Environmental Impact Reports. Development pursuant to the General Plan may result in an increase in the number of persons, housing units and employees in the Planning Area, resulting in increased demands on local and regional energy supplies, fossil fuels and other forms of energy. These issues will be addressed in the EIR. ' 1 City of Temecula Initial Study ' 28 Temecula General Plan Update 1 ' 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: ' Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than significant Mitigation significant No Issues and Supporting Information sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X ' environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal ' community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X ' cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past ' projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of pro able future projects)? C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or ' indirectly? 17.a. Development pursuant to General Plan policy may affect some biological and cultural resources in the Planning ' Area. These issues will be discussed in the EIR. 17.b. The project is a long-term community plan to guide future development within the Temecula Planning Area. Cumulative effect of such future development will be addressed in the EIR. ' 17.c. The purpose of the General Plan is to guide long-term development that ensures land use compatibility and to provide a safe living and working environment for the residents of the Planning Area. The General Plan is anticipated to ' result in an overall beneficial effect on people. No significant adverse impact on people will result from implementation of the updated General Plan. 1 1 City of Temecula Initial Study 29 Temecula General Plan Update I 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR,or other CEQA process,one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. ' a. No earlier analyses are used. b. Impacts adequately addressed. N/A C. Mitigation measures. N/A. ' SOURCES ' 1. California Archaeological Inventory. 2. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Hazardous Waste and Substance List (Cortese List). ' 3. California Geological Survey. 4. California Resources Agency, California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2001. 5. City of Temecula, Draft General Plan. 6.. City of Temecula, Multi-Hazard Functional Plan. 7. Environmental Protection Agency, CERCLIS Hazardous Waste Sites. 8. Environmental Projection Agency, Superfund Information Systems. 9. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map. 10. French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 11. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)Growth Management Plan. 12. South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management Plan. 13. Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)Growth Management Plan. ' 14. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Temecula Initial Study 30 Temecula General Plan Update ' 1 'ev STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse ' Gray Davis Tal Finney Governor Interim Director ' Notice of Preparation June 6,2003 1 To: Reviewing Agencies ' Re: City of Temecula General Plan SCHk 2003061041 ' Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation(NOP)for the City of Temecula General Plan draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR). Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead Awithin 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead A en. This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. ' Please direct your comments to: David Hogan ' City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula,CA 92590 ' with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. ' If you have any questions about the environmental document review process,please call the State Clearinghouse at (916)445-0613. Sroject Sgan Palyst,State Clearinghouse Attachments FBy cc: Lead AgencyJUN 16 2003 1 ' 1400 TENTH STREET P.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 (916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.oprxa.gov - zo vUcumenr ueiaus report State Clearinghouse Data Base ' SCHa 2003061041 ' Project Title City of Temecula General Plan Lead Agency Temecula,City of Type NOP Notice of Preparation ' Description The project is the adoption and implementation of the General Plan of the City of Temecula to guide planning decisions in Tmecula over a 20-year period. The Planning Area includes the City's corporate limitsand approximately 16,776 acres in the City's sphere of influence. The General Plan addresses ' the seven State mandated general plan elements, as well as other issues that are Important to the community, including growth management,economic development,air quality, and community design. The General Plan establishesa vision for the City,emphasizing a family-focused lifestyle while ' propmoting a strong local business community and agricultural,and manufacturing industries,so the community remains an attractive place to live,work,and play. _ Lead Agency Contact ' Name David Hogan Agency City of Temecula Phone 909-694-6400 Fax ' email -Address 43200 Business Park Drive City Temecula State CA Zip 92590 ' Project Location County Riverside City Temecula ' Region Cross Streets Parcel No. ' Township Range Section 'Base Proximity to: ' Highways SR-79, 1.15 Airports French Valley Airport Railways None Waterways None ' Schools Various Land Use Currently,Temecula is developed with residential,commercial, industrial, public, and open space uses. ' Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual;Agricultural Land;Air Quality;Archaeologic-Historic;Drainage/Absorption;Flood Plain/Flooding;'Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologic/Selsmic;Noise; Population/Housing Balance; ' Public Services;Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities;Sewer Capacity; Soil Eroslon/Compaction/Grading;Solid Waste;Toxir/Hazardous;TraffietCirculation;Vegetation;Water Quality;Water Supply;Wetland/Riparian;Wildlife; Growth Inducing; Landuse;Cumulative Effects ' Reviewing Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; Department of Conservation; Office of Historic Preservation; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Department of Fish and Game, ' Region 6; Native American Heritage Commission;State Lands Commission; Caltrans. District 8; Department of Housing and Community Development;Resources Agency;California Highway Patrol; Integrated Waste Management Board;Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9 ' Date Received 06/06/2003 Start or Review 06/06/2003 End of Review 07/07/2003 '.,Note: Blanks imdata fields result from insufficient Information provided by lead agency. ' t�DiAMUdWist M EWCot)". q9kVM1?QM M Ern usm nR= `'�m Resources Agency Fish and Game ❑ Colorado River Board ❑ Dept of Transportation 10 ❑ State Water Resources Control Gerald R.Zimmerman Tom Dumas Board District 16 Student Intern,401 Water Quality Ced®• Resources Agency ❑ Dept.of Fish&Game ❑ Tahoe Regional Planning ❑ Dept.of Transportation ti Division of Unit Nadell Gayou Scott Flint. Division of Water Quality Agency(TRPA) - Bill Flgge Environmental Services Division L Barnett District 11 . Dept.of Boating 8 Waterways Yrt State Water Resouces Control Suzi BeWer ❑ Dept.of Fish&Game 1 ❑ Dept o}Transportation 12 Board Mike Falkenstein '❑ California Coastal Donald Koch ❑ Office of Emergency Services Bob Joseph Division of Water Rights Region 1 John Rowden,Manager District 12 Commission g ❑ Dept.of Toxic Substances Con Vo. � (�1lzabeth A.Fuchs ❑ Bemptt.Curti&Game 2 Business.Trans &Housina CEQA Tracking Center .IL7 Dept of Conservation ❑.Delta Protection Commission Roseanne Taylor Region 2 Debby Eddy ❑ Dept of Fish&.Game 3 Housing&Community Development Regional Water Quality Control ❑ Dept of Forestry&Fire •Robert Floerkeathy Creswell Board (RWQCB) Protection Santa MonicaMi Mountains Region 3 C H using Policy Division Allen Robertson � Conservancy ❑ RWQCB 1 la' ❑ Dept.of Fish&Game 4 Paul Edelman Caltrons-Division of Aeronautics OUlce of Historic William ouerm Ldilk - Sandy Hesnard Cathleen Hudson Preservation Region 4 Dept. of Transportation North Coast Region(1) bb Hans Kreuerg Call}omla Highway Patrol ❑ RWQCB 2 ,® Dept of Parks&Recreation ❑ Dept of Fish&Game 5 ❑ pet LL Julie Page Environmental Document B.Noah Tilghman Don Chadwick P of Transportation 1 Office of Special Projects Coordinator Environmental Stewardship Region S.Habitat Conservation Mike Eagan De Son Francisco Be Section ��JJqq Program District 7 Dept.of Transportation y Region(2) Ron eson ❑ Reclamation Board W+f� Dept of Fish&Game 6 ❑ Dept of Transportation 2 Caltrans9 Planning ❑ RWQCB 3 Lod Buford Gabdna Gatchel Don Anderson Dept of General Services Coast Region(3) Region 6, Habitat Conservation District 2 ❑ RWQCB 4 ❑ S.F.Bay Conservation& Program Robert Sloppy - Dev'L Comm. ❑ Dept Jonathan Bishop of Transportation 3 Environmental Services Section Steve McAdam ❑ Dept of Fish&Game 6 VM Jeff Pulvermen Los Angeles Raglan(4) Tammy Allen District 3 Air Resources Board ❑ RWQCB SS . Region 6,InyolMono,Habitat ❑ ❑ Central Valley Region(5) EDept of Water Resources Conservation Program Dept of Transportation 4 Airport Projects Resources Agency Tin Sable Jim Lemer❑ ept of Fish&Game M District 4 RWQCB SF D Nadel)Gayou ❑ Transportation Projects Central Valley Region(5) Tam Napoli ❑ Dept of Transportation 6 Kurt Karperos Fresno Branch Office Marine Region David Murray ❑ Health &Welfare District 5 ❑ Industrial Projects. RWQCB Central Valley SR Independent Commissions Mike Tollstrup Region(5) ❑ Dept.of Transportation 6. Redding Branch Office ❑ Health&Welfare Marc Birnbaum ❑ Wayne Hubbard ❑ California la Energy Commission 6ahonten Region(8) :�Californiaaoma Integrated Waste RWQCB 6 Environmental Office Management Board,District Dept of HealtiJDrinking Water ❑Comm.® Dept of Transportation 7 Sue O'Leary ❑ RWQCB 6V American Heritage J.Buswell Food &AariCUlture C Comm. District 7 ❑ State Water Resources Control Lahontan Region(6) Debbie Treadway - Board Victonnlle Branch Office ❑ Food&Agriculture ❑ Public UUIIUes Commission Q Dept of Transportation 8 Jim Hockenberry ❑ RWQCB 7 Linda Grimes, - Division of Flnismial Assistance Steve Shaffer en Lewis District 8 Colorado River Basin Region(7) Dept of Food and Agriculture I State Lands Commission ❑ RWQCB 8 Jeer Serino .❑ Dept of Transportation 9 Santa Aria Region(8) , Gayle f Tron err 6��7 ❑ Govemors Office of Planning District 9 RWQCB 9 &Research San Diego Region(9) State Clearinghouse Planner South Coast ®�. Air Quality Management District 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 9 1 765-4 1 82 ' (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov June 11, 2003 ' Mr.'David Hogan,Principal Planner ' City of Temecula ' Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 t Dear Mr. Hogan: ' Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for Temecula General Plan Update ' The South Coast Air Quality Management District(AQMD)appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The AQMD's comments are recommendations ' regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR). Air Ouality Analysis The AQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. The AQMD ' recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available from the AQMD's Subscription Services Department by calling(909) 396-3720. ' The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts ' from both construction and operations should be considered. Construction-related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to, emissions from the use of heavy-duty equipment ' from grading, earth-loading/unloading, paving,architectural coatings,off-road mobile sources (e.g., heavy-duty construction equipment)and on-road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation-related air quality impacts may include, but are ' not limited to, emissions from stationary sources(e.g.,boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off-road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips ' should be included in the evaluation. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. ir JUN 17 2003 ;� 1 W.David Hogan -2- June 11, 2003 ' Mitigation Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize ' or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts. To assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for the project, please refer to Chapter 11 of the AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook for sample air quality mitigation measures. Additionally, AQMD's Rule 403 ' —Fugitive Dust, and the Implementation Handbook contain numerous measures for controlling construction-related emissions that should be considered for use as CEQA mitigation if not otherwise required. Pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 (axl)(D), any impacts ' resulting from mitigation measures must also be discussed. Data Sources ' AQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the AQMD's Public Information Center at(909)396-2039. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the AQMD's World Wide Web Homepage ' (hlW://www.agmd.gov). The AQMD is willing to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project-related emissions are accurately identified, categorized, and evaluated. Please call Charles Blankson, Ph.D., Air Quality Specialist, CEQA Section, at(909)396-3304 if you have any questions regarding this letter. 1 Sincerely, Steve Smith, Ph.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning,Rule Development and Area Sources ' SS:CB:li RVC30610-01L1 Control Number 1 1 i COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE '"' •. TRANSPORTA77ONAND 4 Y LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY 04 LA„OG Transportation Department GcaBe A.Johmon, PE. Director of Pamporratlon I I 1 June 23, 2003 ;~ -- Mr. David Hogan City of Temecula Planning Department % 43200 Business Pa k-.Drive — --- TemtCUla, CA-92590 SUBJECT: Nofice of Preparation of a Dra$Environmental Impact Report.for the City of Temecula-GeAeral Plan•Upda�� 70ear Mr. Hogan:`: =�he County of Riverside:7Tansportatio�epanment has reviewed3be atjove referenced w ' docCament and we Have the corFunent5a�oted�below. We concur with the finding thatar-Environmental Irr)padt.Raport.l5,necessary In order to� ' address potential traffic impacts Jii�oiic-LAys•remainingvn`aeP C-ouhty jurisdiction. We are requesting that we receive a copy of-the_tFafflc_s'fudyrfof our.review and comments as soon as it becomes available. We are-concerned with=cumulative traffic impacts from ' development projects which may adversely affect County roadways. We do have a copy of our circulation element available for your use in order to help ensure ' consistency and coordination of our roadways and their potential regional impacts. 1 JUL 0 2 2003 , 4080 Urnon Strcct.8th Floor• Riverside,California 92501 •(909)955-6740y— ---- — ' P.O.Box 1090• Rivcrsidc,Callfbrnia 92502-1090•FAX(909)955.6721 , 1 Mr. David Hogan City of Temecula Page Two 1 Should you have questions, or desire clarification of our comments, please contact Sian ' Roman, Planner III, at 909.955.6874. Sincerer Edwin D. Studor ' Administrative Manager SR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Riverside Transit Agency 1 1825 Third Street P.O.Box 59956 Riverside.CA 92517.1968 , Phone:(909)565-5000 Fax: (909)565-5001 June 24,2003 David Hogan, Contact Planner Planning Dept. City of Temecula ' P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: Initial Study for 2003 Temecula General Plan Update—Approval by RTA ' Dear Mr: Hogan: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Initial Study. A copy of the RTA staff review memo a ' regarding the project is attached for your information. Other than recognizing the document's positive statement on page 27 regarding the City's continued commitment to public transit, RTA , has no further comments on the project.. We look forward to reviewing the EIR. If you or the consultants have any questions regarding public transit, please do not hesitate to contact us. If you need further clarification or I can be of further assistance, please call meat(909) 565-5164. or contact me online at mmccov(o)dversidelransit.com. Sincerely., Michael McCoy Senior Planner 1 1 pL� � C� ii �lf� �nI JUN 2 6 2003 �J ' J'U Fldet8lPlannin9VAkeMlWordtDev RevievATemecula120031RTA Ltrhd-Gen PlnlnifialStudy.doc ' 1 1 June 24, 2003 wYe.6taa na�t ae0�w PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW To: Anne Palatino, Director of Planning ' From: Michael McCoy, Senior Planner Subject: City of Temecula, Initial Study for General Plan Update-Case#: (none) RTA comments ' Location: City of Temecula and Its Sphere of Influence Bus routes involved: #23, #24. #79 and potential future routes ' Summary: The City of Temecula has published the Initial Study(IS)for its 2003 General Plan Update. Under Item 15 in IS, the City voices a continued and commendable commit- ment to public transportation, claiming that policies expected to result from the General Plan Update should have"Less Than Significant Impact"on bus service. The Circulation Element of the forthcoming Environmental Impact Report will discuss public transit further. Otherwise,staff has no comments for the City on the project at this time. INITIAL REVIEW INFORMATION - Review completed date: June 20, 2003. Documents received at RTA: June 10, 2003; ' Reply-by Date: July 7, 2003; Planning Commission Agenda Date: Unknown or N/A; City Council/Bd of Supervisors Agenda Date: Unknown or N/A; Thomas Guide Map pg and grid: (not applicable),- Case Numbers: (not applicable at this time); Case Planner. David Hogan, (909)694.6400; Applicant and Lead Agency: City of Temecula Consultant on General Plan: Cotton/Bridges Associates of Pasadena CA RTA PLANNING FOLLOW-UP: Standard"Acceptable' letter to jurisdiction without comments Standard"Acceptable" letter to jurisdiction with compliments or positive advisories Letter with comments advising project modifications re transit issues Verbal conversation with Case Planner and appropriate letter follow-up Letter sent: Date: 6 2 D3 File name: F_\data%Planning iReM\WordlDev RevievATemecula\2003\RTA Ltrhd-GenPlnlnitialStudy.doc ' SECOND REVIEW: Review materials placed in archive files: Date: 2 03 F:\data\Planning\MikeM\Word\Dev RevievATemecula\2003\GenPlnlnitialStudy.doc Rho BRN 1DB FAX TRANSMITTAL 1 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) 5555 Arlington Ave. RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 PHONE: (909) 351-0700 X204 1 IE 'A. FAX: (909) 688-6873 IKON 0Ad IC ' DEVELOPWNT A 0 8 N C Y . To: Dave Hogan/ Jeff Henderson , Company: Temecula Cotton Bridges ' Phone: Fax: 909-694-6477 / 626-304-0402 ' Re: Airport Property Sender: Keith Downs 1 YOU SHOULD RECEIVE (2 ) PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO 1 NOT RECEIVE ALL-THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (90D 351-0700 x204. The exhibit does not show all of the airport property. The white parcel was procured in 1999. Thanks! 1 q. 1 1 HAPAXCOVERMdoe 11 1��■ :: ■W1 1 INCH • • r, r . ' A STATE OF CALIFORNIA.THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,Gw w ' DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME h tto:lhrnvw.dfg,ca Gov Eastern Sierra-Inland Deserts Region , 4775 Bird Fans Rd. Chino Hills,California 91709 Phone(909) 597-9823 ' Fax(909)597-0067 June 27, 2003 Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner ' City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Re: Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report—Temecula General Plan , Update Dear Mr. Hogan: ' The Department of Fish and Game(Department)appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)for the above-referenced , project with regards to impacts to biological resources. The proposed project is a General Plan Update that addresses the seven State mandated general plan elements(land use, housing, circulation, safety, open space, conservation, and noise), as well as other issues that are important to the community, , including growth management, economic development, air quality, and community design.The updated General Plan will guide physical development within the Temecula Planning Area over the next 20 years. The General plan establishes a vision for the City,emphasizing a family-focused lifestyle while promoting a strong local business community and agricultural,technological,and manufacturing industries, so that , the community remains an attractive and enjoyable place to live, work, and play. The project site is located in southwestern Riverside County. The City Is bordered by the De Luz area to the west,the City of Murrieta and Mun ieta Hot Springs to the north, unincorporated County of Riverside land to the east,and ' the Pechanga Indian Reservation, Bureau of Land Management lands, and unincorporated portions of San Diego County to the south The Department is responding as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources(Fish and Game , Code sections 711.7 and 1802 and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines(CEQA)section 153861 and as a Responsible Agency regarding any discretionary actions (CEQA Guidelines section 15381). A review of records from the California Natural Diversity Database and other area resources indicate that the following sensitive species and habitat types occur in the project vicinity and may be affected by the proposed project California gnatcatcher(Polioptila ca/ifomica),least Bell's vireo(Vireo bellii pusillus), ' western burrowing owl (Athene cunlcularla hypugaea), bald eagle (Halteeetus leucocephalus), golden eagle(Aquila chryseetos),ferruginous hawk(Buteo regalis),northern harrier(Circus cyaneus),Cooper's hawk(Accipitercoopern),white-tailed kite(Elanusleucurus),California horned lark(Eremophila alpestris , actia), southern Califomia rufous-crowned sparrow(Aimophila ruficeps canescens), Bell's sage sparrow . (Amphispiza belli belli), coastal cactus wren (Campylothynchus brunneicapillus couesi), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottono, vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha qulno), arroyo chub (Gila orcutti), western spadefoot (Scaphiopus , hammondfi), southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida), coastal western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus), San Diego banded gecko (Coleonyx variegates abbotti), San Bernardino ringneck snake (Dladophis punctatus modestus), San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma , JUL 01 Z003 NOP, DEIR for Temecula General Plan Update June 26, 2003 Page 2 of 6 coronatum blainviffel), orange-throated whiptail (Cnemldophorus hyperythnls), northern red-diamond ' rattlesnake(Crotalus exsuq, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit(Lepus cal/fomicus benneftir),northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax), Los Angeles pocket mouth (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus),San Diego desert woodrat(Neotoma lepida intermedia),Stephen's kangaroo rat(Dipodomys'stephenst), little mousetail(Myosurus minimus ssp.apus),bottle liverwort(Sphaemcarpos dreweo, thread-Leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia), Parry's spineflower.(Chorizanthe parryi var.parryr), Spreading navarretle(Navarretia fossalfs),prostrate navarretia(Navarreda prostrate), rainbow manzanita (Arotostaphylos rainbowensis), San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosla pumile), smooth tarplant(Centromadia pungens ssp.leevis).Coulter's goldfields(Lasthenia glabrate ssp.colten),California orcutt grass(Orcuttia califomica), Orcutrs brodiaea (Brodiaea orcutUi), southern skullcap (Scutellaria bolanderi ssp. austromontana), San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishir), long-spined spineflower (Chorizanfhe polygonoides var. longispina), Munz's onion (Allium monzir), Robinson's pepper-grass (Lepidium virginicum var.robinsonfi),San Miguel savory(Satureja chandlan),round-leaved filaree(Erodium macrophyllum), including Valley Needlegrass Grassland, Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest,Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland,Southern Interior ' Basalt Flow Vernal Pool. The Department recommends that the potential direct and Indirect impacts to the above-mentioned sensitive species and habitats be analyzed in the DEIR. To enable Department staff to adequately review and comment on the proposed project, we ' suggest that updated biological studies be conducted prior to any environmental or discretionary 'f approvals.The following information should be included in any focused biological report or supplemental environmental report: 1. A complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area,with particular `5 emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, and sensitive species and sensitive habitats. a. Conduct an updated (within the last 2 years)general biological study of the site to determine if ' any sensitive species or habitat(including, but not limited to, those mentioned above) may be potentially impacted by the proposed project.A complete assessment of sensitive fish,wildlife, reptile,and amphibian species should be included in the DEIR.Seasonal variations in use of the project area should also be addressed; b. If appropriate habitat for any listed species occurs on the site,have a qualified biologist conduct ' focused surveys according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or Department protocol; c. Have a qualified botanist conduct a focused rare plant survey during the appmoriate time of ear following USFWS and/or Department protocols; d. The Department's Califomia Natural Diversity Data Base in Sacramento should be contacted at (916) 327-5960 to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitat, including Significant Natural Areas identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code. e. If any listed species will potentially be impacted by the proposed project, consultation with the Department and/or the USFWS will be required to establish appropriate mitigation measures to avoid,minimize,or compensate for impacts. An incidental take permit may be required pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2080 et seq and/or Section 7 or 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act(ESA). Early consultation with the Department is recommended,since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or reduce Impacts to listed species. Please refer to Item 4 below for more detailed information regarding compliance with the California Endangered Species Act(CESA). NOP, DEIR for Temecula General Plan Update June 25, 2003 Page 3 of 5 ' f. The Department requests that impacts to State- and Federally-listed species and potential avoidance, alternative and mitigation measures be addressed in the CEGA document and not ' solely in subsequent negotiations between the applicant and the agencies. 2. A thorough discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect ' biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts. a. CEQA Guidelines, 15125(a), direct that knowledge of the regional setting is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts and that special emphasis should be placed on resources ' that are rare or unique to the region. b. Project impacts should be analyzed relative to their effects on off-site habitats. Specifically,this ' should include nearby river, streams, or lakes located downstream of the project, public lands, open space,adjacent natural habitats,and riparian ecosystems. Impacts to and maintenance of wildlife Corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitat in adjacent areas, should be fully evaluated and provided. c. The zoning of areas for development projects or other uses that are nearby or adjacent to natural areas may inadvertently contribute to wildlife-human interactions. A discussion of possible , conflicts and mitigation measures to reduce these conflicts should be included in the environmental document. d. A cumulative effects analysis should be developed as described under CEQA Guidelines, 15130. ' General and specific plans, as well as past, present, and anticipated future projects,should be analyzed relative to their impacts on similar plant communities and wildlife habitats. e. The DEIR should include an analysis of the effect that the project may have on completion and ' implementation of regional and/or subregional conservation programs. Under 2800-2840 of the Fish and Game Code,the Department,through the Natural Communities Conservation Planning ' (NCCP)program is coordinating with local jurisdictions,landowners,and the Federal Government to preserve local and regional biological diversity. Coastal sage scrub is the first natural community to be planned for under the NCCP program. The Department recommends that the lead agency ensure that the development of this and other proposed projects do not preclude , long-term preserve planning options and that projects conform with other requirements of the NCCP program. Jurisdictions participating in the NCCP should assess specific projects for consistency with the NCCP Conservation Guidelines. ' 3. A range of alternatives should be analyzed to ensure that atematives to the proposed project are fully considered and evaluated.A range of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources should be included. Specific alternative locations should also be evaluated in areas with lower resource sensitivity where appropriate. a. Mitigation measures for project impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and habitats should , emphasize evaluation and selection of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize project Impacts. Off-site compensation for unavoidable impacts through acquisition and protection of high-quality habitat elsewhere should be addressed. b. The Department considers Rare Natural Communities as threatened habitats having both ' regional and local significance. Thus,these communities should be fully avoided and otherwise protected from project-related impacts. NOP,DEIR for Temecula General Plan Update June 26, 2005 Page 4 of 5 c. The Department generally does not support the use of relocation,salvage,and/or transplantation ' as mitigation for impacts to rare,threatened,or endangered species. Department studies have shown that these efforts are experimental in nature and largely unsuccessful. 4. A CESA Incidental Take Permit is required when a project has the potential to result in 'take" of ' species of plants or animals listed under CESA, either.during construction or over the Irfe of the project CESA Permits are issued to conserve,protect,enhance,and restore State-listed threatened or endangered species and their habitats. Early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the proposed project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA Permit. Revisions to the Fish and Game Code, effective January 1998, require that the Department issue a separate CEQA document for the issuance of a CESA permit unless the project CEQA document addresses all project impacts to listed species and specifies a mitigation monitoring ' and reporting program that will meet the requirements of a CESA permit. For these reasons, the Department recommends including the following information; ' a. Biological mitigation monitoring and reporting proposals should be of sufficient detail and resolution to satisfy the requirements for a CESA Permit. b. A Mitigation Agreement and Mitigation Plan,approved by the Department,are required for plants listed as rare under the Native Plant Protection Act. 5. The Department opposes the elimination of watercourses and/ortheir channelization or conversion to subsurface drains. All wetlands and watercourses, whether intermittent or perennial, should be retained and provided with substantial setbacks which preserve the riparian and aquatic values and maintain their value to on-site and off-site wildlife populations. a. Under Section 1600 et sep of the Fish and Game Code, the Department requires the project applicant to notify the Department of any activity that will divert, obstruct or change the natural flow or the bed,channel,or bank(which includes associated riparian resources)of a river,stream or lake, or use material from a streambed prior to the applicant's commencement of the activity. Streams include, but are not limited to, intermittent and ephemeral streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes,sloughs,blue-line streams,and watercourses with subsurface flow. The Department's issuance of a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement for a project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by the Department as a responsible agency.The Department, as a responsible agency under CEQA, may consider the local jurisdiction's (lead agency) Negative Declaration or EIR for the project. However, if the CEQA document does not fully ' identify potential Impacts to lakes,streams, and associated resources(including, but not limited to, riparian and alluvial fan sage scrub habitat) and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments, additional CEQA documentation will be required prior to execution(signing)of the Streambed Alteration Agreement. In order to avoid delays or repetition of the CEOA process,potential impacts to a lake or stream,as well as avoidance and mitigation measures need to be discussed within this CEQA document. The Department recommends the following measures to avoid subsequent CEQA documentation and project delays: ' (1) Incorporate all information regarding Impacts to lakes, streams and associated habitat within the DEIR. Information that needs to be included within this document includes: (a) a delineation of lakes, streams, and associated habitat that will be directly or indirectly ' impacted by the proposed project; (b)details on the biological resources(flora and fauna) associated with the lakes and/or streams;,(c)identification of the presence or absence of sensitive plants, animals, or natural communities; (d) a discussion of environmental alternatives; (a) a discussion of avoidance measures to reduce project impacts:and (f) a discussion of potential mitigation measures required to reduce the project impacts to a NOP, DEIR for Temecula General Plan Update ' June 26, 2003 Page 5 of 5 , level of insignificance. The applicant and lead agency should keep in mind that the State also has a policy of no net loss of wetlands. (2) Include in the DER a discussion of potential adverse impacts from any increased runoff, ' sedimentation, soil erosion, and/or urban pollutants on streams and watercourses on or nearthe project site,with mitigation measures proposed to alleviate such impacts must be included. ' (3) The Department recommends that the project applicant and/or lead agency consult with the Department to discuss potential project Impacts and avoidance and mitigation ' measures. Early consultation with the Department Is recommended,since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources.To obtain a Streambed Alteration Agq eement Notification package,please call (562)5905880. ' Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Please contact me at(g49)458-1754 If you have any questions regarding this letter or need further coordination on these issues ' Sincerely, W9 i/Leslie MacNair """111111 Staff Environmental Scientist Habitat Conservation Planning i cc: Nancy Ferguson, USFWS, Carlsbad State Clearinghouse, Sacramento 1 1. MWD j JUL 0 8 2003 ' METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ! AIV ' Executive Office 1 ' July l; 2003 FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Hogan: ' initial Study and Notice of Preparation of an Environmental impact Report for the Temecula General Plan Update ' The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(Metropolitan)has reviewed'a copy of the Initial Study andNolice of Preparation(NOP)of an Environmental Impact Report for the ' Temecula General-Plan Update. The City of Temecula(City) is the lead agency for this project. This project consists of the adoption and implementation of the City's General Plan Update. The updated General Plan will address the seven State-mandated general plan elements(land use, housing,circulation, safety, open space,conservation, and noise),as well as other issues that are ' important to the community,including growth management,economic development,air quality, and community design. The Housing Element was recently updated in 2002,and thus is not being comprehensively updated as part of this program. The General Plan Update,which will guide physical development within the Temecula Planning Area over.the next 20 years, establishes a vision for the City,emphasizing a family-focused lifestyle,while promoting a strong local business community and agricultural, technological,and manufacturing industries. ' This letter contains Metropolitan's response to the Initial Study and NOP as both a potentially affected agency and responsible agency. Metropolitan owns and operates five water conveyance facilities within the boundaries of the area covered by the General Plan Update. Metropolitan's San Diego Pipeline nos. 1,2, 3,4;and 5 extend in a generally northeast-southwest direction through the City. In addition,Metropolitan ' is planning to construct a seven-mile stretch of the approved San Diego Pipeline No. 6 Project,. from Lake Skinner to De Portola Road,along the east boundary of the planning area. Metropolitan's facilities are within both permanent easement and fee-owned property within the boundaries of the General Plan Update area. In addition;Metropolitan owns property to the west of Lake Skinner,a portion of which is located outside of the city limits,but within the Planning 700 N.Alameda Street,Los Angeles,California 90012•Mailing Address:Box 54153,Los Angeles,California 90054-0153•Telephone(213)217-6000 1 Mr. David Hogan ' Page 2 July 1, 2003 ' Area for this document. This property is part of the operations area for Lake Skinner and serves ' to accommodate releases from Lake Skinner, Metropolitan is concerned with potential impacts to our facilities,easements,and property that t may occur a result of the proposed General Plan Update. Metropolitan requests that the City consider Metropolitan's facilities and property in its planning and identify and avoid potential ' impacts that may occur as a result of Plan implementation. Metropolitan must be allowed to maintain its right-of-way and access to our facilities at all times in order to repair and maintain the current condition of those facilities. If impacts are not able to be avoided,then Metropolitan requests that the City consider alternatives in the Draft EIR that reduce or avoid the impacts or ' that they develop, in consultation with Metropolitan,measures to mitigate the impacts. The City states in its proposed Growth Management/Public Facilities Element,"The purpose of the Growth Management/Public Facilities Element is to promote orderly growth and development ' dependent on the provision oradequate public facilities and services. This element sets forth goals,policies, implementation program and performance standards that ensure future development is coordinated with the availability of public facilities and services operating at ' desired levels." As such,Metropolitan requests that its facilities and property be given a land use designation ' similar to the City's public facilities(e.g., roadways). This land use designation should set forth that development in and around Metropolitan's facilities shall be consistent with the express use of our pipelines as public facilities. Metropolitan requests this designation based on the land uses shown on Figure 2 of the Proposed General Plan Update,which indicates"Open Space" across Metropolitan's San Diego Pipeline Nos. 1 through 5 in numerous locations. In addition, Figure 2 also identifies Metropolitan's property west of Lake Skinner as Open Space. These ' lands are not intended for open space use nor should they be implied as such. Metropolitan requires unobstructed access to our pipelines and property for routine and emergency maintenance and operations,and hence any designation other then"Public Facilities"is ' inaccurate. In order to avoid potential conflicts with Mctropolit&s rights-of-way, we require that any design ' plans for any activity in the area of Metropolitan's pipelines or facilities be submitted for our review and written approval. The City and individual project applicants may obtain detailed prints of drawings of t Metropolitan's pipelines and rights-of-way by calling Metropolitan's Substructures Information Line at(213) 217-6564. To assist the City and project applicants in preparing plans that are ' compatible with Metropolitan's facilities and easements,we have enclosed a copy of the "Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities,Fee Properties,and/or Easements of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California." Please note that all submitted designs or ' plans must clearly identify Metropolitan's facilities and rights-of-way. 1 Mr. David Hogan ' Page 3 July 1,2003 ' Metropolitan also requests that the City analyze the consistency of the proposed project with the growth management plan adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Metropolitan uses SCAG's population, housing,and employment projections to determine future water demand. In addition, Metropolitan encourages projects within its service area to include water ' conservation measures. Water conservation,reclaimed water,use,and.groundwater recharge programs are integral components to regional water supply planning. Metropolitan supports ' mitigation measure's such as using water efficient fixtures,drought-tolerant landscaping, and reclaimed water to offset any increase in water use associated with the'proposed project. We appreeiate.the opportunity,to provide input to your planning process and we look forward to receiving future environmental documentation, including'a copy of&Draft EK for this project. If we can be of further assistance,please,contact MrAohn Vrsalovich at(213)217-6066. Very truly yours, ' Laura J. Simonek Manager,Asset Management. "A= ' and Facilities Planning Unit . Zr r' JAI-Urdl (ruuac rotder iWuiUMrJOI-ruw3A.doo-nn�idRogm) Enclosure: Planning Guidelines'.' 1 Guidelines for Developments in the , Area of Facilities Fee Properties and or Easements . o=The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 1. Introduction a. The following general guidelines should be ' followed for the design of proposed facilities and developments in the area of Metropolitan's facilities, fee , properties, and/or easements. b. we require that 3 copies of your tentative and final record maps, grading, paving, .street improvement, . , landscape; storm drain, and utility plans be submitted for our review and written approval as they pertain to Metropolitan's facilities, fee properties and/or ' easements, prior to the commencement of any construction work. 2. Plans, Parcel and Tract Maps , The following are Metropolitan's requirements for the identification of its facilities, fee properties, and/or , easements on your plans, parcel maps and tract maps: a. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements and , its ,pipelines and other facilities must be fully shown and identified as Metropolitan"s on all applicable plans. b. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements must be shown and identified as Metropolitan's with the official. recording data on all applicable parcel and tract maps. C. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements and existing survey monuments must be dimensionally tied to the parcel or tract boundaries. , d. Metropolitan's records of surveys .must 'be referenced on the parcel and tract maps. 1 3 - e. Metropolitan's pipelines and other facilities, e.g. structures, manholes, equipment, 'survey monuments, etc. within its fee properties and/or easements must be protected ' from damage by the easement holder on Metropolitan's property or the property owner where Metropolitan has an easement, at no expense to Metropolitan. If the facility is a cathodic protection station it shall 'be 'located prior to ' any grading or excavation. The -exact location, description - and way of protection shall be shown on the related plans. for the easement area. . 4. Easements on Metropolitan's Property ' a. We encourage the use of Metropolitan's fee rights- of-way by governmental agencies for public street and utility purposes, provided that such use does not interfere with Metropolitan's use of the property, the entire width of ' the property is -accepted into the agency's. public street fe system and fair market value is paid for such use of the right-of-way. b. Please contact the Director of Metropolitan's �,.. Right of Way and Land Division, telephone (213) .250-6302, concerning easements for landscaping, street, storm drain, ' sewer, water .or other public facilities proposed within Metropolitan's fee properties. A map and legal description of the- requested easements must be submitted. Also, written evidence must be submitted that shows the city or county will accept the easement! for the specific purposes into its ' public system. The grant of the easement will be subject to Metropolitan's rights to use its land for water pipelines and related purposes to the same extent as if such grant had not been made. There will be a charge for, the easement. Please note that, if entry is required on -the property prior to issuance of the easement, an entry permit must be obtained. There will also be a charge for the entry permit. S. Landscaping Metropolitan's landscape guidelines for its fee properties ,and/or easements are as follows: ., ' a. A green belt may be allowed within Metropolitan's fee property or easement. b. All landscape plans shall show the location and size of Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement and the location and size of Metropolitan's pipeline or other facilities therein. ' 1 - s - 1 a. Permanent structures, including catch basins, ' manholes, power poles, telephone riser boxes, etc. , shall not be located within its fee properties and/or easements. b. We request that permanent utility structures , within public streets, in which Metropolitan's facilities . are constructed under the Metropolitan Water District , Act, be placed as far from our pipeline as possible, but not closer than 5 feet from the outside of our pipeline. C. The installation of utilities over or under , Metropolitan's pipeline (s) must be in accordance with the requirements shown on the enclosed prints of Drawings Nos. C-11632 and C-9547. Whenever possible we request a minimum of one foot clearance between, Metropolitan's pipe ' and your facility. Temporary support of Metropolitan's pipe mayalso be required at nndercrossings of its pipe in an .open trench. The temporary support plans must be reviewed and approved by Metropolitan. ' d. Lateral utility crossings of Metropolitan's pipelines must be as perpendicular to its pipeline ' alinement as practical. Prior .to any excavation. our_ _ pipeline shall be located manually and any excavation within two feet of our pipeline must be done by hand. This shall be noted on the appropriate drawings. , e. Utilities constructed longitudinally within Metropolitan's rights-of-way must be located outside the theoretical trench prism for uncovering its pipeline. and , must be located parallel to and as close to its rights- of-way lines as. practical. f. When piping is jacked or installed in jacked ' casing or tunnel under Metropolitan's pipe, there must be at least two feet of vertical clearance between the bottom of Metropolitan's pipe and the top of the jacked ' pipe, jacked casing or tunnel. We also require that detail drawings of.the shoring for the jacking or tunneling pits be submitted for our review and approval. , Provisions must be made to grout any voids around the exterior of the jacked pipe, jacked casing or. tunnel. If the piping is installed in a jacked casing or tunnel the annular space between the piping and the jacked casing or. , tunnel must be filled with grout. j. Potholing of Metropolitan's pipeline is required if the vertical clearance between a utility and ' Metropolitan's pipeline is indicated on the plan to be one foot or less. If the indicated clearance is between one and two feet, potholing is suggested. Metropolitan will provide a representative to assists others in locating and ' identifying its pipeline. Two-working days notice is requested. k. Adequate shoring and bracing is required for the full depth of the trench when the excavation encroaches within the zone shown on Figure 4. 1. The location of utilities within Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement shall be plainly marked to help prevent damage during maintenance or other work done in the area. Detectable tape over buried utilities ' should be placed a minimum of 12 inches above the utility and shall conform to the following requirements: 1) Water pipeline: A two-inch blue warning ' tape shall be imprinted with: _ "CAUTION BURIED WATER PIPELINE" ' 2) Gas, oil, or chemical pipeline: A two-inch yellow warning tape shall be imprinted with: ' "CAUTION BURIED PIPELINE" ' 3) Sewer or storm drain pipeline: A two-inch green warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED PIPELINE" 4) Electric, street lighting, or traffic signals conduit: A two-inch red warning tape shall be imprinted with: ' "CAUTION BURIED CONDUIT" ' S) Telephone, or television conduit: A two-inch orange warning tape shall be imprinted with: °CAUTION BURIED CONDUIT" 1 9 - o. Control Cables connected with the operation of ' Metropolitan's system are buried within streets, its fee properties and/or easements. The locations and elevations of these cables shall be shown on the drawings. The ' drawings shall note that prior to any excavation in the area, the control cables shall be located and measures shall be taken by the contractor to protect the cables in ' place. p. Metropolitan is a member of Underground Service Alert (USA) . The contractor (excavator) shall contact , USA at 1-800-422-4133 (Southern California) at least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation work. The contractor will be liable for any damage to Metropolitan's facilities as a result of the construction. ' S. Paramount Right ' Facilities constructed within Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements shall be subject to the paramount right of Metropolitan to use its fee properties ' and/or easements for the purpose for which they were acquired_ If..at any time Metropolitan_o-_i.ks- assicins. . --------... _ should, in the exercise of their rights, find it necessary , to remove any of the facilities from the fee properties and/or easements, such removal and replacement shall be at the expense of the owner of the facility. 9. Modification of Metropolitan's Facilities , when a manhole or other of Metropolitan's facilities ' must be modified to accommodate your construction or recons- truction, Metropolitan will modify the facilities with its forces. This should be noted on the construction plans. The ' estimated cost to perform this modification will be given to you and we will require a deposit for this amount before the work is performed. Once the deposit is received, we will schedule the work. Our forces will coordinate the work with , your contractor. Our final billing will be based on actual cost incurred, and will include materials, construction, engineering plan review, inspection, and administrative overhead charges calculated in accordance with Metropolitan's , standard accounting practices. If the cost is less than the deposit, a refund will be made; however, if the cost exceeds the deposit, an invoice will be forwarded for payment of the ' additional amount. ' imposes loads no greater than AASATO E-•10. If the cover is between two and three- feet, equipment must be restricted to ' that of a Caterpillar D-4. tract-type tractor. If the cover is less than two feet, only hand equipment may be used. Also, if the' contractor plans to use any 'equipment over metropolitan's. .pipeline. which will impose loads greater than AASHTO H-20, it will be necessary to submit the specifications of such equipment for our- review and approval at least one week prior to its use. _ More restrictive requirements may apply to the loading guideline over' the San-Diego Pipelines l and 2, portions of the Orange County Feeder, and the Colorado River Aqueduct. Please contact us for loading restrictions on all. of Metropolitan's pipelines and ' conduits., b. The, existing cover over the. pipeline shall be maintained unless Metropolitan determines that proposed ' changes do not pose a hazard to the integrity of the pipeline or an impediment to its maintenance: . , M 13. Blasting . -' a. At least 20 days prior to the start of any ' drilling for rock excavation blasting, or any blasting, in the vicinity of Metropolitan's facilities, a two-pazi preliminary conceptual plan .shall be submitted to Metropolitan as follows: b. Part 1 of the conceptual plan shall include a complete summary of ,proposed transportation, handling, storage, and use of explosions. ' `c: Part 2 shall 'include the proposed general concept for blasting, including controlled blasting techniques and controls of .noise, fly rock, airblast, and ground vibration. 14. CEQA Requirements ' a. When Environmental Documents Have Not Been Prepared ' 1) - Regulations implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) require that . Metropolitan have an opportunity to consult with the ' agency or consultants preparing any environmental documentation. We are required to review and consider the environmental effects of the project as shown in ' the 'Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for your project before committing Metropolitan to approve your request. 1 1 1 giving Metropolitan ' s comments, requirements and/or approval ' that will require 8 man-hours or less of effort is typically performed at no cost to the developer, unless a facility must be modified where Metropolitan has superior rights. if an engineering review and letter response requires more than 8 man-hours of effort by Metropolitan to determine if the proposed facility or development is compatible with its facilities, or if modifications to Metropolitan's manhole (s) ' or other facilities will be required, then all of Metropolitan's costs associated with the project must be paid by the developer, unless the developer has superior rights-., , b. A deposit of , funds will be required from the developer before Metropolitan 'can begin its detailed - ' engineering plan review that will exceed 8 hours. The amount of the required deposit will be determined after a cursory review of the plans for the proposed development, c. Metropolitan's final billing will be based on ' actual cost incurred, and will include engineering plan review, inspection, materials, construction, and administrative overhead charges calculated in accordance , with Metropolitan's standard accounting practices. If the cost is less than the deposit, a refund will be made; . -however, if the cost exceeds the deposit, an invoice will be , forwarded for payment of the additional amount. Additional deposits may be required. if the cost of Metropolitan's review exceeds the amount of .the initial deposit. 16. Caution , we advise you that Metropolitan's plan reviews and , responses are based upon information available to Metropolitan which was prepared by or on behalf of Metropolitan for general record purposes only. Such , information may not be sufficiently detailed or accurate for your purposes. No warranty of any kind, either express or implied, is attached to the information therein conveyed as to its accuracy, and no inference should be drawn from ' Metropolitan's failure to comment on any aspect of your project. You are therefore cautioned to make 'such surveys and other field investigations as you may deem prudent to assure yourself that any plans for your project are correct. ' 1 1 4 . S B BACKHOE OR TRENCHER r �� H -LAYING CRANE L S � r NEEDED POR TRENCHER. �',� iC • rU • ALSO DUMP TRUCK 1 i PARKING t . MINIMUM WIDTH FOR p.►� 8'-0°1.0. X 20'-O"LENGTN FULLY TIMBERED ® . ; . ® WEIGHT 90,000 LBS.. TRENCH 'Q G lWll.r IWM 0-0, 28=0° . REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION 44 0. WIDTHS l+*_............erC.?. aa..............waa._......-.. - -........ FIGURE rO�w Yp n r nsw u.n r.o.Yq u...n - M.W.D. PERMANENT RIGHT OF WAY NO DEEP NO TREES iV0 0££P ROOTED TREES' ONLY APPROVEO SHALLOW ROOTED TREES ROOTING SHRUBS OR GRASSES /5' I51 FINISHED SURFACE E AM PIPE---' --, J 0 nrz Memegro r, ne arsr'XT awnua �uoa LANDSCAPE GUIDEL/NES FOR M.W.D. R/GNT OF WAY CaIGM_..�.......1KNYMf1if0_............_.._.. IM([yy FIGURE 3 SPWFICAGONS MOL SHUT HOL Orr rfffxRfA"I OlAer 'IMM I I flEe-4 P11— — I ";V,=a ."ff MST ENO,COR—ATR ANO POLL POSr BRACING In SAW nv, -14 Sp A." A.- 9 tits 841 arwrXm Ar sW4"W pgwW.p"SAWy Z.Zar.A;�w r my, 4"- ON TAT l r smr.w sami E mm aerr arrAm SAY&QEOMI--. CAAY I Egli Noy mir, Wa ji-li-Am— swce orrA&opJ curour rWCHAUVA LOON -ZZL r Nl�lwm vfe AdW--LM llwfAI Tut—Airtomumm Mad atirescr NMI aw.- MAIN I im do FENCE "Wis O"LE FIGURE -- I July 1, 2003 1 lambDavid Hogan, Principal Planner ' City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive ' Temecula, CA 92560 71o:w durn<wn deAalyL7N,oWnr SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN—NOTICE OF JW.G nna ' w , PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT uhu wnn Sr.We P."am, REPORT SwDbm J.Coe yh a oa 7 Dear Mr.Hogan: ' u.n ee u,nx. LIu AHennwn Rancho California Water District (RCWD) appreciates the opportunity to dab.P.xn provide comments on the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact ' Report(EIR) and Initial Study for the City of Temecula General Plan. RCWD's comments arc as follows: John P.Rmnlp. ' nanm�l Memenr Pnm1P 1-Fnw Earlier CEQA Analyses M.nme MVYwva Tmnm ' •"o7,•,<mnn. Section 18 of the Initial Study indicates that no earlier California Environmental °rtigMD"m"' Quality Act (CEQA) analyses were used. Therefore, RCWD's comments are Dlc r1 C.eOr based upon the assumption that a new environmental impact report EIR will be OirtebrMO,c"imu P P P � (EIR) ' •d°°°" prepared by the City of Temecula, in lieu of a supplemental EIR or tiered EIR. r.®wuu ,t"d�At rRawn Water Resources - uw><a 9.R.w,.Aandn7.l.su.. , tlervcaeMwµ" GMcbselC 1' The explanation for Section 16A of the Initial Study indicates that a potentially e..9 , &M. 'e significant impact may occur to water supplies. Therefore, during the con"CVM"al , preparation of the Draft EIR, RCWD requests that the Draft EIR should provide a detailed site-specific analysis of water supply impacts based upon the proposed modifications to the General Plan Land Use designations. Please be aware that the water agencies serving the City of Temecula are required by the California ' State Water Code (Section 10610-10657) to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan. The proposed revisions to the General Plan Land Use designations will directly affect the adequacy of the existing Urban Water ' Management Plans. In order to determine the impact of water supply reliability, as required by the State Water Code for the development impacts of the updated General Plan, the City of Temecula needs to analyze the impacts to water supply ' within the Draft EIR using the proposed General Plan Land Use designations, prior to adoption of the EIR and any General Plan amendment. Per the request of your consultant, Colton/Bridges/Associates, RCWD will provide an , assessment of RCWD's water supply for your use in preparing the Draft EIR. JUL 0 3 2003 1'. , 421DDWI rh,W,P"d • Pal Om..w 017 *7kc�vh,lel�Jvo�ia PTM'L'"8D9D1T (800)EW-4900-PAX(909)290.GBC0 ' 1 David Rogan/City of Temecula ' July 1,2003 Page Two ' Wastewater Disposal ' The explanation for Section 6.e of the Initial Study is incorrect. Significant portions of existing developments within the City of Temecula are not connected to a sewer system and these developments use conventional septic tan0subsurface disposal systems for the disposal of wastewater. Therefore, during the preparation of the Draft EIR, RCWD requests that the Draft EIR should provide a detailed analysis regarding this potentially significant impact to water supplies. ' Furthermore, RCWD requests the City of Temecula include 'a mitigation measure for conventional septic tarWsubsurface disposal systems to be prohibited in any area designated within Zone A of the United. States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) wellhead protection area. Zone A is classified by the EPA as a potential area of direct microbiological and chemical contamination due to an estimated two-year time of travel distance within the aquifer _ from the wellhead to the potential source of contamination. ' It is RCWD's opinion that waste discharges from conventional septic tank/subsurface disposal - systems located within EPA's Wellhead Protection Area Zone A for any potable water production well violates Section 13280-13285 of the State Water Code. Tt is also RCWD's opinion that waste discharges from conventional septic tank/subsurface disposal systems located within Zone A for any potable water production well violates the public interest since this type of discharge willadversely affect both the quality and beneficial_use of the waters of the State of ' California - ' The City of Temecula relies upon the County of Riverside's existing regulations for a 100-foot horizontal'setback of conventional septic tank/subsurface disposal systems from water supply wells. This regulation is not consistent with the recommendations in the EPA's Design Manual ' On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems. Upon review of the EPA Design Manual for On-Site Wastewater 7Yeatment and Disposal Systems, it is clearly evident those standard setbacks are not recommended and that performance-based requirements based upon risk ' management'are required for on-site treatment and disposal systems. The following excerpts are from the EPA's Design Manual,-On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems: The movement of subsurface aqueous containment plumes is highly dependent on the soil type, soil layering, underlying geology, topography, and rainfall. Some onsite system setback/separation codes are based on plume movement ' models or measured relationships that have not been supported by recent field data. (page 3-24) ' In soils with excessive permeability or shallow water tables, inadequate treatment in the unsaturated soil zone might allow pathogenic bacteria and viruses to enter the ground water if no mitigating measures are taken. (page 3- 24) ann.'hn l'nlaomin Wafer D.UM ��:ry W;nelv.�n.R.rA Pnu A?n:ILn MI'/ Trmmiln.lilifmmin 42V154011 19091 Y96 f.900 •' Yn%f�l'�d EMal 1 1 David Hogan/City of Temecula July 1,2003 Pago TLrce ' Given the tendency of on-site wastewater treatment system effluent plumes to ' remain relatively intact over long distances (more than 300 feet), dilution models commonly used in the past to calculate nitrate attenuation in the vadose zone are probably unrealistic. State codes that specify 100-foot ' separation distances between conventional subsurface wastewater infiltration system treatment units and down-gradient wells or surface waters should not be expected to always protect these resources from dissolved, highly mobile ' contaminants such as nitrates. Moreover, published data indicate that viruses that reach groundwater can travel at least 220 feet vertically and 1,338 feet laterally in some porous soils and still remain effective. (page 3-25) ' It is difficult to predict removal rates for wastewater-borne nitrate or other nitrogen compounds in the soil matrix. In general, however, nitrate , concentrations in subsurface wastewater infiltration system effluent can and often do exceed the 10 mg/L drinking water standard. ...The limited ability of conventional subsurface wastewater infiltration systems to achieve , enhanced nitrate reduction and the difficulty in predicting soil nitrogen removal rates means that systems sited in drinking water aquifers or near sensitive aquatic areas should incorporate additional nitrogen removal ' technologies prior to final soil discharge. (page 3-30) RCWD requests the City of Temecula include a mitigation measure for conventional septic , tank/subsurface disposal systems to be prohibited in any area designated within Zone A of a EPA wellhead protection area. Alternatives for development within Zone A of a wellhead protection area would require either the extension of a sanitary sewer collection system or additional on-site ' wastewater treatment (primarily enhanced nitrogen removal and disinfection) beyond that of a conventional septic tank/subsurface disposal system. Wastewater Service ' The explanation for Section 16.a of the Initial Study is incorrect. A portion of the City of , Temecula (primarily the Westside Business Centre area) is within RCWD's wastewater service area. Any proposed changes within this area that would affect the quantity of wastewater produced should be addressed in the Draft EIR. ' Flood hazards The explanation for Section 8.g to 8.i of the Initial Study is incorrect. A flood hazard analysis , should be performed within the Draft EIR that would include flood inundation resulting from failure of Vail Dam, located in Temecula Creek upstream of the City of Temecula ' Ra .ho rnlllnmin W.�alu.in dP I.15 VlMhaterlWE 14s�Ulliw Wn 001T Tem.avla l`alifvruu ULY1Li 001r (W))J6' 0 • FAXIJWIV%J ' David Hogan/City of Temecula ' July 1,2003 Page Four tWater Conservation in Landscaning Act ' The water supply analyses prepared for the Draft EIR, as noted in Section 16A of the Initial Study, should address the existing legislation entitled the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act. Please be aware that the water supply in the State of California and the City of Temecula is limited and a water-efficient landscape ordinance is required by State law to be adopted by local ' agencies to promote the conservation and efficient use of water. Therefore, RCWD requests the inclusion of a mitigation measure for the City of Temecula to modify its existing water efficient landscaping ordinance to be completely consistent with the provisions of the "model" water efficient landscaping ordinance.dtafted by the State of California. Water Recycling in Landscaping Act 1 The water supply analyses prepared for the Draft EIR, as noted in Section 16.d of the Initial Study, should 'address the,existing legislation entitled the Water Recycling in' Landscaping Act eLa and conformance with Section 13550-13556 of the Stale Water Code. -: The City of Temecula was previously notified in December 2000, as required under Senate Bill .2095 the"Water Recycling in Landscaping Act" that recycled water is available for certain areas within the City of Temecula It is RCWD's understanding that the City of Temecula has yet to adopt a recycled water ordinance in accordance with the requirements of Senate Bill 2095. ' RCWD therefore requests the City of Temecula include a mitigation measure to prepare and adopt a recycled water ordinance in accordance with the requirements of Senate Bill 2095. r ' Although the City of Temecula comprises only 20% of RCWD's service area, the City of Temecula is RCWD's single largest water user. The majority of this water use is for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. In accordance with Section 13550-13556 of the ' State Water Code, this type of water use is a waste or unreasonable use of domestic water. RCWD therefore requests the City of Temecula include a mitigation measure to convert existing City of Temecula non-domestic water uses to recycled water use where reasonably feasible, in accordance with the requirements of Section 13550-13556 of the State Water Code. Underground Storage Tanks ' During the preparation of the Draft EK RCWD requests that the Drafl EIR should provide a detailed analysis of water supply impacts caused by leaking underground storage tanks, based ' upon the proposed modifications to the General Plan Land Use designations. Please be aware that significant water quality impacts have already occurred within the City of Temecula due to leaking underground storage tanks. Furthermore, RCWD requests the City of Temecula include a mitigation measure for new underground storage tanks to be prohibited in any area designated within Zone A of an EPA wellhead protection area. cmuo.,ao wok.nwki ' asiuvr nn�m�e . V.LO .1 W1] FAXMM)9 -CAM _ •1V ' David Hogan/City of Temecula July 1,2003 Page Five If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at this office. ' Sincerely, RANCHO CALTORMA WATER DISTRICT ' Andrew L. Webster,P.E. Planning&Capital Projects Manager ' MAW,mo23TEG c: E.P. `Bob"Lemons,P.E. , Steve Brannon,Development Engineering Manager 1 1 IlaneLa r-re.u_Po1ee Diilrio! �2115 Wiuclu4r load 15nl UtfR Gr�W14 Temn.Ja Cwlihmie VtGdU�UI� 19QUi Y9G/:NIO PAR IfiM191't'W'.fNA ' 1 ,S'YKMO14CAI.IK)RNIA—RI152P_U T(3 nWRTATIONAW IIOIIYING AUfNCY GRAYDAVI4 00"a DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ' DMSION OF AERONAUTICS-M.S.440 1120 N STREET Flex y0ar puarerl P.O.BOX 942873 Be eaergy e/pitiearl ' SACRANENPO,CA 94273-0001 PHONE (916)654-4959 FAX (916)653.9531 TTY(916)651-6827 ' July 2, 2003 ' Mr. David Hogan City'of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula;CA 92590 Dear Mr. Hogan: Re: City of Temecula General Plan Update, Initial Sludy/Nntice of Preparation SCHN 2003061041 Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department), Division of Aeronautics, in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. We have ' reviewed the Initial' $mdy/Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report, dated June 2003, and offer the following comments relative to airport land use compatibility planning: ' 1. The project is the adoption and implementation of the General Plan,of the City of Temecula to guide local planning decisions over a 20-year period. The planning area Includes the City's incorporated limits and approximately 16,776 acres in the City's sphere of influence. The General Plan addresses the seven State-mandated general plan elements, as well as other issues that are important to the community, such as growth management , economic development, air quality, and community design. The General Plan establishes a vision for the City and promotes a strong local business community and agricultural and manufacturing ' industries. The French Valley Airport is in the incorporated area of the City of Temecula. 2. in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21096, the Department's Airport Land Use Planning Handbook must be utilized as a resource in the preparation of an environmental document for a proposed project within an airport land use compatibility plan. For your reference, the Handbook can be viewed on-line at ' htt ://www.dot.ca.gov/hgplanninglaeronaut/htEWfilcAanduse.hunl. 3. The environmental document should be submitted to the French Valley Airport Manager's ' office and the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission for a consistency determination. The City should identify 0 potential encroachment issues of the planned development into the basic safety compatibility zones of the French Valley Airport. The proposed housing, land use; and transportation elements of the General Plan should be consistent with the applicable policies of the French Valley Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(Government Code 65302.5). F�JUL 2003 'Cott. t pmws nwbday wmn California^ ,.- I Mr. David Hogan ' July 2, 2003 Page 2 I 4. We are looking forward to reviewing the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed General Plan Update. The need for compatible land uses near airports in California is both a ' local and State issue. Along with protecting individuals who reside or work near an airport, the Division of Aeronautics views all public use airports in California as a part of the statewide transportation system. This role will no doubt increase as California's population ' continues to grow and the need for efficient mobility becomes more crucial. We strongly feel that the protection of airports from the encroachment of incompatible land uses is vital to the safety of airport operations, to the well being of community surrounding aviation facilities, ' and to California's economic future. These comments reflect the areas of concern to the Department's Division of Aeronautics with ' respect to airport-related noise and airport land use/safety compatibility issues. We advise you to contact our District 08 office conceming surface transportation issues. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this environmental document. If you t have any questions, please call me at (916) 654-5253. Sincerely, ' DAVID COT-TEN ' Associate Environmental Planner ' c: State Clearinghouse French'Valley Airport ' Riverside County ALUC 1 1 1 1 'Ca lr unprauen mo6illry across California' ' RECEIVED: ]/ 7103 12:41PM; ->CITY OF TCMGCULA, 0155, PAGE, 2 - ' Jul 07 03 12: 16p p• 2 t M,NO 1 ' CITY OF MURRIETA ' July 7,2003 Mr. David Hogan City of Temecula ' 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-3033 ' Suhject: Initial Study for the City of Temecula General,Plan Update Dear Mr. Hogan: t The City :of Murricta appreciates the,opportunity to .review the initial study for the proposed EmVironmental'Impact Report (EIR) for.the,Gencral Plan ,Update. The City does not have any specific comments at this time on the,proposod scope of the EIR. We ' do request that the traffic aradysis and the EIR address cross-border traffic impacts to the City of Murrieta street network and intersections. The City requests that webe provided a copy of the complete traffic analysis when.completed and during the public review ' period for the EIR. If there arc any questions please call John Neu,Associate Planner,at 46IT6032. ' Sincerely, ' im Mactcrlrzre Planning Manager ' C: John Neu,Associate Planner Pile City of Temecula General Plan Update 1 t 1 1 ' 26442 Beckman Court. • Murrieta,Calilornia 92562 phone:909.304.CITY(2489) fix:909.698.4509 • web: murrieta.org 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix B 1 Air Quality Worksheets 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 .. 1 1 1 . . � 1` 1 1 . ,. - 1 1 1 1 Page: 1 Temecula GP Existingl.urb tURBEMIS 2002 For windows 7.5.0 ' File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2002 For windows\Projects2k2\Temecula GP Existing.urb Project Name: Temecula GP existing Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT ' - (Pounds/Day - Summer) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) . 1,502.35 526.63 484.77 8.08 1. 52 ' OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO sot PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 12,440.91. 14,760.61162,700.15 125.93 11,574.62 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO so2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 13,943.27 15,287.24163,184.92 134.01 11,576.14 1 1 Page: 2 . ' URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.5.0 File Name: . . ,C:\Program F11e5\URBEMIS 2002 For ' windows\Projects2k2\Temecula GP Existing.urb Project Name: Temecula GP existing _ .Project Location: south Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAc2002 version 2.2 ' DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO 502 PM10 Natural Gas 39.50 523.11 217.62 0.98 wood Stoves - No summer emissions ' Fireplaces - No summer emissions - - Landscaping 30.98 3.51 267.15 8.08 0. 54 Consumer Prdcts 1,431.88 TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 1, 502.35 526.63 484.77 8.08 1.52 ,1 Page: 3 1 ' ' UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Page 1 1 1 Temecula GP Existingl.urb 1 ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 1 single family housing 1,876.76 1,856.45 21,251.33 16.10 1,472.61 Apartments low rise 349.12 323.92 3,707.98 2.81 256.94 condo/townhouse high rise 170.72 144.69 1,656.35 1.25 114.78 City park 1,266.36 1,620.29 17,678.71 13.75 1,264.88 1 High turnover (sit-down) 1,011.62 1,330.84 14,520. 54 11.29 1,038.92 Regnl shop. center 1,081.96 1,241.14 13,497:26 10.50 966.40 strip mall 157.87 199.38 2,168.27 1.69 155:25 Supermarket 2,415.52 3,164.69 34,415.80 26.77 2,464.16 ' Office park 108.50 125.98 1,422.48 1.10 101.03 Government (civic center) 3,086.87 3,849.85 42,222.07 32.81 -3,017. 51 industrial park 915:62 903.39 10,159.37 7.87 722.15 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 12,440.91 14,760.61162,700.15 125.93 11,574.62 ' Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. , OPERATIONAL (vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2004 Temperature (F) : 90 Season: Summer EMFAC version: EMFAc2002 (9/2002) , summary of Land uses: unit Type Trip' Rate Size Total Trips ' single family housing 6.75 trips / dwelling units 21,471.00 144,929.25 Apartments low rise , 5.20 trips / dwelling units 4,863.00 - 25,287.60 , Condo/townhouse high rise 3.85 trips / dwelling units, 2,934.00 11,295•.90 City park 50.00 trips / acres 2,904.00 145,200.00 High turnover (sit-down) 130.34 trips'/ 1000 sq. ft. 915.00 119,261.10 Regnl shop. center 14.29 trips / 1000 sq. ft: 7,963.00 113,791.27 ' strip mall 40.00 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 457.00 18,280.00 supermarket 111. 51 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 2,602_00 290,149.03 office park 10.95' trips / 1000 sq. ft. 779.00 8,530.05 Government (civic center) 30.00 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 11,083 M 332,490.00 t industrial park 5.02 trips '/ 1000 sq. ft. 12,652.00 63,513.04 vehicle. Assumptions: Fleet Mix: ' vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 56.10 2.70 96.80 0. 50 ' Light Truck < 3,7.50 lbs ..15.10 4.60 92.70 2.70 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.60 2.60 96.20 `1.20 me d Truck 5,751- 8,500 6.90 2.90 94.20 2_90 - Lite-Heavy 8, 501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Med-Heavyy 14,.001-33,000 000 1.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 , Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.80 0.00_ 12.50 87. 50 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 , urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motorcycle 1.60 87. 50. 12.50 0.00 School Bus 0.20 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.30 15.40 76.90 7.70 ' Travel Conditions Residential _Commercial Home- Home- Home- Page 2 1 1 Temecula GP existingl.urb work Shop other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11. 5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5. 5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5. 5 5. 5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 % of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 t % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) City park 5.0 2.5 92.5 High turnover (sit-down) rest. 5.0 2.5 92. 5 ' Regnl shop. center 2.0 1.0 97.0 Strip mall 2.0 1.0 97.0 Supermarket 2.0 1.0 97.0 office park 48.0 24.0 28.0 tPage: 4 Government (civic center) 10.0 5.0 85.0 Industrial park 41. 5 20.8 37.8 ' Page: 5 ' Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages ' Changes made to the default values for Area The wood stove option switch changed from on to off. The amount of wood burned per year changed from 1.48 to 0. 5. The fireplace cords of wood burned changed from 1.48 to O. S. The fireplace percentage of residential units changed from 10 to 3. Changes made to the default values for Operations ' The double counting internal work trip limit changed from to 36302.55. The double counting shopping trip limit changed from to 42684.3982. The double counting other trip limit changed from to 78050.4825. ' The travel mode environment settings changed from both to: both 1 1 Page 3 1 I Temecula GP Futurel.urb Page: 1 I URBEMIS 2002 For windows 7. 5.0 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2002 For ' windows\Projects2k2\Temecula GP Future.urb Project Name: Temecula GP Year 2025 Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) ' On-Road Motor vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) ' AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 2,757.41 947.85 622.67 7.91 1.97 t OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 ' TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 5, 550.17 5,202.81 62,169.58 151.82 23,225.10 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 ' TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 8,307. 58 6,150.66 62,792.25 159.73 23,227.07 Page: 2 ' URBEMIS 2002 For windows 7. 5.0 ' File Name: C:\Program FileS\URBEMIS 2002 For Windows\Projects2k2\Temecula GP Future.urb ' Project Name: Temecula GP Year 2025 Project Location: South Coast Air Basin .(Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT ' (Pounds/Day - summer) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) ' Source ROG NOx CO s02 PM10 Natural Gas 71.23 942.27 392.43 - 1.77 wood Stoves - No summer emissions Fireplaces - No summer emissions ' Landscaping 21.64 5. 58 230.24 7.91 0.20 Consumer Prdcts 2,664.55 - - - - TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 2,757.41 947.85 622.67 7.91 1.97 1 Page: 3 1 UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS , Page 1 1 1. Temecula GP Futurel.urb ' ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 single family housing 795.84, 571.48 7,169.81 17.33 2, 573.89 Apartments low- rise 124.85 83.17 1,043.42 2. 52 374.58 Condo/townhouse high rise 113.24 66.45 833:71 2.02 299.29 ' City park 975.91 1,016.31 11,976.61 29.32 4, 509.90 High turnover (sit-down) 476.43 518.30 6,107.80 14.95 2,299.94 Regnl shop. center 299.78 258.82 3,035.31 7.43 1,144.24 Strip mall 76.14 77. 59 909.98 2.23 343.04 ' Supermarket 1,004.76 1,084.14 12,714.06 31.14 4,792.89 . office park 201.18 181.45 2,249.21 5.48 837.45 Government (civic center) 989.57 992.84 11,789.12 28.84 4,431.66 Industrial park 492.46 352.25 4,340.55 10.58 1,618.22 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 5, 550.17 5,202.81 62,169.58 151.82 23,225.10 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. ' OPERATIONAL (vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES - Analysis Year: 2025 Temperature (F):. 90 Season: Summer ' EMFAC version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary ofLand uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size Total Trips single family housing 6.43 trips / dwelling units 39,541.00 .254,248.62 ' Apartments low rise 5.18 trips / -dwelling units 7,143.00 37,000.74 Condo/townhouse high rise 3.80 trips / dwelling units 7,780.00 .. 29,564.00 City park 50.00 trips / acres 10,397.00 519,850.00 High turnover (sit-down) 130.34 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 2,034.00 265,111. 55 ' Regnl shop. center 12.98 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 10,423.00 135,290. 54 ' Strip mall 40.00 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 1,014.00 40, 560.00 Supermarket 111.51 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 5,,082.00 566,693.83 office park 10.48 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 6,774.00 70,991. 52 ' Government (civic center) 30.00 trips / .1000 sq. ft. 16,344.00 490,320.00 Industrial park 4.99 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 28,636.00 142,893.63 vehicle Assumptions: _ ' Fleet Mix: vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 53.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.70 0.00 99.40 0.60 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 16. 50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Meg Truck 5,751- 8,500 7. 50 0.00 98.70 1.30 ' Lite-Heavy 8, 501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 0.00 22.20 77.80 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.80 0.00 0.00 100.00 ' Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 50.00 Motorcycle 1.50 40.00 60.00 0.00 school Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 ' Motor Home 2.00 0.00 90.00 10.00 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- Page 2 1 Temecula GP Futurel.urb 1 Work Shop other Commute Hon-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11. 5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 ' Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5. 5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 % of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) ' City park 5.0 2.5 92.5 High turnover (sit-down) rest. 5.0 2. 5 92.5 Regnl shop. center 2.0 1.0 97.0 , Strip mall 2.0 1.0 97.0 Supermarket 2.0 1.0 97.0 office park 48.0 24.0 28.0 Page: 4 ' Government (civic center) 10.0 5.0 85.0' ' Industrial park 41.5 20.8 37.8 Page: 5 , Changes made to the default values for Land use Trip Percentages ' Changes made to the default values for Area ' The wood stove option switch changed from on to off. The amount of wood burned per year changed from 1.48 to .5. The fireplace -cords of wood burned changed from 1.48 to 0.5. , The fireplace percentage of residential units changed from 10 to 3. The landscape year changed from 2004 to 2020. changes made to the default values for operations ' The operational emission year changed from 2004 to 2025. The home based work selection item changed from 8 to 7. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 8. ' The home based other selection item changed from 9 to.8. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 8. 'The commercial based non-work selection' item, changed from 9 to 8. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 8. The double counting internal work trip limit changed from to 64162.674. The double counting shopping trip limit changed from to 98253.8777: The double counting other trip limit changed from to 137949.7491. The travel mode environment settings changed from both to: both ' 1 t Page 3 ' 1 ' YneZ-Rancho Vista Existing.txt 1 ' CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 ' JOB: YneZ/Rancho Vista Existing RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide ' I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S z0= 100. CM ALT= 468. (M) BRG= .0 DEGREES VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .O CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= .0 PPM ' SIGPH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 25.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES ' LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Rancho V Eb * -200 0 0 0 * AG 0 2.9 .0 10.0 ' B. Ynez sb * 0 0 0 -200 * AG 1110 2.9 .0 10.0 C. YneZ NB * 0 -200 0 0 * AG 760 2.9 .0 10.0 D. Rancho V EB * 0 0 200 0 * AG 590 2.9 .0 10.0 E. Rancho V WB * 200 0 0 0 * AG 580 2.9 .0 10.0 ' F. YneZ NB * 0 0 0 200 * AG 1080 2.9 .0 10.0 G. Ynez SB * 0 200 0 0 * AG 1440 2.9 .0 10.0 H. Rancho V WB * 0 0 -200 0 * AG 0 2.9 .0 10.0 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) ' RECEPTOR * X Y z ------ ------ -- 1. res * 10 10 1.8 2. res * 10 -10 1.8 3. res * -10 10 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (PRED. CONC. INCLUDES AMB.) ' * PRED * CONC/LINK * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H -------------*-------*---------------------------------------- ' 1. res * .2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 2. res * .4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 3. res * .2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 ' 00 Page 1 Ynez-Rancho Vista Future.txt 1 1 CALINE4: 'CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL ' JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: Ynez/Rancho Vista Future ' RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: CarbOn.,Monoxide 1. SITE VARIABLES. ' U= :5 M/S 20= 100. CM ALT= 468. (M)' , BRG= .0 DEGREES VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .O CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= .0 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 25.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES , LINK * . LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W ' DESCRIPTION * X1 . Y1 X2 , Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) --- ------------*-----------------I--------*------------------------------ A. Rancho .V Eb .* -200 O. 0 0, * AG 50 2.9 .0 10.0: B. Ynez 5b * 0 0 0 -200 * AG 1650' 2.9 .0 10.0 ' C. Ynez. NB * 0 -200 0 0 * AG 1120 2.9 .0 10.0 D. Rancho V EB ' 0 0 200. 0 * AG 540 2.9 .0 10.0 E. Rancho V WB * 200 0 0 0 ¢ AG 720 2.9 .0 10.0 F: Ynez NB'' '* 0 0 0 200 *. AG' 1600 2.9 .0 10.0 ' G. Ynez SB' * 0 200 0 0 *' AG 1980 2.9 .0 10.0, H. Rancho V WB * 0 0 -200 0 * AG 80 2.9 .0 10.0 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ' * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. res * 10 10 1.8 2. res * 10 -10 1.8 3. _res * -10 10 1.8 ' IV. MODEL RESULTS (PRED. CONC. INCLUDES AMB.) * PRED * CONC/LINK ' * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR *- (PPM) *' A B C D E F G H -------------*-------*----------------------------------`----- 1. res * .2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 .0 , 2. res * . 5 d .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 .1 .0 3. res * .2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 .0 00 ' Page 1 ' old Town Frnt St-Rancho California Exist.txt 1 ' CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 ' JOB: old Town Frnt St/Rancho California Exist RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide ' I. SITE VARIABLES U= . 5 m/s Z0= 100. CM ALT= 468. (M) BRG= .0 DEGREES VD= .0 CM/5 CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= .0 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 25.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES ' LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Rancho Ca EB * -200 0 0 0 * AG 1490 2.9 .0 10.0 B. old Town SB * 0 0 0 -200 * AG 1210 2.9 .0 10.0 C. old Town NB * 0 -200 0 0 * AG 960 2.9 .0 10.0 D. Rancho Ca EB * 0 0 200 0 * AG 1490 2.9 .0 12. 5 E. Rancho Ca WB * 200 0 0 0 * AG 1140 2.9 .0 16. 5 ' F. Old Town NB * 0 0 0 200 * AG 1050 2.9 .0 10.0 G. Old Town SB * 0 200 0 0 * AG 1230 2.9 .0 12.5 H. Rancho Ca WB * 0 0 -200 0 * AG 1070 2.9 .0 10.0 ' III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) --RECEPTOR--*----X--- Y Z 1. office * 10 10 1.8 2. office * 10 -10 1.8 ' 3. Park * -10 10 1.8 4. Park * -10 -10 1.8 ' DD ' CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: old Town Frnt St/Rancho California Exist Page 1 1 1 Old Town Frnt St-Rancho California ExiSt.txt ' RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide ' IV. MODEL RESULTS (PRED. CONC. INCLUDES AMB.) * PRED * CONC/LINK ' * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B. C D E F G H -------------*--------°---------------------------------------- ' 1. office * .2 * 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 2. office . * .7 * .0 .0 .0 .3 .2 .0 .1 .0 3. Park * .2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 4. Park * .6 * .2 .0 :0 .0 .0 0, .1 .2 ' 0o . 1 1 1 1 1 Page 2 ' old Town Frnt St-Rancho California Future.txt 1 ' CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 ' JOB: old Town Frnt St/Rancho California Futur RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide " tI. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 MIS ZO=. 100. CM ALT= 468. (M) BRG= .0 DEGREES VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= ..0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M - �AMB .0 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 25.0 DEGREE (C). ' II. LINK VARIABLES ' LINK * LINK- COORDINATES (M) * EF H w DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 .Y2 ° TYPE VPH '(G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------°-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Rancho Ca ER * -200 0 0 0 * AG 760 2.9 .0 10.0 B. old Town SB * 0 0 0 - -200 * AG 1190 2.9 .0 10.0 C. old Town NB * 0 -200 0' 0 * AG 1540 2.9 .0 10.0 D. Rancho Ca EB * 0 0 200 0' * AG 1520 2.9 .0 12.5 E. Rancho Ca wB * 200 0 0. '0 '* -AG 1600 2.9 .0 16.5 F. Old Town NB -* 0 0 0 200 * 'AG 1510 2.9 .0 10.0. G. Old Town SB * 0 200 0 0 * .AG 1950 2.9 .0 12. 5 H. Rancho Ca wB * 0 - 0. -.200 "0 -*. AG 630 -2.9. .0 10.0 ' III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) ' RECEPTOR * X --- Y-----_--- ------PT- --tr-------- 1. office * 10 10 1.8 2. office * 10 -10 1.8 ' 3. Park * -10 10 1.8 4. Park * -10 -10 1.8 ' 00 1 ' CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: Old Town Frnt St/Rancho California Futur Pagel 1 'Old Town Frnt St-Rancho California Future.txt ' RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide. ' IV. MODEL RESULTS (PRED. CONC. INCLUDES AMB.) * PRED * CONC/LINK ' * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A. B C D E F G H. *-------*------------=--------------------------- ' 1. office ° .2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 2. office * .8 * .0 .0 .0 .3 .3 .1 .1 .0 3. Park * .2' * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 A .0 .0 4. Park * .S * .1. .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 .1 , OD 1 1 1 1 Page 2 ' 1 ' Ynez-Rancho CA Existing.txt ' CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 . ' JOB: YneZ/Rancho CA Existing ' RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: Carbon .MOnoxide - ' I. SITE VARIABLES ' U= .5 m/s z0= 100. CM _ ALT= 468. (M) BRG= .0 DEGREES VD= .0 CM/S cLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M _ AMB=. .0 PPM- SIGTH= 5.. DEGREES TEMP= 25.0 DEGREE, (C) - II. LINK VARIABLES - LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF. H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1' - X2 Y2 *;TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*--------------------- --------------------------- A. Rancho CA EB * -200 0 0 0' * AG 2450 2.9 .0 16.2 B. Ynez SB * 0 0 0 -200 * AG 1100 2.9 .0 10.0 C. Ynez NB * 0 -200 0 0 *. AG 880 2.9 .0 16.2 D. Rancho CA EB *- 0 0 200 0 * AG 1740 2.9 .0 10.0 E. Rancho CA wB * 200 0 0 0 * AG 1420 2.9 .0 12.5 ' F. Ynez NB * 0 0 , 0 200 * AG 1250 2.9 .0 10.0 G. Ynez Se " 0 200 0 0 * AG 1490 2.9 .0. 19.8 H. Rancho CA wa * 0 0 -200 0 * AG 2150 2.9- 0 12. 5 ' III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * - COORDINATES (M) ' ' RECEPTOR * X Y z ------------*------------10------1. Res * 10 1.8 2. Park * 10 -10 . 1.8 ' 3. Res. * -10 ' 10 1.8 4. Res * -10 -10 1.8 ' 00 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 JOB: Ynez/Rancho CA Existing - Page, 1 • 1 Ynez_Rancho CA Existing.txt ' RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide ' IV. MODEL RESULTS (PRED. CONC. INCLUDES AMB.) * PRED * CONC/LINK ' * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H -------------*-------*---------------------------------------- ' 1. Res * .5 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .0 2. Park * 1.0 * .0 .0 .0 .3 .2 .1 .4 .0 3. Res * .5 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .0 4. Res * 1.3 * .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .4 .4 ' ❑0 ' 1 1 1 • 1 Page' 2 ' 1 tYnez-Rancho CA Future.txt 1' ' CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: Ynez/Rancho CA Future RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide _ I. SITE VARIABLES U .5 m/s ZO=• 100.. CM ALT= 468. (M) BRG= .0 DEGREES VD •A CM/S- CLAS 7 (G), VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M.- AMB= :0 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 25.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES - LINK * LINK COORDINATES '(M) * EF H. W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 - Y2 * TYPE - VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*---------------------- -=_-*------------------------------ A. Rancho CA EB * -200 0 0 0 * 'AG 2560 2.9 .0 16.2 B. Ynez SB * 0 0 0 -200' * AG. 1710 . 2.9 .0 10.0 ' C. Ynez NB * 0 -200 0 0 * AG 1420' 2.9 - .0 16.2 D. Rancho CA EB * 0 0 200 0 * AG 1750 2.9 .0 10.0 E. Rancho CA WB * 200 • 0 0 0 * AG 1720 2.9 .• .0 12.5 ' F. Ynez NB * 0 0, 0 260 * AG 17,30 2.9 `.0 10.0 G. Ynez SB * 0 200 0 0 * -AG 2040 2.9 .0 ,19.8 H. Rancho CA WB * 0 0 -200 0 * AG 2550 - 2.9 .0 12. 5 ' III'. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z . . ---------*--------------------- 1. Res * 10 10 1.8 2. Park * 10 -10 1.8 3. Res * -10. 10 1.8 4. Res * -10 -10 1.8 ' ao ' CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL . JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 ' JOB: Ynez/Rancho CA Future Page 1 I mez_Rancho CA Future.txt ' RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide ' IV. MODEL RESULTS (PRED. CONC. INCLUDES AMB.) * PRED * CONC/LINK ' * CONC * (PPM) .RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H -------------*-------*---------------------------------------- 1. Res * .7 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .5 .0 ' 2. Park * 1.2 * .0 .0 .0 .3 .3 .1 . 5 .0 3. Res * .6 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .5 .0 4. Res * 1. 5 * .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .5 .4 ' 00 1 i t 1 1 • 1 . 1 1 Page 2 ' 1 1 1 I-15 NB_SR .79 SB_Existing.txt ' CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 ' JOB: I-15 NB/SR 79 SB Existing RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide ' I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S z0= 100. CM ALT= 468. (M) ' BRG= .O DEGREES VD-- . .0 CM/S , CLAS= 7 (G) V5= .O CM/S, MIXH= 1000. M AMB= � .0 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES- TEMP=-25.0 DEGREE- (C)- II. LINK VARIABLES - LINK * , LINK COORDINATES .CM) * EF H W DESCRIPTION X1 Y1. . •X2 Y2. * ,TYPE. VPH (G/MI) (M), (M) ----------------*----------I---------------*------------------------------ A. SR 79 Eb * -200 0' , 0 0 ? AG. 1720 2.9 .0 12.5 B. I-15 NB " * 0 -200 0 0 * AG , 810 2.9 .0 12.5 ' C. SR 79 EB ° 0 - •0 200 0 * AG 2230 2.9 .0 12r5 D. SR 79 WB *' 200 0 0 .. 0 * AG, 1730 2.9 .0 12.5 E. I-15 NB * 0' 0 0 200• * AG, 1310 2.9 .0 10.0- F. SR 79 WB * 0 0 -200 0 * 'AG- 720 2.9 .0 12.5 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS ' * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------ ---------------------- 1. Office/P * 10 10 1.8 ' 2. office * 10 -10 . 1.8 3. office * -10 0 1.8 ' IV. MODEL RESULTS (PRED. CONC. INCLUDES AMB.) * PRED * CONC/LINK ' -* CONC * (PPM) --RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B C , D E F ------- *--------*------------------------------ 1. office/P * .0 * .0 .0 ;0 .0 .0 .0 ' 2. Office * .8 * .0 .0 .4 .3 .1 .0 3. office * .4 * .2 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 UU 1 ' Page 1 1 1 I-15' NB_SR 79 SB Future.txt ' CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL ' JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: I-15 NB/SR 795B Future , RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: Carbon monoxide 1. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 MIS z0=,100. CM ALT= 468. (M) ' BRG= .0 DEGREES VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH- 1000. M AMB= .0 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP--' 25.0 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES , LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W'- t DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 - X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. SR 79 Eb * -200 0 0 0 * AG 2130 2.9 .0 12. 5, B. i-15 NB * 0 -200 0 0 * AG 1090 2.9 .0 12.5 , C. SR 79 EB * 0 0 200 0' * AG 2620 2.9 .0 12.5 D. SR 79 WB * 200 0 0 0 * AG 2400 2.9 .0 12.5 . E. I-15 NB * 0 0 0 200' * AG 1850 2.9 .0 10.0 F. SR 79 WB * 0 0 -200 0 * AG 1150 2.9 .0 12.5 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) , RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------ --------------------- 1. office/P * 10 10 1.8 ' 2. office * 10 -10 1.8 3. office * -10 0 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (PRED. CONC. INCLUDES AMB'.) ' * PRED * CONC/LINK ----* CONC * (PPM) ' --RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B C D E F • 1. office/P * .1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 2. office * 1.0 * .0 .0 .4 .4 .1 .0. ' 3. office * . 5 * .2 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 00 Page 1 ' 1 1 Appendix C : Biological , Resources Report I 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M&A#00-109-01 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT 1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SECTION 1 September, 2003 Prepared for: 1 Cotton Bridges Associates, Inc. Contact: Mr.Jeff Henderson 1 747 East Green Street, Suite 300 Pasadena, California 91101 Phone: (626) 304-0102 ext. 220 1 Fax: (626) 304-0402 E-mail:jeffh@cbaplanning.com 1 Prepared by: Merkel & Associates, Inc. Contact:Ms. Diana M. Jensen 1 5434 Ruffin Road San Diego, California 92123 Phone: (958) 560-5465 1 Fax: (858) 560-7779 E-mail: djensen@merkelinc.com 1 Diana M. Jensen, Lead Biologist/Project Manager 1 Keith W. Merkel, Principal Consultant 1 1 City of Temecula General Plan Amendment E1S/EIR Biological Resources Section September 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 ENVIRONMENTALSETTING.......................................................................................................................1 ' PROJECTLOCATION........................................................................................................................................... 1 GENERALPHYSIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................................. I FrenchValley Region.................................................................................................................................... 1 ' RanchoCalifornia Region.............................................................................................................................2 PaubaValley Region.....................................................................................................................................2 AguaTibia Mountain Region........................................................................................................................2 TemeculaValley Region................................................................................................................................2 ' ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS.....................................................................................................................4 BIOLOGICALRESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................4 , ExistingConditions.......................................................................................................................................4 Regional Vegetation Communities/Flora..................................................................................................4 CoastalSage Scrub................................................................................................................................5 Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub....................................................................................................5 Chaparral ...............................................................................................................................................6 Non-Native Grassland ...........................................................................................................................6 VernalPools ..........................................................................................................................................7 ' RiparianScrub, Woodland, Forest.........................................................................................................7 CoastLive Oak Woodland ....................................................................................................................8 OpenWater/Reservoir/Pond.....................................................:............................................................9 ' Residential/Urban/Exotic Land .............................................................................................................9 AgriculturalLand..................................................................................................................................9 Regional Wildlife Habitat/Fauna............................................................................................................. 10 Invertebrates........................................................................................................................................ 10 Fishes................................................................................................................................................... I I Amphibians.......................................................................................................................................... I I Reptiles................................................................................................................................................ 12 , Birds .................................................................................................................................................... 13 Mammals............................................................................................................................................0 16 SensitiveResources................................................................................................................................. 17 RegionalSensitive Habitats................................................................................................................. 17 ' MSHCP Conservation Area/Cores and Linkages/Wildlife Corridors ................................................. 18 Rare,Threatened,Endangered,Endemic, and/or Sensitive Species, or MSHCP Covered Species.... 19 Issues...........................................................................................................................................................30 ' Thresholdsof Significance..........................................................................................................................30 Impacts and Significance of Impacts...........................................................................................................31 DirectImpacts.........................................................................................................................................31 ' IndirectImpacts.......................................................................................................................................31 Vegetation Community Permanent, Indirect Impacts..........................................................................31 MSHCPConservation Area Permanent, Indirect Impacts...................................................................36 Sensitive Species Permanent, Indirect Impacts...................................................................................36 MSHCP Conservation Area/Sensitive Species Temporary, Indirect Impacts.....................................36 CumulativeImpacts.................................................................................................................................37 MitigationMeasures...................................................................................................................................37 ' Impact Significance after Mitigation...........................................................................................................41 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................42 1 Merkel &Associates, Inc. Il00-109-01 i ' t City of Temecula General Plan Amendment E1S/EIR Biological Resources Section September 2003 ' LIST OF TABLES 1 Table 1. Regional Vegetation Communities and Approximate Acreages within the Planning Area..................4 Table 2. Invertebrate Species Known or with a Potential to Occur in the Planning Area. ............................... 1 I Table 3. Reptile Species Known or with a Potential to Occur in the Planning Area........................................ 12 Table 4. Bird Species Known or with a Potential to Occur in the Planning Area............................................. 13 Table 5. Mammal Species Known or with a Potential to Occur in the Planning Area. .................................... 16 Table 6. Rare, Threatened, Endangered, Endemic, and/or Sensitive Species, or MSHCP Covered Species, ' Known or with a Potential to Occur in the Planning Area..........................................................................20 Table 7. Potential Vegetation Community Permanent, Indirect Impacts within the Planning Area.................32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Merkel &Associates, Inc. N00-109-01 ii Environmental Setting Biolo ica[Resources ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PROJECT LOCATION ' The Temecula Planning Area consists of approximately 39,905 acres of land, located within the City of Temecula (approximately 17,955 acres), as well as the City's surrounding Sphere of Influence ' (approximately 15,341 acres) and Planning Area (approximately 6,609 acres) ((CBA Figure #)). The City of Temecula is bounded on the north by the French Valley Region; on the northeast by the Rancho California Region; on the southeast by the Pauba Valley Region; on the south by the Auga ' Tiba Mountain Region; on the southwest by the Temecula Valley Region; and on the northwest by the City of Murrieta. The Temecula Planning Area is entirely located within the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation ' Plan (MSHCP) area for western Riverside County. The MSHCP serves as a comprehensive, multi- jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan, pursuant to Section (a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) under the NCCP Act of 2001 (Dudek 2003a, p. 1-1). The plan "encompasses all unincorporated County land west of the crest of the San Jacinto Mountains to the Orange County line, as well as the jurisdictional areas of ' the Cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Norco, Corona, Riverside, Moreno Valley, Banning Beaumont, Calimesa, Perris, Hemet, and San Jacinto." The overall biological goal of the MSHCP is to conserve covered species and their habitats, as well as maintain biological ' diversity and ecological processes while allowing for future economic growth within a rapidly urbanizing region (Dudek 2003a, pp. I-I and 1-17). GENERAL PHYSIOGRAPHY ' The majority of the Temecula area is topographically characterized as flat terrain, with the elevation gradually rising towards the southeast in the foothills of the Agua Tiba Mountains, ranging from ' approximately 1000 to 1600 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) (USGS 1988, 1979, 1975, 1973). Underlying surficial geology is predominantly mapped as Pleistocene nonmarine (Rogers 1966), and general soils are mapped in the Friant-Cieneba-Exchequer association, including fine sandy loams, , sandy loams, and gravelly silt loams (Knecht 1971). The City of Temecula predominantly consists of urban developed lands intermixed with native and non-native vegetation, and the City's surrounding Sphere of Influence and Planning Area primarily comprise of agriculture lands to the ' northeast and native vegetation to the southeast/southwest (Dudek 2003a, pp. 2-2 and 2-48). French Valley Region ' The French Valley Region is situated north of the City of Temecula, and a portion of this region is located within the City's surrounding Sphere of Influence and Planning Area. This region consists of ' relatively flat terrain at an approximate elevation of 1300 feet above MSL, with isolated buttes that rise above the adjacent lands to approximately 1600 feet above MSL (USGS 1973). Tucaloca Creek runs from Lake Skinner, located to the east, to the northern boundary of the City of Temecula. ' Dominant soil types include Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, Monserate sandy loam, and Placentia fine sandy loams; Escondido fine sandy loams and Grangeville fine sandy loams within Auld Valley; and Ramona and Buren loams, and Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam along Tucaloca Temecula General Plan Amendment City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EISIEIR I September 2003 ' ' Environmental Setting Biological Resources Em ' Creek (Knecht 1971). The region is comprised predominately of agricultural lands, as well as ' patches of native and non-native vegetation (Dudek 2003a, pp. 2-2 and 2-48). Rancho California Region The Rancho California Region extends northeast of Rancho California Road and Interstate Highway 15 to the foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains, and a portion of this region is located within the City of Temecula, as well.as the City's surrounding Planning Area. The elevation generally rises from ' west to east, at approximately 1400 to 1600 feet above MSL (USGS 1973). Empire Creek runs east/west along Rancho California Road and merges with Murrieta Creek, which runs north/south along the western side of,Interstate Highway 15 in the City of Temecula. Santa Gertrudis Creek ' merges with Tucaloca Creek along the City's northern boundary, and merges with Murrieta Creek west of Interstate Highway 1.5. Dominant soil types include Arlington and Greenfield fine. sandy loams, Grangeville fine sandy loam, and Greenfield sandy loam; and Hanford coarse sandy loam and ' Ramona sandy loam along the creek beds (Knecht 1971). The,majority of the region is comprised of urban developed lands and small canyons of native and non-native vegetation, with a few agricultural lands located near Interstate Highway 15 and Santa Gertrudis Creek, as well as east of the City of Temecula (Dudek 2003a,pp. 2-2 and 2-48). Pauba Valley Region The Pauba Valley Region extends southeast of Rancho California Road and the Elisnore Fault Zone w to Vail Lake and the Agua Calienta Fault Zone, and portion of this region is located within the City of Temecula,'as well as the City's surrounding Planning Area. The relatively flat terrain ranges from an approximate low elevation of 1000 feet above MSL to a high elevation of 1300 feet MSL in the eastern foothills (USGS 1988). Temecula Creek runs from Vail Lake along the City's southern ' boundary. Pechanga Creek runs through the Pechanga Indian Reservation southeast of Temecula, and merges with Temecula Creek east of Interstate Highway 15'. Dominant soil types include Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, Grangeville fine sandy loam, Greenfield sandy loam, and Visalia fine sandy loam within Pauba Valley; Riverwash along Temecula Creek; and Hanford coarse sandy loam south of Pauba Valley (Knecht 1971). Urban developed lands and canyons of native and non-native vegetation comprise the majority of the region, with a few agricultural lands located near Temecula Creek to the east of the City of Temecula (Dudek 2003a, pp. 2-2 and 2-48). ' Agua Tibia Mountain Region The Agua Tibia Mountain Region is situated south of the City of Temecula, and a portion of this region is located within the City's surrounding Sphere of Influence. The elevation is generally higher than 1200 feet above MSL in the mountain terrain (USGS 1988, 1975). Dominant soil types include Cienaba sandy loam and Rock land (Knecht 1971). The region is primarily comprised of native vegetation (Dudek 2003a, pp. 2-2 and 2-48). Temecula Valley Region The Temecula Valley Region is situated to the southwest of the City of Temecula, and a portion of ' this region is .located within the City of Temecula, as well as the City's surrounding Sphere of Influence. Temecula Valley follows the Elsinore Fault Zone between the eastern side of the Santa. Ana Mountains and the City's western boundary, ranging in elevation from approximately 1000 to ' Temecula General Plan Amendment City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 2 September 2003 1 ' . 1 Environmental Setting _ Biological Resources 1 1200 feet above MSL (USGS 1979, 1975). Temecula Creek.merges with Murrieta Creek west of Interstate Highway 15 and forms the Santa Margarita River, which runs through the Santa Margarita ' Ecological Reserve located to the southwest of the City of Temecula. Dominant soil types include Lodo gravelly loam, Lodo rocky loam, Terrace escarpments, and Ysidora gravelly very fine sandy • loam along the east-facing slopes of the Santa Ana Mountains; and Riverwash along Murrieta Creek (Knecht 197(). Urban developed lands comprise the eastern portion of the region, while native vegetation extends to the west of the City of Temecula (Dudek 2003a, pp. 2-2 and 2-48). • 1 1 1 1 1 Temecula General Plan Amendment City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EIREIR 3 September 2003 ' ' Environmental Analysis Biological Resources tENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ' BIOLOGICAL RFSOURCFS Existing Conditions Regional Vegetation Communities/Flora A total of 19 vegetation types, based on the most current Geographical Information Systems (GIS) data available for the Temecula region, have been delineated within the Planning Area (Table 1; (CBA Figure #1) (KTU+A and PSBS 1995; as cited in Dudek 2003a, p. 2-1). For the purposes of planning analysis, the vegetation types have been collapsed into 10 vegetation categories and are ' classified according to the Holland Code (HC) classification system (Holland 1986), consistent with the format provided in the MSHCP. The following text generally discusses the characteristics of the vegetation classifications and associated Floral resources (Hickman 1993), representative of the ' original regional mapping effort conducted in 1995, as well as ground-truthing conducted by Merkel & Associates, Inc. on August 14 and 15, 2003. Existing site-specific conditions may slightly differ from these representations. Table 1. Regional Vegetation Communities and Approximate Acreages within the Planning Area. Collapsed Approximate Uncollapsed ' Ve etation Community Classifications Acreages % Vegetation Community Classifications Coastal Sage Scrub 3,430(9%) Die-an Coastal Sage Scrub Riversidean Sage Scrub Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub 229(1%) Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub ' Disturbed Alluvial Chaparral 4,641 12% Chamise Chaparral Southern Mixed Chaparral Red Shank Chaparral Non-Native Grassland 8,436 21% Non-Native Grassland Vernal Pools 16 <1%g Vernal Pools ' Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest 515 1% Southern Cottonwood/Willow Riparian Forest Southern S c MOWAlder Riparian Woodland Riparian Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Southern Willow Scrub Coast Live Oak Woodland 584 1% Coast Live Oak Woodland Open Water/Reservoir/Pond 94 <1% Open Water/Reservoir/Pond Subtotal of Natural/Naturalized Habitats: 17,945 45% Subtotal of Residential/UrbanfExotic: 13,555 34% Residential/Urban/Exotic Subtotal of Agricultural Land: 8 405 21% Field Croplands ' Groves/Orchards Total: 39,905 1011% 1 ' Temecula General Plan Amendment City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EISIEIR 4 September 2003 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources 1 Coastal Sage Scrub Coastal Sage Scrub occupies a total of approximately 3,430 acres of land throughout the Planning ' Area, and includes two sub-associations, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and Riversidean Sage Scrub. Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub ' The majority of the sage scrub vegetation found along the County of Riverside/San Diego border and in the foothills of the southeastern Santa Ana Mountains consists of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (HC ' 32500). This phase of sage scrub is a low-lying, relatively open scrub with desert affinities, and is comprised of soft-woody, drought deciduous species that provide the majority of the vegetative cover. Characteristic Flora species include California Sagebrush (Artemisia californica), Flat-top ' Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), Coyote Brush (Baccharis pilularis), Deerweed (Lotus scoparius), White Sage (Salvia apiana), California Encelia (Encelia californica), Goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), Laurel Sumac (Malosma laurina), Foothill Needlegrass (Nassella lepida), ' Lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), Black Sage (Salvia mellifera), San Diego Monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantlacus), and California Brickellbush (Brickellia californica). Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub occupies a relatively small portion of land, approximately 671 acres, within the southern portion of the Planning Area, along the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains and north of Pechanga Indian Reservation. The quality of the sage scrub habitat in these areas is considered to be good given the generally undisturbed nature of the vegetation, contiguous with other native habitat to the south of the Planning Area. ' Riversidean Sage Scrub Riversidean Sage Scrub (HC 32700) occurs extensively on the plains of western Riverside County, ' and throughout much of the Temecula region. This phase of sage scrub is similar to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub; however, characteristic flora species can differ and include Brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), Boundary Goldenbush (Ericalneria brachylepis), Yellow Bush Penstemon (Keckiella antirrhinoides), and Parry Cholla (Opuntia parryi). Riversidean Sage Scrub occupies approximately 2,759 acres of land throughout the Planning Area, including patches of sage scrub located within the southern portion of the French Valley Region, as well as within the City of Temecula, south of ' Rancho California Road between Margarita Road and Ynez Road, and along Butterfield Stage Road. The quality of the sage scrub habitat is considered to be good in the French Valley Region, and varies within the City of Temecula, dependent on the presence of adjacent native habitats. ' Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Tracts of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Scrub (HC 32720), a sub-association of Riversidean Sage.Scrub, were once found along several major tributaries in the Temecula region; however, this vegetation type is now almost extirpated from the area. The scrub is restricted to floodplains and the periphery ' of drainages where deeply bedded, sandy alluvium is occupied by flora species which thrive in soils that are generally poor in nutrients. Characteristic Flora species include Scale-broom (Lepidospartum squamatum), Sand-wash Butterweed (Senecio flaccidus var. douglasii), Woolly Lotus (Lotus heermannii), Common Croton (Croton californicus), and Smooth Tarplant (Deinandra pungens ssp. laevis). A few small areas of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Scrub, approximately 229 acres, are still found along Temecula Creek, as well as Santa Gertrudis Creek and the southern portion of Tucaloca ' Creek. The quality of the scrub habitat is generally considered to be poor given the constrained nature of the habitat by urban development. Temecula General Plan Amendment City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 5 September 2003 ' Environmental Analysis Biological Resources ' Disturbed Alluvial This disturbance-associated vegetation community, which occupies approximately 49 acres of.the ' Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub mapped along Temecula Creek, typically occurs where extensive impacts have denuded a broad sandy floodplain removing most of the vegetative cover, such as with sand mining activities. Although such lands may eventually recover to a form of ' riparian habitat, flooding is often necessary to introduce the wetland seed components. Small xeric- adapted annuals, such as species of Everlasting (Gnaphalium sp.), may occur sporadically in this open terrain, and Mule Fat (Baccharis salicifolia) is usually the first wetland species to pioneer in ' substantial numbers. Chaparral Chaparral (HC 37000) occupies a total of approximately 4,641 acres of land located primarily in the southern and southwestern portions of the Planning Area. It is likely that these areas consist of several different chaparral sub-associations, including Chamise Chaparral, Southern Mixed Chaparral, and Red Shank Chaparral, which have not.been mapped,.in.detail. In general, chaparral vegetation occurs on dry; rocky, and often steep north-facing slopes, and is dominated by relatively tall (between 1.5-3, meters), broad-leaved, deep-rooted, woody shrubs. Chaparral vegetation located on south-facing slopes is typically more open and can form a mosaic with sage scrub vegetation. The chaparral vegetation types within the Planning Area are relatively undisturbed and contiguous with ' other native habitat; therefore, the quality of the vegetation is generally considered to be very good. Chamise Chaparral, Chamise Chaparral (HC 37200) is locally_; common on poorly developed soils ,throughout the Temecula area, and is a lower growing chaparral dominated by Chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), with comparatively limited shrub diversity and arid understory conditions. Southern Mixed Chaparral Southern Mixed Chaparral (HC 37120), potentially located in the foothills at the extreme southern portion of the Planning Area, is a mid-sized to tall chaparral, with limited shrub diversity in drier areas; but a floristically varied understory with numerous species of subshrubs,. herbaceous perennials, bulbs, and annuals in shaded and wetter areas. Characteristic flora species include Rainbow Manzanita (Arclosiaphylos rainbowensis), Ramona Ceanothus (Ceanothus tomentosus), San Diego Mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus minutia lorus), Holly-leaf, Redberry (Rhamnus ilicifolia), Sugar Bush (Rhas ovata), and Fuchsia-flowered Gooseberry (Ribes speciosum). ' Red Shank Chaparral Isolated tracts of Red Shank Chaparral (HC 37300), a taller growing chaparral type with limited shrub diversity, dominated by Red Shank (Adenostoma sparsifolium), may occur at higher elevations within the extreme southeastern portions of the Planning Area. Non-Native Grassland Non-Native grasslands (HC 42200) are widely dispersed throughout the Temecula region, covering approximately 8,436 acres of land within the Planning Area. This "introduced" grassland consists of ' a dense to open cover of predominantly,Eurasian grasses that have become widespread on disturbed or heavily grazed lands. Non-native grasses include brome species such as Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens, B. hordeaceus, B. diandrus, and Slender Wild Oat (Avena barbata), as well as forbs, such as ' Temecula General Plan Amendment City of Temecula ScreencheckDraft EIS/EIR 6 September 2003 1 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources mustard (Hirshfeldia incana and Brassica nigra), and filarees such as Erodium brachycarpum, E. cicutarium, and E. moschatum. Patches of Non-Native Grassland occur within the French Valley Region, as well as throughout the City of Temecula. The quality of these grasslands is expected to coincide with the quality of the surrounding vegetation communities and land uses, and the vegetation has a potential to support wildlife species that are grassland specialists, as well as provide foraging habitat and habitat connectivity for wildlife species. Vernal Pools ' Vernal Pools (HC 44000) are a rare vegetation community type comprised of seasonally flooded depressions generally found in grasslands that are ponded long enough during the wetter portion of ' the growing season to support wetland hydrophytic vegetation, as well as many sensitive species. Characteristic flora species include Woolly Marbles (Psilocarphus brevissimus), Downingia (Downingia bella), Parish's Meadowfoam (Limnanthes gracilis spp. parishii), and Skunkweed (Navarretia prostrata). Vernal pools vary in size and are typically located on low permeable, bedrock or hard clay soils that aid in retaining water. Native annuals often bloom in circles that coincide with the receding shoreline of the pools, and the pools may be completely dry during the majority of the season. Vernal pools have been documented within the Planning Area at .Skunk Hollow, in the French Valley Region north of Munieta Hot Springs Road, and comprise approximately 16 acres of land. Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest 1 Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest occupies a total of approximately 515 acres of land , throughout the Planning Area, and includes five sub-associations, Southern Cottonwood/Willow Riparian Forest, Southern Sycamore/Alder Riparian Forest, Riparian Scrub, Mule Fat Scrub, and Southern Willow Scrub. 1 Southern Cottonwood/Willow Riparian Forest Southern Cotton woodfWi I low Riparian Forest (HC 61300) occupies floodplains and bottumiands where seasonal rainfall runoff is generally substantial, and is dominated by sizeable trees, with a rich, diverse floristic understory. This riparian forest can include a mix of mature trees, including such species as Goodding's Black Willow (Salix gooddingii), Arroyo Willow (Salix lasiolepis), Lance-leaf Willow (Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra), Fremont Cottonwood (Populusfremonth), and Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia). Characteristic understory flora species include California Blackberry (Rubus ursinus), Mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), Mule Fat, and Hoary Nettle (Urtica dioica ssp. ' holosericea). Three locales, consisting of approximately 67 acres, are located within the Planning Area along Santa Gertrudis Creek and Temecula Creek. The quality of the riparian habitat is considered to be moderate given the constrained nature of the habitat by agricultural lands and urban ' development. Southern Sycamore/Alder Riparian Woodland Southern Sycamore/Alder Riparian Woodland (HC 62400) is an open deciduous woodland located on broad alluvial or rocky drainages and floodplains. Generally rainfall runoff is substantial but seasonal, and the water table may be high when no surficial flows are present. Western Sycamores ' (Platanus racemosa) dominate this riparian woodland, with scattered clumps of willows and occasional thickets of riparian understory components. Additional characteristic. flora species include Blue Elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), Western Poison Oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), 1 Temecula General Plan Amendment City of Temecula Screencheck Draft E1S/EIR 7 September 2003 ' Environmental Anal•sis > Biological Resources Oak Mistletoe (Phoradendron villosum), Desert-Wild Grape (Vitis girdiana), and Emory's Baccharis ' (Baccharis etnoryi). A single, isolated stand of moderate to low quality riparian woodland comprises approximately 4 acres of land northeast of Pechanga Creek, at the southern boundary of the City of Temecula. ' Riparian Scrub Riparian Scrub (HC 63000) is a mix of younger successional, low-growing riparian forest trees and ' shrubs, generally restricted to a relatively narrow. streamcourse or seasonal drainage. Characteristic flora species can include several different species, such as Box Elder (Ater negundo ssp. californicum), Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), White Alder (Alnus rhombifolia), Sycamore, Fremont Cottonwood, Southern California Black Walnut (Juglans californica var. californica), Blue Elderberry, Desert Wild Grape, Western Poison Oak, and Great Marsh Evening Primrose (Oenothera elata). Approximately 158 acres of moderate quality riparian scrub are located within the Planning Area along Murrieta Creek and unnamed drainages in the French Valley Region. Mule Fat Scrub Mule Fat Scrub (HC 63310) consists of riparian scrub dominated by Mule Fat, with patchy understory development. The scrub is typically scattered along intermittent streams with frequent Flooding, which prevents succession to riparian forest or woodlands. Additional characteristic flora species include Arroyo Willow, Sedge (Carex sp.), and Hoary Nettle. Moderate quality Mule Fat Scrub is primarily located along Temecula Creek, as well as the southern portion of Murrieta Creek, and comprises approximately 116 acres'of land within the Planning Area. Southern Willow Scrub Southern Willow Scrub (HC 63320) consists of winter-deciduous thickets of riparian scrub y dominated by Arroyo Willow, Red Willow (Salix laevigata), Lance-leaf Willow, and Narrow-leaved Willow (Salix exigua), with limited understory development and scattered inclusions of emergent Fremont Cottonwoods and Western Sycamores. This scrub typically occurs along narrow riparian channels with repeated flooding that prevents succession to Southern Cottonwood-Sycamore Riparian Forest, and the limited understory is often readily degraded and invaded by invasive weedy species, such as Tamarisk (Tamarisk sp.), Giant Reed (Arundo donax), and Pampas Grass (Cortaderia selloanay. Approximately 170 acres of moderate quality Southern Willow Scrub'are located within the Planning Area, primarily along Temecula Creek, as well as Tucaloca Creek. Coast Live Oak Woodland ' Coast Live Oak Woodland (HC 7116.0) is primarily located in the foothills of the Agua Tiba and Santa Ana Mountains. This vegetation community is an evergreen woodland primarily dominated by Coast Live Oak, with a relatively open and low-growing understory that can support both upland and riparian vegetation, as well as perennial grasslands and annuals, and herbaceous perennials- Characteristic flora species include Western Poison Oak, California Blackberry, San Diego Sedge (Carex spissa), California Coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), California Rose (Rosa californica), Nodding Needlegrass (Nassella cernua), and Large Clarkia (Clarkia purpurea). Coastal Live Oak woodland occupies approximately 584 acres of land within the southern portion of the Planning Area. The quality of this habitat is considered to be very good given ,its location within relatively ' undisturbed areas. Temecula General Plan Amendment City of Temecula ' Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 8 September 2003 1 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources Open Water/Reservoir/Pond Within the Planning Area, this vegetation category primarily includes stream channels consisting of , standing water adjacent to riparian and upland vegetation communities, as well as artificially created bodies of water, such as stock ponds. These areas are typically devoid of flowering flora, and , vegetation consists of floating aquatic plants. Characteristic flora species include Pondweed (Potamogeton sp.), Duckweed (Lemna sp.), Pacific Mosquitofern (Azolla filiculoides), Common Waternymph (Najas guadalupensis), and Hornwort (Ceratophyllum demersum). Approximately 94 , acres of open water, reservoirs, or stock ponds are located within the Planning Area, and the majority of these areas are isolated by urban development. Residential/Urban/Exotic Land 1 A large portion of the Planning Area, approximately 13,555 acres, is comprised of ' Residential/Urban/Exotic lands, which consist of urban/developed lands, non-native/exotic vegetation, eucalyptus woodland, and disturbed habitat. Urban and semi-urban areas contain numerous and varied horticultural plantings located within residential yards, active-use parklands, ' and golf courses. In the older, urbanized portions of the Temecula Valley, tall exotic plantings„such as Australian Eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus sp.) form well-developed, dense woodlands. Occasionally, other planted woodlands, such as introduced pines, elms, and African Tamarisk , (Tamarsx aphylla) are used as windbreaks. Disturbed areas are typically located adjacent to urbanization and contain a high percentage of bare ground or mix of invasive broad-leaved, non- native forb and annual species, usually found pioneering on recently disturbed soils. Characteristic non-native species include Prickly Sow Thistle (Sonchus asper), Common Sow Thistle (Sonchus ' oleraceus), Bristly Ox-tongue (Picris echioides), Russian Thistle (Salsola tragus), Giant Reed, Hottentot-Fig (Carpobrotus edulis), Wild Lettuce (Lactuca serriola), Tree Tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), Castor-bean (Ricinus communis), Pampas Grass, Smooth Cat's-ear (Hypochoeris glabra), ' Red-stem Filaree (Erodium cicutarium), Short-beak Filaree (Erodium brachycarpum), and White-stem Filaree (Erodium moschatum). Residential/Urban/Exotic lands do not typically contain native vegetation or provide essential habitat connectivity; however, exotic woodland habitats do provide nesting and perching habitat for many avian species, particularly raptors. Agricultural Land , Agricultural Land occupies a total of approximately 8,405 acres of land throughout the Planning Area, and includes two agricultural land use types, Field Croplands and Groves/Orchards. ' Field Croplands Field Croplands, consisting of extensive agricultural lands used as unoccupied field/pasture areas or ' for herbaceous crops, occupy approximately 6,343 acres within the Planning Area. The majority of these lands are located within the French Valley Region, and along the northern and southeastern boundaries of the City of Temecula. The Field Croplands are situated on relatively flat terrain, where , soils are suitable for agricultural planting, and where nearby watercourses, such as Tucaloca Creek, Santa Gertrudis Creek, and Temecula Creek, are present for irrigation access. Field/pasture areas contain remnant native and non-native weedy species and common herbaceous crops, such as barely, ' tomatoes, potatoes, and onions. Field Croplands do not typically contain native vegetation; however, these lands do provide foraging ground and habitat for raptorial birds and small mammal species, and Temecula General Plan Amendment City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 9 September 2003 ' Environmental Analysis Biological Resources 1 ' may facilitate local population dispersal of sensitive species by functioning as stepping stone ' connections between fragmented native habitat. Groves/Orchards Approximately 2,062 acres within the Planning Area are comprised of Groves/Orchards, consisting primarily of woody crops such as citrus fruits and avocados. The majority of these crops are located to the east of the City of Temecula, within the City's surrounding Sphere of Influence and Planning ' Area. The crops are typically grown on areas with steeper slopes, fertile soils, and irrigation access to nearby watercourses, such as Murrietta Creek. Herbaceous understolies may be planted or occur naturally, but the understories are open in density to facilitate with crop harvesting. Although ' Groves/Orchards do not typically contain native vegetation, they do provide cover for wildlife movement, as well as perch and nest sites for raptorial and passerine bird species. Regional Wildlife Habitat/rauna The value of the aforementioned vegetation communities for wildlife is primarily dependent on both physical and biological factors, including locations to relative land uses, the quality of habitat within 1 and adjacent to the region, and the uniqueness of the habitat within a regional context. The Planning Area encompasses habitats ranging from disturbed, to very good quality, native vegetation communities. Within the City of Temecula, a predominance of urban development and road bisections constrains or eliminates habitat connectivity, thereby decreasing the wildlife value of much of the Planning Area. Regions of prime importance to wildlife are generally concentrated within the City's surrounding Sphere of Influence, particularly within the French Valley Region, as ' well as southeast and southwest of the City,of Temecula. The following text generally discusses the fauna species known or with a ,potential to occur in the Planning Area, based on the general knowledge of regional species occurrences in the identified habitats, as well as accepted standard ' references (freshwater fishes: Hendrickson 1998; butterflies: Opler 1999; amphibians and reptiles: Crother 2001; birds: American Ornithologsts' Union 2002 and 1998; mammals: Wilson 1993). Fauna species are discussed in a regional context; therefore, existing site-specific conditions may ' differ since species presence cannot be predicted by vegetation community presence alone. Invertebrates ' Limited information is available to provide a thorough description of all invertebrate fauna found within the Temecula region; however, butterfly species and vernal pool brachiopods have been fairly ' well documented (Table 2). Butterfly species occur in a wide range of habitats; including sage scrub and chaparral, open areas devoid of substantial shrub cover such as non-native grasslands and agricultural/disturbed land, as well as more densely vegetated areas such as riparian habitat-and oak ' woodlands. These habitats provide various host-specific plants suitable for larval development, adult nectar resources, and topographical features, such as hilltops or open ground that aid in courtship and mating. In contrast, vernal pool brachiopods are strongly restricted to vernal pool habitat, and consequently, many of these species are considered to be sensitive. Quality habitat for a diverse assemblage of butterflies is generally located in the extreme northern, southern, and western portions of the Planning Area; while vernal pool locations are concentrated to the north, in the French Valley ' Region. Temecula General Plan Amendment City of Temecula ' Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 10 September 2003 1 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources 1 Table 2. Invertebrate Species Known or with a Potential to Occur in the Plannin Area. Habitats Inverlebratest ' Coastal Sage Scrub Pale Swallowtail (Papilio eurymedon), Anise Swallowtail (Papilio Chaparral zelicaon), Checkered White (Portia protodice), Cabbage White (Pieris rapae), Sara Orangetip (Anthocharis Sara), Perplexing ' Hairstreak (Callophrys perplexa), Marine Blue (Leptotes marina), Bernardino Dotted-Blue (Euphilotes bernardino), Acmon Blue (lcaricia acmon), Behr's Metalmark (Apodemia virgulti), 'Quinn Checkerspot (Euphydryas editha quino), Chalcedon Checkerspot (Euphydryas chalcedona), Virginia Lady (Vanessa virginiensis), Painted Lady (Vanessa cardui), West Coast Lady(Vanessa carye), Common Buckeye (Junonia coenia), Monarch (Danaus plexippus), Queen (Danaus gilippus), Funereal Duskywing E nnis uneralis Non-Native Grassland Checkered White, Cabbage White, Orange Sulphur (Colias Vernal Pools eurytheme), West Coast Lady, Common Buckeye, California ' Ringlet (Coenonympha californica), Monarch, Woodland Skipper (Ochlodes sylvanoides). 'Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp(Branchinecra ! ncht),*Riverside Fairy Shrimp(Sire rote halus woortoni) ' Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest Western Tiger Swallowtail (Papilio rutulus), Satyr Anglewing (Polygonia satyrus), Mourning Cloak (Nymphalis antiopa), Lor uin's Admiral Liminiris for uini) Coast Live Oak Woodland Red Admiral (Vanessa atalanta), California Sister (Adelpha bredowii call ornica) ResidentiaVUrban/Exotic Land Anise Swallowtail, Checkered White, Cabbage White, Sara Agricultural Land Orangetip,Marine Blue, Virginia Lady, Painted Lady, West Coast ' Lady,Common Buckeye,Monarch,Queen Some species may be listed more than once due to their occurrence in multiple habitats. "Sensitive species Fishes Insufficient information exists to provide a complete description of all fish species found within the ' Temecula region. Local fish mostly include non-native species, such as introduced game fish (e.g., Large-mouth Bass) and fish introduced for specific beneficial purposes (e.g., Mosquitofish). Native fish species are limited within the Planning Area due to the introduction of these non-native species, and potentially include such species as the sensitive, Arroyo Chub (Gila orcutri), known to occur near the Santa Margarita River. ' Amphibians Amphibians typically occur in riparian habitats with peripheral upland vegetation. Riparian ' ecosystems often provide temporary ponding water utilized as breeding habitat by various amphibious species, as well as abundant vegetation for cover and foraging. Amphibians will also create burrows in adjacept upland habitats, such as sage scrub and non-native grasslands, where they will aestivate (or spend time in a dormant state, similar to hibernation). Amphibian species with a potential to occur in the Planning Area include native species such as the Garden Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps major), Arboreal Salamander (Aneides lugubris), Western Toad (Bufo boreal), California Chorus Frog (Pseudacris cadaverina), and Pacific Chorus Frog (Pseudacris regilla); non- native species such as the Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana); and two sensitive species, the Western Temecula General Plan Amendment City of Temecula Screencheck Draft E1S/E/R I I September 2003 ' Environmental Analysis Biological Resources ' Spadefoot Toad (Scaphiopus hammondii) and Arroyo Toad (Bufo californicus). Low to moderate quality amphibian habitat is concentrated along Tucaloca, Santa Gertrudis, Temecula, Pechanga, and Murrieta Creeks, as well as the Santa Margarita River. Reptiles Reptiles occur in a variety of habitats, including riparian, oak woodland, sage scrub, and chaparral habitats, as well as grasslands and agricultural/disturbed lands (Table 3). Lizards and snakes utilize rock crevices for cover within the habitat, and feed on small insects and insect larvae among the leaf litter. Quality reptilian habitat is generally located in the southern and southwestern portions of the Planning Area; however, the non-native grasslands throughout the City of Temecula, as well as the 1 agricultural lands located in the French Valley Region, are also expected to support several reptilian species. ' Table 3. Reptile Species Known or with a Potential to Occur in the Planning Area. Habitats Reptiles' Coastal Sage Scrub Banded Gecko (Coleonyx variegatus), Granite Spiny Lizard ' Chaparral (Seeloporus orcutti), Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentolis), Side-blotched Lizard (Uta stansburiata), *San Diego Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii), Orangethroat Whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus), Western Whiptail (Cnemidophorus rigris), California Legless Lizard (Anniella nigra), Southern Alligator Lizard (Elgaria multicarinara), Gilbert's Skink (Eumeces gilberti), Coronado Skink (Eumeces skilronianus ' inlerparietalis), *Rosy Boa (Lichanura trivirgata), *Ringneck Snake (Diadophis punctatus), Racer (Coluber constrictor), Coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), Western Patchnose Snake (Salvadora hexalepis), California Striped Racer (Masticophis lateralis), Glossy ' Snake (Arizona elegans), Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer), California Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula californiae), Longnose Snake (Rhinocheilus leconrei), Common Garter Snake (Thamnophis 1 sirtalis), *Two-striped Garter Snake (Thamnophis hammondii), Western Blackhead Snake (Tantilla planiceps), Lyre Snake (Trimorphodon biscuratus), Night Snake (Hypsiglena torquata), *Northern Red Diamond Rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber ruber), Southern Pacific Rattlesnake Crotalus viridis helleri Non-Native Grassland Western Fence Lizard, Side-blotched Lizard, Coronado Skink, Vernal Pools Coachwhip, Gopher Snake, California Kingsnake, *Two-striped Garter Snake,Northern Red Diamond Rattlesnake Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest Banded Gecko, Granite Spiny Lizard, Western Fence Lizard, Side- Coast Live Oak Woodland blotched Lizard, *San Diego Horned Lizard, Orangethroat Whiptail, Western Whiptail, California Legless Lizard, Southern Alligator ' Lizard, Gilbert's Skink, Coronado Skink, *Rosy Boa, *Ringneck Snake, Racer, Coachwhip, Western Patchnose Snake, Striped Whipsnake, Gopher Snake, California Kingsnake, Longnose Snake, Common Garter Snake, *Two-striped Garter Snake, Western ' Blackhead Snake, Lyre Snake, Night Snake, *Northern Red Diamond Rattlesnake, Southern Pacific Rattlesnake Residential/Urban/Exotic Land Coronado Skink, Western Fence Lizard, Side-blotched Lizard, ' A ricultural Land Southern Alligator Lizard, Orangethroat Whiptail, Gopher Snake Some species may be listed more than once due to their occurrence in multiple habitats. *Sensitive species ' Temecula General Plan Amendment City of Temecula ' Screencheck Draft E1S/E1R 12 September 2003 1 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources 1 Birds Several vegetation communities provide habitat for numerous species of resident and migratory birds (Table 4). A number of avian species breed within sage scrub and chaparral habitats, and forage among the leaf litter in the vegetative understory. Rocky outcrops, particularly on undisturbed slopes ' or peaks can provide perching or roosting sites for raptors; and grasslands and agricultural lands located adjacent to woodland areas provide foraging habitat for resident, wintering, and migrant raptors. Avian diversity and abundance is substantial within riparian and oak woodland habitats. These habitats are comprised of several horizontal niches including canopy, shrub, herb, and ground, which provide a network of valuable roosting, foraging, and breeding areas for birds. Quality avian habitat within the Planning Area is concentrated in the areas where the vegetation is less disturbed ' and provides habitat connectivity; however, the various creeks and tributaries within the City of Temecula, as well as the French Valley Region, also provide some measure of habitat connectivity, and potential avian breeding and foraging areas. Table 4. Bird Species Known or with a Potential to Occur in the Planning Area. Habitats Birds' Coastal Sage Scrub Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura), *Northern Harrier Chaparral (Circus cyaneus), Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), *Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaeros), American Kestrel (Falco sparverius), *Merlin (Falco columbarius), ' *Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus), California Quail (Callipepla californica), Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura), Greater Roadrunner (Geococcyx ' californianus), *Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), Lesser Nighthawk (Chordeiles acutipennis), Common Poorwill (Phalaenoptilus nuitallii), Costa's Hummingbird (Calypte costae), Rufous Hummingbird ' (Selasphorus rufus), Allen's Hummingbird (Selasphorus Basin), Western Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma californica), Common Raven (Comus corax), Bushtit (Psaltriparas minimus), Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), Rock Wren (Salpinctes obsoletus), Canyon Wren (Catherpes mexicanus), Bewick's Wren (Thryomanes bewickii), Blue-gray Gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), *California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica), Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus), Wrentit (Chamaea fasciata), Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), California Thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum), Yellow-rumped Warbler (Dendroica coronas), Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus), California Towhee (Pipilo crissalis), ' Southern California Rufous-crowned Sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), Black-chinned Sparrow (Spizella atrogularis), Black-throated Sparrow (Amphispiz bilineata), Bell's Sage Sparrow (Amphispiza ' ` belli belli), White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca), Golden- crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia airicapilla), Lazuli , Bunting(Passerina amoena), House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), Lesser Goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria) 1 Temecula General Plan Amendment City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 13 September 2003 ' Environmental Analysis Biological Resources Non-native Grassland *White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus), *Bald Eagle Residential/Urban/Exotic Land (Haliaeetus'leucocephalus), *Northern Harrier, *Sharp- ' Agricultural Land shinned Hawk (Accipiter striaius), *Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii), *Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), Red-tailed Hawk, Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis), *Golden Eagle, American Kestrel, *Merlin, *Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), *Prairie Falcon, Ring-necked Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), Mountain Plover (Charadrius ' montanus), Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis), California Gull (L.arus californicus), Rock Dove (Columba Livia), Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura), Common Ground-dove (%lumbma passerina), Barn Owl (Tyro albs), Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus), *Burrowing Owl, Costa's Hummingbird, Rufous Hummingbird, Alien's Hummingbird, Black Phoebe .(Sayornis nigricans), Say's Phoebe (Sayornis saya), Cassin's Kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans), Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), *Loggerhead Shrike ' (l.anius ludovicianus), .American Crow (Corvus brach),rhynchos), Common Raven, *California Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris actin), Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), Violet-green Swallow ' (Tachycineta thalassina), Northern Rough-winged Swallow (Srelgidopteryx serripennis), Cliff Swallow (Hirundo pyrrhonota), Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustics), ' -- Bushtit, Mountain Bluebird (Sialia currucoides), Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris), .American Pipit (Anthus rubescens), Chipping Sparrow- (Spi¢ella passerina), ' - Vesper Sparrow(Pooeceres gramineus), Lark Sparrow ; (Chondestes grammacus), Savannah Sparrow - (Passerculus sandvichensis), Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarurn), Lincoln's Sparrow - (Melospiza lincobrii), White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), - Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), Brewer's Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), House Finch, Lesser Goldfinch, House Sparrow(Passer domesiicus Riparian Scrub,Woodland,Forest, American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), 'Western Coast Live Oak Woodland Least Bittern (lsobrychus esilis hesperis), Great Blue 1 Open Water/Reservoir/Pond - Heron (Ardea herodias), Great Egret (Casmerodius a/bus), Snowy Egret (Egretta Chula), Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis), Green Heron (Butorides virescens), Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nyclicorax), *White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi), Greater White- rronted Goose (Anser albifrons), Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens), Canada Goose (Branca carwdensis), Gadwall (Anas strepera), American Wigeon (Anus dmericana), Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Cinnamon Teal (Anas cyanoptera),- Northern Shoveler (Anas ' clypeata), Northern Pintail (Anas acuta), Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca), Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris), Ruddy Duck (Osyura jamaicensis), *Sharp- shinned Hawk, *Cooper's Hawk, Red-shouldered Hawk 1 Temecula General Plan Amendment City of Temecula Screencheck Draft ElS/E1R 14 September 2003 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources ' Riparian Scrub,Woodland, Forest, (Buteo lineatus), Red-tailed Hawk, Virginia Rail (Rallus ' Coast Live Oak Woodland limicola), Sora (Porzana Carolina), Common Moorhen Open Water/Reservoir/Pond (Gallinula chloropus), American Cool (Fulica americana), Long-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus), Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago), Mourning Dove, Western Screech-owl (Onus kennicottii), Great Horned Owl, Long-eared Owl (Asia otus), Black-chinned Hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri), Acorn Woodpecker (Melanerpes ' formicivorous), Red-naped Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus nuchalis), Nuttall's Woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), ' Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), Hairy ' Woodpecker (Picoides villosus), Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus), Western Wood-pewee (Contopus sordidulus), Black Phoebe, *Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidot= rradhi exrimus), Pacific-slope Flycatcher (Empidonax di�cilis), Ash-throated Flycatcher(Myiarchus cinerascens), *Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), Cassin's Vireo (Vireo cassinii), Hutton's Vireo (Vireo huttoni), Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus), Common Raven, Oak Titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), Violet-green Swallow, Bushtit, Marsh Wren (Cistoihorus palustris), White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta ' carolinensis),*House Wren (Troglodytes aedon), Ruby- crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula), Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana), Swainson's Thrush, Hermit Thrush, American Robin (Turdus migratorius), Cedar Waxwing ' (Bombycilla cedrorum), Phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens), *Yellow Warbler(Dendroica peiechia), Orange- crowned Warbler(Vermivora celara), Nashville Warbler ' (Vermivora ruffcapilla), Yellow-rumped Warbler, Black-throated Gray Warbler (Dendroica nigrescens), Townsend's Warbler (Dendroica townsendi), MacGillivray's Warbler (Oporornis rolmiei), Common 1 Yellowthroat (Geothlypis rrichas), Wilson's Warbler (Wilsonia pusilla), *Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens), Western Tanager (Piranga ludoviciana), California Towhee, Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia), White-crowned Sparrow, Black-headed Grosbeak (Pheucticus melartocephalus), Blue Grosbeak (Guiraca coerulea), Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), ' *Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), Brown- headed Cowbird (Molothrus aver), Hooded Oriole (Icterus cucullalus), Bullock's Oriole (Icterus bullockii), ' Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis), House Finch, Pine Siskin (Carduelis pinus), Lesser Goldfinch, Lawrence's Goldfinch (Carduelis lawrencei), American Goldfinch (Carduelis trisris) ' Some species may be listed more than once due to their occurrence in multiple habitats. *Sensitive species 1 Temecula General Plan Amendment City of Temecula ' Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 15 September 2003 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources ' Mammals Without trapping, the presence of mammal species must be discerned through habitat suitability, species range and biological records; many mammals are nocturnal and secretive, and indirect signs for a number of species, particularly rodents, can be similar. Small mammal species typically occur ' in sage scrub, chaparral, grasslands and agricultural/disturbed areas, and several of these species will intermittently utilize riparian and woodland habitats for foraging and cover (Table 5). Various species of bats will also forage in grasslands and woodland habitats. Larger mammals often require ' greater blocks of connected habitat for hunting and travel within their range. Quality habitat for small mammal species is generally located throughout the Planning Area; however, the only areas consisting of wider, connected blocks of habitat suitable for larger mammal species are located in the ' southern and southwestern portions of the Planning Area. Table S. Mammal Species Known or with a Potential to Occur in the Plannin Area. ' Habitat Mammals Coastal Sage Scrub Desert Shrew (Notiosorez crawfordi), Yuma Myotis (Myoris Chaparral yumanensis), Western Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus), Pallid Bat ' (Antrozous pallidus), Desert Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), *San Diego Black-tailed Jackrabbit (f_epus californicus), California Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), California Pocket Mouse (Chaerodipus californicus), 'Northwestern San Diego Pocket ' Mouse (Chaerodipus fallax fallax), Pacific Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys agilis), Cactus Mouse (Peromyscus eremicus), California Mouse (Peromyscus californicus), Deer Mouse ' (Peromyscus manicularus), 'Desert Woodrat (Neotoma lepida), Dusky-footed Woodrat (Neotoma juscipes), California Vote (Microrus californicus), Coyote (Canis larrans), Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenreus), Ringtail (Bassariscus asturus), ' 'Mountain Lion (Fells concolor), Bobcat (Lytu rufus), Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionas) Non-native Grassland Desert Cottontail, *San Diego Black-tailed Jackrabbit, California Ground Squirrel, Bona's Pocket Gopher (Thomomys borrae), 'Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi), Western Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), California Vole, Coyote, Long-tailed Weasel Musrela renata ' Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus Justus), Desert Cottontail, California Ground Squirrel, Bona's Pocket Gopher, Western Harvest Mouse, Deer Mouse, California Vole, Coyote, Northern Raccoon (Procyon loror), Long-tailed Weasel (Mustela frenata), Western Spotted ' Skunk (Spilogale gracilis), Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Mule Deer Coast Live Oak Woodland Ornate Shrew (Soren ornarus), Brush Mouse (Peromyscus boylii), Dusk -footed Woodrat,Coyote, Bobcat. Mule Deer Residential/Urban/Exotic Land Virginia Opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Desert Cottontail, Agricultural Land California Ground Squirrel, Bona's Pocket Gopher, Deer Mouse, House Mouse (Mus musculus), ), Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus), ' Black Rat(Rarrus ratrus), Coyote, Raccoon, Striped Skunk Some species may be listed more than once due to their occurrence in multiple habitats. *Sensitive species 1 Temecula General Plan Amendment - - City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EJS/EJR 16 September 2003 1 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources 1 Sensitive Resources Regional Sensitive Habitats Sensitive habitats include vegetation communities that support rare and endangered species, and/or , have been substantially depleted by development, or are naturally limited in distribution within a certain region (California Resources Agency 2001, 615380). Five regionally sensitive habitats are identified within the Planning Area: 1) Coastal Sage Scrub/Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub; 2) ' Vernal Pools/Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest/Open Water, Reservoir, Pond 3) Coast Live Oak Woodland; 4) Raptor Foraging/Wintering Habitat; and 5) Designated Critical Habitat. Coastal Sage Scrub/Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub ' Coastal sage scrub has been substantially reduced in southern California largely due to urban and agricultural development, and several sensitive wildlife species are dependent on this habitat. Sage , scrub vegetation communities provide habitat for the federally-listed, threatened California Gnatcatcher, as well as several other state and locally sensitive species. In addition, sage scrub habitats often include rocky outcrops, which increase species diversity by creating microhabitats that , are regularly used by sensitive butterfly, reptile, and raptor species. The majority of the sage scrub habitat within the Planning Area has been fragmented by development, reducing wildlife value; however, several of the sage scrub patches throughout the City of Temecula, and particularly in the ' French Valley Region, may provide narrow habitat linkages or stepping stone connections enabling wildlife species to disperse to larger areas of native habitat within the region. Vernal Pools/Riparian Scrub, Woodland,and Forest/Open Water, Reservoir, Pond ' Vernal pools, riparian vegetation, and water are wetland habitat types that have extremely high wildlife values, are naturally limited in distribution, and also have been substantially depleted within southern California. Numerous species, including several sensitive species, are dependent on these ' habitats for food, cover, and breeding, and several additional species, although not dependent on these habitats, utilize these areas on a regular basis. Wetland and riparian habitats are located throughout the Planning Area along the various creeks and tributaries, and vernal pools are located at , Skunk Hollow in the French Valley Region. Although these habitats are typically constrained by peripheral development, thereby reducing wildlife value, these areas are vital in maintaining existing habitat connectivity and wildlife corridor value throughout the region. , Coast Live Oak Woodland Oak woodlands also have extremely high wildlife value, are naturally limited in distribution, and ' have been substantially depleted within southern California. Oak woodlands vary in terms of species composition, density, understory, and regeneration capacity. This variance typically influences wildlife abundance and habitat quality, but regardless of quality, oaks that form woodlands are ' generally considered to have high biological value for numerous wildlife species. In addition, oak trees are susceptible to indirect long-term impacts from disease, pollution, and changes in water availability, causing loss of regenerative ability within individual oak stands (Johnson 1995). Oak ' woodlands are limited within the Planning Area, but those that occur along or abut creeks have increased wildlife value. Additionally, oak woodlands adjacent to more open vegetation, such as coastal sage scrub and non-native grasslands with a high abundance of rodent prey items, have , increased wildlife value, particularly for raptor species. 1 Temecula General Plan Amendment City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 17 .September 2003 ' En vironmental Analysis Biological Resources 1 Raptor Wintering/Foraging Habitat ' Although non-native grasslands and agricultural lands would not typically be considered sensitive habitat types, they would be considered sensitive if they were to support listed sensitive species (e.g., some raptors), or were of particular biological value to these species. These vegetation communities, particularly when located adjacent to woodland habitats, provide a good prey base and suitable ' hunting habitat for resident, wintering, and transient raptor populations. Within the Planning Area, potential raptor wintering and foraging habitat is primarily located in the French Valley Region and south of the City of Temecula. ' Designated Critical Habitat The Planning Area is partially located within United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated critical habitat for the federally-listed, threatened, California Gnatcatcher and endangered, Quino Checkerspot Butterfly ((CBA Figure#)). Unit 10 of the California Gnatcatcher Critical Habitat encompasses approximately 199,940 acres of land within the Western Riverside County MSHCP area (USFWS 2000, p. 63686). The Temecula/Murrieta/Lake Skinner subunit is partially located within the Temecula Planning Area and ' consists of essential linkages between core gnatcatcher populations. Two linkages are located in the French Valley Region, connecting habitat to the north and northeast of the City of Temecula, and one linkage is-located in the Temecula Valley Region (I-15 corridor), connecting habitat to the south of µ ; ' the City of Temecula into the County of San Diego. Unit 2 of the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Critical Habitat encompasses approximately 85,950 acres of land within southwestern Riverside County and northern San Diego County (USFWS 2002, pp. 18364-18365). The Temecula/Murrieta/Oak Grove subunit is partially located within the Temecula Planning Area, and extends east from Interstate Highway 215, across the French Valley Region, and ' then north to the town of Hemet in Riverside County and south to Oak Grove Valley in San Diego County. Recent quino observations have been recorded throughout this subunit, indicating that the landscape provides some measure of habitat connectivity essential to the conservation of the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. MSHCP Conservation Area/Cores and Linkaaes/Wildlife Corridors ' The Temecula Planning Area is partially located within subunits 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the MSHCP, Southwest Area Plan ((CBA-Figure #)) (Dudek 2003a, p. 3-380). Each these subunits identify conceptual MSHCP reserve designs, as well as applicable cores and linkages, and biological issues ' and considerations. Subunit 1, Murrieta Creek Within the Temecula Planning Area, the focus of conservation for Subunit I is to maintain habitat connectivity within Murrieta Creek at the confluence of Pechanga Creek, Temecula Creek, and the Santa Margarita River, as, well as between Murrieta Creek and Lower Warm Springs Creek, to facilitate wildlife movement and conserve wetland species (Dudek 2003a, p. 3-382). Murrieta Creek functions as a constrained local wildlife corridor (Proposed Constrained Linkage 13) that connects the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve (Existing Core F), located to the northwest of the City of Temecula, to upland native habitat (Proposed Linkage 10) which connects to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (Existing Core G), located to the southwest of the City of Temecula (Dudek 2003a; p. 3-85). Murrieta Creek is located within the Temecula Valley Region of Planning Area, and ' Temecula General Plan Amendment - City of Temecula S'creencheck Draft EIS/EN 18 September 2003 I Environmemal Analysis Biological Resources is predominately constrained by urban development; however, quality riparian habitat is present along the edges of the creek. ' Subunit 2, Temecula and Pechanga Creeks Within the Temecula Planning Area, the focus of conservation for Subunit 2 is to maintain habitat ' connectivity within Temecula and Pechanga Creeks to facilitate wildlife movement (Dudek 2003a, p. 3-383). The portions of Pechanga and Temecula Creeks located in the southwestern section of the City of Temecula function as constrained local wildlife corridors (Proposed Constrained Linkage 14) ' that connect to upland native habitat and the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (Dudek 2003a, p. 3- 86). The portion of Temecula creek east of Redhawk Parkway and west of Pauba Road functions as a constrained local wildlife corridor (Proposed Constrained Linkage 24) that connects to core ' biological resource areas in Wilson Valley, located to the east of the City of Temecula (Dudek 2003a, p. 3-95). Temecula and Pechanga Creeks are located within the Pauba Valley Region of the Planning Area, and primarily consist of quality riparian habitat constrained by urban development. Subunit 5, French Valley/Lower Sedco Hills Within the Temecula Planning Area, the focus of conservation for Subunit 5 is to maintain core and ' linkage habitat for the federally-listed, endangered, Riverside Fairy Shrimp and Quino Checkerspot Butterfly in the French Valley Region, respectively (Dudek 2003a, p. 3-388). The Skunk Hollow area (Existing Constrained Linkage A) and lower Tucaloca Creek (Existing Constrained Linkage E) consist of land in a conservation easement that connect the French Valley Region to Antelope Valley (Proposed Core 2) in the west and Johnson Ranch (Existing Core J) in the east (Dudek 2003a, pp. 3- 52 and 3-56, respectively). These linkages are constrained primarily by agricultural lands. Subunit 6, Santa Rosa Plateau Within the Temecula Planning Area, the focus of conservation for Subunit 6 is maintenance of large blocks of core and linkage native habitat (Dudek 2003a, p. 3-390). The land to the southwest of Murrieta Creek in the Temecula Valley Region of the Planning Area functions as an upland habitat connection (Proposed Linkage 10) between the Santa Rosa Plateau and Santa Margarita Ecological Reserves (Dudek 2003a, p. 3-105). This area primarily consists of native coastal sage scrub and ' chaparral habitat. Rare,Threatened, Endangered, Endemic, and/or Sensitive Species, or MSHCP ' Covered Species Regulatory authority is issued over sensitive species listed as endangered or threatened under the ' federal Endangered Species Act and/or California Endangered Species Act, while other sensitivity listings by the state, local jurisdictions, and/or private groups are generally advisory in nature. Table 6 summarizes the rare, threatened, endangered, endemic, and/or sensitive species, or MSHCP ' covered species, known or with a potential to occur in the Planning Area, based on existing MSHCP and California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database data, as well as general knowledge of sensitive species occurrences in the identified habitats. ' 1 Temecula General Plan Amendment City of Temecula Screencheck Drafr EIS/EIR 19 September 2003 ' Environmental Analysis Biological Resources Table 6. Rare, Threatened, Endangered, Endemic, and/or Sensitive Species, or MSHCP Covered Species, Known or with a Potential to Occur in the Planning Area. Federal/State Additional MSHCP Suitable Habitat Status Scientific Name Common Name Listing' Listings Status within the within the Plannin Area Planning Area Plants Potentially Present; Abronia villoso var.aurita Chaparral Sand-verbena NonefNone CNPS List I B Not Covered CSS; open CHP floodplain of Santa Margarita River heavy clay soils A Ilium munzii Munz's Onion FEfCT CNPS List I B Endemic within CSS;CHP, Present; G Skunk Hollow alkaline soils in Present; Ambrosia pumilo San Diego Ambrosia FE/None CNPS List I B Endemic open G key population at Skunk Hollow Potentially Present; gabbro soils in near Pechanga Indian Arctostaphylos rainbowensis Rainbow Manzanita NoneMone CNPS List I B Not Covered CHP Reservation and Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve Astragalus pachypus var. Potentially Present; jaegeri Jaeger's Milk-vetch None/None CNPS List I B Not Covered CSS;CHP; G base of Agua Tibia Mountains coarse soils and Potentially Present; Berberis nevinit Nevin's Barberry FE/SE CNPS List I B Covered rocky slopes in near base of Agua Tibia CHP or AFS Mountains Potentially Present; Brodiaea orcultit Orcutt's Brodiaea NonefNone CNPS List IB Not Covered VP;G;CHP suitable habitat in Temecula region Temecula General Plan Update City of Tetnecuia Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 20 September 2003 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources Federal/State Additional MSHCP Suitable Habitat Status Scientific Name Common Name z within'the within the Listing Listings Status Planning Area' Planning Area Potentially Present; Ceanothus ophiochilus Vail Lake Ceanothus FT/SE CNPS List IB Not Covered CHP foothills south of Pauba Valley Centromadia pungens ssp. Potentially Present; laevis Smooth Tarplant None/None CNPS List I B Covered G Temecula Creek, seasonal drainages Chorizanthe parryi var. Potentially Present; parryi Parry's Spineflower None/None CNPS List 3 Not Covered CSS;CHP suitable habitat in Temecula region - Chorizanthe polygonoides Long-spined Spineflower None/None CNPS List I Not Covered clay soils in VP Present; var. longispina Skunk Hollow Convolvutus shnulans Small-flowered Morning- None/None CNPS List 4 Not Covered Clay soils in G Present; glory and open CSS west of Skunk Hollow open sparsely Potentially Present; Deinandra paniculata Paniculate Tarplant None/None CNPS List 4 Not Covered vegetated G or suitable habitat in CSS Temecula region AFS;along Potentially Present; Dodacahema leptoceras Slender-horned Spineflower FE/SE CNPS List I Not Covered intermittent along seasonal streams in open drainages in Temecula CHP region Potentially Present; Erodium macrophyllum Round-leaved Filaree None/None CNPS List 2 Not Covered G suitable habitat in Temecula region Eryngium aristulatum var. Potentially Present; parishii San Diego Button-celery FE/SE CNPS List I Covered VP; CSS;G suitable habitat in Temecula region Temecula General Plan Update City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 21 September 2003 M Environmental Analysis Biological Resources Federal/State Additional MSHCP Suitable Habitat Status Scientific Name Common Name Listing Listings Status within the 7 within the PlanningArea Planning Area Githo sis di usa ssp. Potentially Present; p ff P Mission Canyon Bluecup None/None CNPS List 3 Not Covered isolated, sandy suitable habitat in filicaulis openings in CHP Temecula region Harpagortella Palmeri Palmer's Grapplinghook None/None CNPS List 4 Not Covered clay vertisols in Present-,open G and CSS mesa west of Skunk Hollow Holocarpho virgata ssp. Potentially Present; elongato Graceful Tarplant None/None CNPS List 4 Covered CHP;CSS;G suitable habitat in Temecula region Potentially Present; Juncus acuius ssp. leopoldii Southwestern Spiny Rush None/None CNPS List 4 Not Covered RS along drainages in Temecula region Lasthenia glabrata ssp. Potentially Present; coulteri Coulter's Goldfields None/None CNPS List I Covered VP seasonal basins in French Valley Le idiurn vir inicum var. Potentially Present; p g Robinson Pepper-grass None/None CNPS List I B Not Covered CHP CSS and suitable habitat in robinsortii Temecula region clay lenses in Potentially Present; Microseris douglasii ssp. Small-Flowered Microseris None/None CNPS List 4 Not Covered perennial G; VP; Santa Rosa Plateau plagcarpha o en CSS region Potentially Present; Myosurus minimus ssp.opus Little Mousetail FSC/None CNPS List 3 Covered VP seasonal basins in French Valle Covered Potentially Present; Navarretia fossalis Spreading Navarretia FT/None CNPS List 113 Endemic VP southern end of French Valle Potentially Present; Navarretia prostrate Prostrate Navarretia None/None CNPS List I Covered CSS;G; VP suitable habitat in Temecula region Orcurria calijornica California Orcutt Grass FE/SE Covered Potentially Present; CNPS List IB Endemic VP seasonal basins in French Valley Temecula General Plan Update City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 22 September 2003 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources Federal/Stale Additional MSHCP Suitable Habitat Status Scientific Name Common Name t : within the within the Listing Listings Status -planning Area Planning Area Phacelia suaveolens ssp. Potentially Present; keekii Santiago Peak Phacelia None/None CNPS List I B Not Covered CHP suitable habitat in Temecula region Potentially Present; Polygalo cornuta var.fishiae Fish's Milkwon None/None CNPS List 4 Covered CHP;OW western and southern foothills of the Temecula region Potentially Present; Quercus ertgelmannii Engelmann Oak None/None CNPS List 4 Covered OW; CHP western and southern foothills of the Temecula region fire follower Potentially Present; - Romneya coulteri Coulter's Matilija Poppy None/None CNPS List 4 Covered typically in CHP wes or along rocky tern foothills of watercourses Temecula region Soturejn chandleri San Miguel Savory - NoneM Covered Potentially Present; one CNPS List IB Endemic CHP; OW southern foothills of Temecula region Scutellaria bolanderi ssp. Potentially Present; ausrromonrnna Southern Skullcap None/None CNPS List I Not Covered CHP western foothills of Temecula region Potentially Present; Senecio ga»deri Gander's Ragwort None/SR CNPS List I B Not Covered CHP understory, southern foothills of Temecula region Potentially Present; Sphaerocarpos drervei Bottle Liverwort- Potentially CNPS List I B Not Covered CHP;CSS western foothills of Temecula region Potentially Present; Terracoccus dioicus Parry's Tetracoccus None/None CNPS List 1 B Not Covered CHP southern and western foothills of Temecula region Temecula General Platt Update Ciry of Temecula Screencheck DraftEIS/EIR 23 September2003 � � � � � � � � � � � � � �■■ Iii>• Its i>t■■ Environmental Analysis Biological Resources Federal/State Additional NISHCP Suitable Habitat Status Scientific Name Common Name Listingt Listings Status within the ) T within the Plannin Area Planning Area Invertebrates Present; Euph)dryns editha quino Quino Checkerspot Butterfly FE/None N/A Not Covered open CSS,G,VP, southeastern portion ofCHP Temecula at the Crown Hill Property south of Rancho California Road Present; Branchinecto lynchi Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp FT/None N/A Covered VP key population at Skunk Hollow Present; Streptocephalus woononi Riverside Fairy Shrimp FE/None N/A Covered VP key population at Skunk Hollow Amphibians Bufo californicus Arroyo Toad FE/CSC N/A Covered RS; RF; RW; CSS Potentially Present; Temecula Creek Present; Clemmys marmorata Southwestern Pond Turtle FSC/CSC N/A Not Covered RS; RF; RW Murrieta and Temecula Creeks Gila orcurti Arroyo Chub None/CSC N/A Covered RS; RF; RW Potentially Present; Santa Margarita River Scaphiopus hammondii Western Spade(oot FSG G CSS; CHP; RS; Potentially Present; CSC N/A Covered RF; RW suitable habitat in Temecula region Temecula General Plat Update City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 24 September 2003 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources Federal/State Additional MSHCP Suitable Habitat Status Scientific Name Common Name = within the within the Listing Listings Status Planning Area Planning Area Re tiles CSS; RS; Potentially Present; open Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri Coastal Western Whiptail None/None N/A Not Covered open RF suitable habitat in Temecula region Aspidoscelis hyperyvha Beldings Orange-throated Potentially Present; beldingi Whiplail None/CSC N/A Not Covered CSS;CHP suitable habitat in Temecula region Northern Red Diamond Potentially Present; Crotalusruber ruber Rattlesnake None/CSC N/A Not Covered CSS; CHP suitable habitat in Temecula region Present; Thamnophis hammondii Two-striped Garter Snake None/CSC N/A Not Covered RS; RF; RW; VP in suitable habitat throughout Temecula region Birds Potentially Present; Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk *None/CSC N/A Covered RW;OW suitable habitat in Temecula region Potentially Present; Accipiterstriatus Sharp-shinned Hawk *None/CSC NIA Not Covered RW; OW suitable habitat in Temecula region Southern California Rufous- Potentially Present; Aimophila ruficeps canescens crowned Sparrow None/CSC N/A Not Covered G; CSS;CHP suitable habitat in Temecula region Potentially Present; Amphispiza belli belli Bell's Sage Sparrow FSC/CSC N/A Not Covered CSS suitable habitat in Temecula region Temecula General Plan Update Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 25 City of Temecula September 2003 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources Federal/State Additional MSHCP Suitable Habitat Status Scientific Name Common Name Listing' Listings Status within the within the Planning Area Plannin.p Area Potentially Present; Aquila chrysoetos Golden Eagle None/CSC, FP NIA Not Covered G suitable habitat in southern Temecula region Potentially Present; Buteo regalis Ferruginous Hawk FSC/CSC N/A Not Covered G;open CSS suitable habitat in Temecula region Potentially Present; Buteo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk FSC/ST NIA Not Covered G;open CSS; AG suitable habitat in Temecula region Campylorhynchus Potentially Present; brunneicapillus cousei Coastal Cactus Wren None/CSC N/A Not Covered CSS suitable habitat in Temecula region Potentially Present; Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier 'None/CSC NIA Not Covered RS;CSS; AG; G near 1-15 and Santa Rosa Plateau Potentially Present; Dendroica petechia bre,vsteri Yellow Warbler None/CSC NIA Covered RW near 1-15 and Santa Rosa Plateau G AG; RS;RW; Potentially Present; Manus leucurus White-tailed Kite •FSC/FP N/A Covered RW;OW suitable habitat in Temecula region Southwestern Willow Potentially Present; Empidonax traillii extimus Flycatcher FE-/None NIA Covered RW Temecula and Murrieta Creeks Present; Eremophila alpestris actia California Horned Lark None/CSC N/A Covered G;AG; open CSS to suitable habitat throughout Temecula region Temecula General Plan Update City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 26 September 2003 Environmenml Asah•sis Biological Resources Federal/State Additional MSHCP Suitable Habitat Status Scientific Name Common Name t , s within the within the Listing Listings 'Status PlanningArea Plannin Area Potentially Present; Falco columbarius Merlin *None/CSC N/A Not Covered OW; G; AG suitable habitat in Temecula region Potentially Present; Falco mesicanus Prairie Falcon None/CSC N/A Not Covered G;AG foothills of Santa Ana Mountains Potentially Present; Falco peregrinusanotum American Peregrine Falcon *FSC/SE, FP N/A Covered RS; RW; RF suitable habitat in Temecula region Present; Holioeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle *FPD, FT/SE, FP N/A Covered W; RS; RW; RF in suitable habitat northeast of Temecula Potentially Present; Icteria virens Yellow-breasted Chat None/CSC N/A Covered RS; RW; RF suitable habitat in Temecula region Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike FSC/CSC- N/A . Not CoveredRS; RW; RF; Potentially Present;OW; AG; G; CHP suitable habitat in Temecula region Potentially Present; - Pholacrocoras auraus Double-crested Cormorant None/CSC -N/A Covered' W suitable habitat in Temecula region W' Potentially Present; W; RS; Flooded Plegadis chihi White-faced Ibis FSC/CSC N/A Covered suitable habitat in Temecula region Polioptila calijornica Coastal California Potentially Present; calijornica Gnatcatcher PT/CSC N/A Not Covered CSS;open CHP suitable habitat in Temecula region Potentially Present; .Aihene cunicularia Western Burrowing Owl FSC/CSC N/A Not Covered G;AG suitable habitat in Temecula region Temecula General Plan Update City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 27 September2003 =1 Ml Ml Illllll� 111111� Environmental Analysis Biological Resources FederaL/State Additional MSHCP Suitable Habitat Status Scientific Name Common Name Listing' Listings' Status within the 7 within the PlanningArea Planning Area Potentially Present; Vireo beflii pusilhrs Least Bell's Vireo SE/FE N/A Covered RW Temecula and Murrieta Creeks Mammals Present; Choetodipus fallax fallax Northwestern San Diego None/CSC N/A Not Covered CSS;G;CHP southern Temecula,east Pocket Mouse of Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve Potentially Present; Dipodom)s stephensi Stephens' Kangaroo Rat FE/SE N/A Not Covered G;AG suitable habitat in Temecula region San Diego Black-tailed Potentially Present; Lepus californicus bennettii Jackrabbit None/CSC N/A Not Covered G; CSS;CHP suitable habitat in Temecula region Potentially Present; Neotoma fepida intermedia San Diego Desert Woodrat None/CSC N/A Not Covered CSS;CHP suitable habitat in Temecula region Present; Perognathus longimembris Los Angeles Pocket Mouse None/CSC N/A Not Covered CSS;G;CHP in suitable habitat brevinasus throughout Temecula region Potentially Present; Puma concolor browni Yuma Mountain Lion None/CSC N/A Not Covered CSS;CHP;RS; Suitable habitat in RW; RF southern Temecula region Federal/State Listing FE = Federally-listed as Endangered; FT= Federally-listed as Threatened; FPE = Federally proposed for listing as Endangered; FPT= Federally proposed for listing as Threatened; FPD = Federally proposed for delisting; FC = Federal Candidate Species (former Category I candidates); FSC = Federal Species of Concern. SE = State-listed as Endangered; ST = State-listed as Threatened; SCE = State candidate for listing as Endangered; SCT = State candidate for listing as Threatened;CSC=California Species of Concern;SR=California Rare Species; FP=California Fully Protected Species. None=no federal or state status. Temecula General Plan Update City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EIS/E/R 28 September 2003 Environmental Analysis - Biological Resources 'Status applies to nesting/wintering sites only. =Additional Lislines California Native Plant Society (CNPS). List of Species Designation: IB= Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (meets CDFG criteria for rare or endangered listing); 2 = Rare or endangered in California, more common elsewhere; 3 = Plants about which more information is needed; 4 = Plants of limited distribution. 'Habitat Abbreviations CSS= Coastal Sage Scrub; AFS =Alluvial Fan Scrub; CHP=Chaparral; G =,Grassland; VP= Vernal Pool; RS = Riparian Scrub; RF= Riparian Forest; RW Riparian Woodland; OW =Oak Woodland; W=Water; AG=Agriculture. References: Dudek 2003b;CDFG 2003a-d; Reiser 2061; Skinner 1994. Temecula General Plan Update City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 29 September 2003 1 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources 1 Issues Issue 1: To what extent would the Project result in impacts to sensitive habitat or a reduction in the number of any unique, rare, endangered, sensitive, or fully protected species of plants, ' vegetation communities, or animals? Issue 2: To what extent would the Project affect the long-term conservation of biological ' resources? Thresholds of Significance The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines 515065 state that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.if: • "The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory." ' • "The project has the potential to achieve.short-term environmental goals'to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals." • "The project has possible environmental effects which are individually limited-but cumulatively considerable." ' Biological resources generally considered significant include: vegetation communities that support sensitive flora or. fauna species; unique vegetation communities that are limited in distribution and have a critical ecological role; and habitats supporting species considered rare or threatened by the ' agencies that enforce the Federal and California Endangered Species Act. It is important to note that the significance of a given activity is variable according to the environmental setting. ' For the purposes of this EIS/EIR, a significant biological resources impact would occur if implementation of the project would result in: • Impacts to regionally sensitive habitats; • Impacts to designated critical habitat, where the proposed activity requires a Federal permit or funding; • Impacts to lands within a MSHCP Conservation/Core or Linkage Area; ' • Impacts to federally or state listed species, including impacts to occupied habitats; • Impacts to MSHCP narrow endemic species; • Loss of a "significant population" of a sensitive species; where the loss would substantially reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species; and, • Violation of the policies and conditions of the MSHCP within the City limits of Temecula and surrounding Sphere of Influence and Planning Area. Temecula General Plan Update City of Temecula '' Screencheck Draft EISBIR 30 September 2003 i Environmental Analysis Biological Resources I Impacts and Significance of Impacts The proposed project is being evaluated at a General Plan EIS/EIR tier level; therefore, biological impacts resulting from project implementation are assessed on the basis of proposed General Plan land use policy amendments. For the purposes of this analysis, potential biological impacts are being I evaluated according to the five designated regions within the Planning Area. The following text provides a qualitative approach to a plan-to-ground impact analysis, based on the potential for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to existing biological conditions under the proposed planning I actions, as well as a determination of biological significance for each potential impact per CEQA and the MSHCP. Direct Impacts ' CEQA guidelines define a "direct impact or primary effect" as "effects which are caused by the ' project and occur at the same time and place" that can produce a temporary or permanent biologically significant, "physical change' in the environment (California Resources Agency 2001, 815358). ' Adoption of this General Plan Amendment EIS/EIR would not result in significant, temporary or permanent direct impacts to existing biological resources; however, adoption of this document will ' lead to potential direct impacts in the future through approval of development projects. Therefore, this analysis identifies potential future impacts that could occur through increased future development, and these impacts are cited as potential future "indirect impacts." Planning actions ultimately resulting in quantifiable direct impacts to biological resources would be addressed ' subsequently through analysis at a lower tier, project-specific level of environmental review. Implementation of Mitigation Measures I through 3 would provide for completion of further environmental review at the project-specific level to minimize the risk of inadvertent or unmitigated ' direct impacts being authorized through adoption of this General Plan Amendment EIS/EIR. Indirect Impacts ' CEQA guidelines define an "indirect impact or secondary effect" as "effects which are caused by the project and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable' that ' can produce a temporary or permanent biologically significant, "physical change" in the environment (California Resources Agency 2001, 815358). Vegetation Communitv Permanent, Indirect Impacts ' Proposed planning actions would result in the permanent loss of habitat due to future development. ' In addition, proposed planning actions have the potential to produce deleterious edge effects that could adversely modify native vegetation located adjacent to development areas. For example, turf and landscape irrigation could alter the localized natural moisture regime of the vegetation, thus ' increasing weedy vegetation and adjacent plant. susceptibility to disease, pests, or fungus, and modifying the composition of native habitats. Increased urban runoff and pollution risks from the use of fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, and pesticides in maintaining turf and landscaping could ' adversely affect water quality, Flora, and fauna, as well as increase the source material for exotic plant invasions. And human intrusion into habitats and the associated degradation of habitat through Temecula General Plan Update - - City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 31 September 2003 ' ' Environmental Analysis Biological Resources ' trampling could foster an increase in weedy, non-native plant species. Table 7 summarizes the ' potential permanent, indirect impacts to vegetation communities within the Planning Area. Table 7. Potential Vegetation Comm unit Permanent, Indirect Im acts within the Plan ing Area. 1 C _ o � c � u 'O e = i n G y W y r > C L Y W d A d E d ¢ 2 On a ' > 0 ti i 0 a a =7 fl n o k2 Z y C 'CI 7 u a � m a c � � a u � •�, U Z Desi naled Regions within the Planning Area French Valley Region X X X1 X I XI X X Rancho California Region X X X X X 1xx ' Pauba Valle Region X X X X X A ua Tibia Mountain Region X X X LCX Temecula Valle Re gion X X X X XX X 1 French Valley Region ' Proposed planning actions within the French Valley Region of the Planning Area, including future development and circulation element amendments, would result in permanent, indirect impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub, Chaparral, Non-Native Grassland, Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest, Coast ' Live Oak Woodland, Residential/Urban/Exotic Land, and Agricultural Land, as well as designated critical habitat for the California Gnatcatcher and Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. ' Rural and low-density residential development (e.g. Hillside, Rural, Very Low, and Low land use designations) is proposed primarily within the northeastern section of the region. This development would result in permanent, indirect impacts predominantly to Non-Native Grassland and Agricultural ' Land, as well as to smaller areas of Coastal Sage Scrub, Chaparral, Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest, and Residential/Urban/Exotic Land. Medium-density residential development (e.g. Low Medium and Medium land use designations) is proposed primarily within the central section of the region. This development would result in permanent, indirect impacts predominantly to Agricultural Land, as well as to Coastal Sage Scrub, Chaparral, Non-Native Grassland, and Residential/Urban/Exotic Land. ' A few areas of high-density residential development are proposed within the northern section of the region. This development would result in permanent, indirect impacts predominantly to Agricultural Land, as well as to smaller areas of Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest, and Residential/Urban/Exotic Land. ' Commercial/Office development (e.g. Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Highway Tourist Commercial, Service Commercial, and Professional Office land use designations) is proposed within the western section of the region. This development would result in permanent, Temecula General Plan Update City of Temecula ' Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 32 September 2003 1 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources ' indirect impacts predominantly to Non-Native Grassland and Agricultural Land, as well as to smaller areas of Coastal Sage Scrub and Coast Live Oak Woodland. t Industrial Park development is also proposed within the western section of the region. This development would result in permanent, indirect impacts predominantly to Non-Native Grassland ' and Agricultural Land, as well as to Coastal Sage Scrub and Chaparral. A few areas of Public Institutional Facility development, which includes the French Valley Airport, t are proposed within the central section of the region. This development would result in permanent, indirect impacts predominantly to Non-Native Grassland and Agricultural Land, as well as to Coastal Sage Scrub and Residential/Urban/Exotic Land. ' Biological Open Space already exists primarily within the southeastern section of region, and includes the Vernal Pools at Skunk Hollow, as weil as Tucaloca Creek and other areas of Riparian ' Scrub, Woodland, and Forest. A few additional areas of open space are proposed in the region, which may include public and private areas for such uses as parks, golf courses, recreation facilities and trails, and utility easements. These areas could result in permanent, indirect impacts to Non- ' Native Grassland and Agricultural Land. Rancho California Region ' Proposed planning actions within the Rancho California Region of the Planning Area would result in permanent, indirect impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub, Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, Chaparral, Non-Native Grassland, Residential/Urban/Exotic Land, and Agricultural Land. ' Rural and low-density residential development is proposed within the central, northern, and southeastern sections of the region. This development would result in permanent, indirect impacts ' predominantly to Non-Native Grassland and Residential/Urban/Exotic Land, as well as to Coastal Sage Scrub, Chaparral, Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, and Agricultural Land. Medium-density residential development is proposed throughout the region. This development ' would result in permanent, indirect impacts predominantly to Non-Native Grassland and Residential/Urban/Exotic Land, as well as to smaller areas of Coastal Sage Scrub and Agricultural Land. , A few areas of high-density residential development are proposed within the western section of the region. This development would result in permanent, indirect impacts to Non-Native Grassland and ' Residential/Urban/Exotic Land. Commercial/Office development is proposed primarily within the western section of the region. The ' majority of this section is already developed; however, future development would result in permanent, indirect impacts to smaller areas of Coastal Sage Scrub and Non-Native Grassland. A few areas of Public Institutional Facility development are proposed throughout the region. This ' development would result in permanent, indirect impacts to Non-Native Grassland and Residential/Urban/Exotic Land. ' Vineyards/Agricultural land is proposed within the eastern section of the region. The majority of this section already consists of groves and orchards; however, additional agricultural development would ' Temecula General Plan Update City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 33 September 2003 ' Environ nental Analysis Biological Resources ' result in permanent, indirect impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub, Chaparral, Non-Native Grassland, and Residential/Urban/Exotic Land. ' Pauba Valley Region ' Proposed planning actions within the Pauba Valley Region of the Planning Area would result in permanent, indirect impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub, Chaparral, Non-Native Grassland, Open Water/Reservoir/Pond, Residential/Urban/Exotic Land, and Agricultural Land. ' Rural and low-density residential development is proposed primarily within the central and eastern sections of the region. This development would result in permanent, indirect impacts predominantly to Coastal Sage Scrub and Non-Native Grassland, as well as to Residential/Urban/Exotic Land and ' Agricultural Land. Medium-density residential development is proposed primarily within the northwestern and central ' sections of the region. This development would result in permanent, indirect impacts predominantly to Non-Native Grassland and Residential/Urban/Exotic.Land, as well as to Coastal Sage Scrub. ' A few areas of high-density residential development are proposed within the northwestern section of the region. This development would result in permanent, indirect impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub, Non-Native Grassland, and Residential/Urban/Exotic Land. Commercial/Office development is proposed primarily adjacent to the northern side of Highway 79. The majority of this section is already developed; however, future development would result in s. tpermanent, indirect impacts to smaller areas of Coastal Sage Scrub and Non-Native Grassland. A few areas of Public Institutional Facility development are proposed throughout the region. This development would result in permanent, indirect impacts predominantly to Residential/Urban/Exotic ` Land, as well as to Coastal Sage Scrub, Non-Native Grassland, Open Water/Reservoir/Pond, and Agricultural Land. ' Vineyards/Agricultural land is proposed within the eastern section• of the region. Agricultural development would result in permanent, indirect impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub, Chaparral, Non- Native Grassland, Open Water/Reservoir/Pond, and Residential/Urban/Exotic Land. Agua Tibia Mountain Region ' Proposed planning actions within the Agua Tibia Mountain Region of the Planning Area would result in permanent, indirect impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub, Chaparral, Non-Native Grassland, Coast Live Oak Woodland, and Residential/Urban/Exotic Land. ' Rural and low-density residential development is proposed throughout the region. This development would result in permanent,'indirect.impacts predominantly to Chaparral, as.well as to Coastal Sage Scrub, Non-Native Grassland, Coast Live Oak Woodland, and Residential/Urban/Exotic Land. Industrial Park development is proposed adjacent to the eastern side of Interstate Highway 15. This development would result in permanent, indirect impacts to Chaparral, Non-Native Grassland, Coast ' Live Oak Woodland, and Residential/Urban/Exotic Land. Temecula General Plan Update City of Temecula ' Screencheck Draft E/S/EIR 34 September 2003 i Environmental Analysis Biological Resources I Temecula Valley Region Proposed planning actions within the Temecula Valley Region of the Planning Area would result in I permanent, indirect impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub, Chaparral, Non-Native Grassland, Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest, Coast Live Oak Woodland, Open Water/Reservoir/Pond, Residential/Urban/Exotic Land, and Agricultural Land. I Rural and low-density residential development is proposed within the eastern section of the region. This development would result in permanent, indirect impacts predominantly to Chaparral, as well as I to Coastal Sage Scrub, Coast Live Oak Woodland, Residential/Urban/Exotic Land, and Agricultural Land. A few areas of medium-density residential development are proposed primarily within the central ' section of the region. This development would result in permanent, indirect impacts to Chaparral, Non-Native Grassland, Residential/Urban/Exotic Land, and Agricultural Land. I High-density residential development is proposed southwest of Rancho California Road and Interstate Highway 15. This development would result in permanent, indirect impacts to Chaparral, ' Non-Native Grassland, and Residential/Urban/Exotic Land. Commercial/Office development is proposed adjacent to the western side of Interstate Highway 15. ' The majority of this section is already developed; however, future development would result in permanent, indirect impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub, Chaparral, Non-Native Grassland, Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest, and Agricultural Land. I Industrial Park development is proposed within the northern section of this region. The majority of this section is already developed; however, future development would result in permanent, indirect impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub, Non-Native Grassland, and Open Water/Reservoir/Pond. ' A few areas of Public Institutional Facility development are proposed throughout the region. This development would result in permanent, indirect impacts predominantly to Non-Native Grassland ' and Residential/Urban/Exotic Land, as well as to a small area of Coastal Sage Scrub. Significance of Impacts ' Proposed planning actions resulting in impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub, Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest, Coast Live Oak Woodland, and Open Water/Reservoir/Pond would be biologically significant per CEQA and the MSHCP, and would ' require that mitigation measures reduce impacts to a level below significant. Impacts to Chaparral would be biologically significant per CEQA and the MSCHP if the habitat were located within a MSHCP conservation, core or linkage area (e.g. Pauba Valley and Temecula Valley Regions), or ' were determined to support federally or state listed, endangered or threatened species, MSHCP narrow endemic species, or a critical population of a sensitivity species. Impacts to Non-Native Grassland and Agricultural Land would be biologically significant per CEQA and the MSHCP if the ' habitat were determined<to provide high wildlife value for raptor wintering and foraging, or support federally or state listed, endangered or threatened species. Impacts to designated critical habitat (e.g. French Valley Region) would be biologically significant per CEQA and the MSHCP if the proposed ' activity involved a federal nexus, requiring a Federal permit or funding. Impacts to Residential/Urban/Exotic Land would not be biologically significant per CEQA and the MSHCP. Implementation of Mitigation Measures I through 8 would provide for further environmental review ' Temecula General Plan Update City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 35 September 2003 ' I Environmental Analysis Biological Resources ' and acquisition of applicable permits from regulating agencies at the site-specific level to minimize the risk of permanent, indirect impacts to sensitive habitats. ' MSHCP Conservation Area Permanent Indirect Impacts ' Portions of MSCHP Conservation Areas within the French Valley Region (Subunit 5), Pauba Valley Region (Subunit 2), and Temecula Valley Region (Subunits I and 6) would incur permanent, indirect ' impacts from development-associated increases in the amount of fragmented habitat, artificial night illumination, and human intrusion into natural habitats. These edge effects alter the value of the area for wildlife, by, causing an increase in susceptibility to depredation, brood parasitism, and competition for nesting areas from non-native species. The introduction of artificial night lighting ' could produce physiological and behavioral alterations in resident wildlife located adjacent to the development areas by artificially increasing depredation rates on vulnerable species (Buchanan 1993; Frank 1998; Rydell and Baagoe 1996). Increases inhuman intrusion into natural habitats could ' result in associated degradation of wildlife habitat and a decrease in reptile, passerine and small mammal abundance due to meso-predator release (Crooks and Soule 2000). These permanent, indirect impacts to MSHCP Conservation Areas would be considered biologically significant per ' CEQA and the MSHCP, and would require that mitigation measures reduce impacts to a level below significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 through 3, and 9 would provide for further environmental review at the site-specific level to ensure compliance with MSHCP reserve and buffer design requirements and land use adjacency guidelines. a' y �i. Sensitive Species Permanent, Indirect Impacts' Proposed planning actions have the potential to result in permanent, indirect impacts to sensitive flora and fauna species present within the Planning Area. Development and ' transportation/infrastructure modification could result in permanent, indirect impacts to habitat areas consisting of sensitive plants, eggs and larvae of sensitive butterflies, upland vegetation for sensitive amphibians, and nest-eggs of sensitive birds. Impacts to federally and state listed, endangered and ' threatened species and MSCHP narrow endemic species, including Munz's Onion, San Diego Ambrosia, Nevin's Barberry, Vail Lake Ceanothus, Slender-horned Spineflower, San Diego Button- celery, Spreading Navarretia, Calfiornia Orcutt Grass, San Miguel Savory, Quino Checkerspot ' Butterfly, Arroyo Toad, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Ammerican Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagle, Coastal Calfiornia Gnatcatcher, Least Bell's Vireo, and Stephens' Kangaroo Rat would be biologically significant per CEQA and the MSHCP, and would require that mitigation measures reduce impacts to a level below significant. Impacts to lower sensitivity species would be biologically significant per CEQA and the MSHCP if it were determined that the proposed activity would substantially reduce the species' population stability or not meet MSHCP conditions of coverage. Implementation of Mitigation Measures I through 3, 10 and l l would provide reasonable avenues for completion of further environmental review at the site-specific level to provide adequate protection of sensitive 'species. MSHCP.Conservation Area/Sensitive Species Temporary, Indirect Impacts Temporary project construction activities associated with the proposed planning actions, including ' development and transportation/infrastructure modification, could result in temporary, indirect impacts to.wildlife, and the disturbance/clearing of native vegetation could result in conditions suitable for non-native, weedy species intrusion into adjacent native habitat. In addition, Temecula General Plan Update City of Temecula ' Screencheck Draft EIS/E/R 36 September 2003 i Environmental Attalysis Biological Resources I construction activities occurring within a close proximity to potential nesting habitat for sensitive species could adversely affect wildlife during the breeding season by causing them to abandon their I nests, thus increasing the potential for eggs or nestlings to be lost to predators or environmental exposure and reducing the reproductive potential of individuals through significant disruption in breeding behavior. Potential temporary, indirect impacts to MSHCP Conservation Areas and/or I sensitive species would be biologically significant per CEQA and the MSHCP, and would require that mitigation measures reduce impacts to a level below significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures I through 3 and 9 through I I would provide for further environmental review at the site- I specific level to ensure compliance with MSHCP reserve and buffer design requirements and land use adjacency guidelines, and to provide adequate protection of sensitive species. Cumulative Impacts I CEQA guidelines define "cumulative impacts or effects" as "two or more individual effects which, ' when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts (California Resources Agency 2001, 515355)." The IVISHCP has been designed to compensate for the loss of biological resources throughout ' western Riverside County, and cumulative impacts to existing biological resources resulting through increased future development have been addressed in the MSHCP Final EIR/EIS dated June 17, ' 2003. Therefore, this General Plan Amendment EIS/EIR, as well as future development projects within the Temecula Planning Area that conform to the MSHCP would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts for those biological resources adequately covered by the MSHCP. ' Implementation of Mitigation Measures I through 12 would provide for further environmental review to ensure conformance with the MSHCP and future City of Temecula implementing plans/ordinances at the project-specific level. Mitigation Measures The following measures have been developed to provide assurances, at the General Plan EIS/EIR tier ' level, that potential significant biological impacts associated with the proposed project .will be mitigated. In some instances, this assurance is obtained by incorporation of planning policies at the General Plan level, with subsequent verification to occur at lower tiers of environmental review. In ' other instances, specific mitigation measures are incorporated to reduce impacts at the site-specific level. Finally, in some instances, it is not possible at the General Plan level to determine if biological impacts would occur from implementation of proposed planning actions; for these situations, ' mitigation measures provide for further review of the concerns at the plan or project-specific level. It is intended that increased planning detail developed through subsequent EIS/EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration documents submitted for approval, will identify site-specific impacts .and ' mitigation measures. Therefore, the following measures are not intended to restrict the identification Of significant biological impacts, or the development of appropriate mitigation measures as determined through analysis at a lower tier of environmental review. 1) Planning policies shall include a requirement to make use of project designs, engineering, and construction practices that minimize impacts to sensitive habitats, MSHCP Conservation Areas, ' and sensitive species. 1 Temecula General Plan Update City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 37 September 2003 1 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources 1 2) Further environmental review shall be conducted in accordance with appropriate NEPA/CEQA ' documentation requirements where specific actions would result in impacts to sensitive habitats, MSHCP Conservation Areas, and/or sensitive species. These reviews shall be conducted at the earliest possible period of tiered project review to ensure the most Flexibility in planning and tproject design, and resolve conflicts with significant biological resources. 3) Prior to the implementation of any projects within areas under the jurisdiction of federal, state, or ' local biological resource regulatory agencies, the project applicant for the specific work shall obtain any and all applicable resource agency permits which may include, but are not limited to, Clean Water Act 5404 and 5401 permits, USFWS Habitat Loss Permit pursuant to 84(d) of the ' Endangered Species Act, and California Fish and Game Code 51601 and 81603 streambed alteration agreements. t 4) Impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub and Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub shall be minimized and mitigated consistent with the MSHCP and future mitigation ratios established by the City of Temecula. Since mitigation ratios have not currently been established by the City of Temecula, it is recommended that impacts be mitigated as follows: for impacts located inside of the MSHCP Conservation Area, a 1:1 out-of-kind mitigation ratio if preserved inside of the MSHCP Conservation Area or a 2:1 in-kind mitigation ratio if preserved outside of the MSHCP Conservation area; for impacts located outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area, a 1:1 out-of- kind mitigation ratio if preserved inside of the MSHCP Conservation Area or a 1.5:1 in-kind mitigation ratio if preserved outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area. Mitigation should be completed through 1) on-site preservation; 2) off-site acquisition of mitigation land located ' within the City of Temecula and preferably inside of the MSHCP Conservation Area; or 3) habitat restoration (degraded sage scrub vegetation only) that increases the habitat quality and biological function of the site. 5) Significant impacts to Chaparral shall be minimized and mitigated consistent with the MSHCP and future mitigation ratios established by the City of Temecula. Since mitigation ratios have not ' currently been established by the City of Temecula, it is recommended that impacts be mitigated as follows: for impacts located inside of the MSHCP Conservation Area, a 1:1 out-of-kind mitigation ratio if preserved inside of the MSHCP Conservation Area or a 1.5:1 in-kind ' mitigation ratio of preserved outside of the MSHCP Conservation area; for impacts located outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area, a 0.5:1 out-of-kind mitigation ratio if preserved inside of the MSHCP Conservation Area or a 1:1 in-kind mitigation ratio if preserved outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area. Mitigation should be completed through 1) on-site preservation; or 2) off-site acquisition of mitigation land located within the City of Temecula and preferably inside of the MSHCP Conservation Area. ' 6) Significant impacts to Non-Native Grassland shall be minimized and mitigated consistent with the MSHCP and future mitigation ratios established by the City of Temecula. Since mitigation ' ratios have not currently been established by the City of Temecula, it is recommended that impacts be mitigatectas follows: for impacts located inside of the MSHCP Conservation Area, a 1:1 out-of-kind mitigation ratio if preserved inside of the MSHCP Conservation Area or a 1.5:1 ' in-kind mitigation ratio of preserved outside of the MSHCP Conservation area; for impacts located outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area, a 0.5:1 out-of-kind mitigation ratio if preserved inside of the MSHCP Conservation Area or a I:I in-kind mitigation ratio if preserved ' outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area. Mitigation should be completed through 1) on-site Temecula General Plan Update City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EIS/E!R 38 September2003 1 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources ' preservation; or 2) off-site acquisition of mitigation land located within the City of Temecula and preferably inside of the MSHCP Conservation Area. ' 7) Impacts to Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest and Water shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible. Unavoidable impacts shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable, and ' be mitigated consistent with the MSHCP and future mitigation ratios established by the City of Temecula. Since mitigation ratios have not currently been established by the City of Temecula, it is recommended that impacts be mitigated, consistent with expected federal and state permitting ' agency requirements, at a minimum 2:1 in-kind ratio through 1) wetland creation in an upland area; 2) wetland restoration that re-establishes the habitat functions of a former wetland; or 3) wetland enhancement that improves the self-sustaining habitat functions of an existing wetland. ' Mitigation shall achieve a "no-net loss" of wetland function and values. 8) Impacts to Coast Live Oak Woodland shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible. ' Unavoidable impacts shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable and be mitigated consistent with the MSHCP, as well as future mitigation ratios and oak tree management guidelines established by the City of Temecula. Since mitigation ratios have not currently been ' established by the City of Temecula, it is recommended that impacts be mitigated as follows: for impacts located inside of the MSHCP Conservation Area, a 2:1 in-kind mitigation ratio if preserved inside of the MSHCP Conservation Area or a 3:1 in-kind mitigation ratio of preserved ' outside of the MSHCP Conservation area; for impacts located outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area, a 1:1 in-kind mitigation ratio if preserved inside of the MSHCP Conservation Area or a 2:1 in-kind mitigation ratio if preserved outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area. ' Mitigation should be completed through 1) on-site preservation, or 2) off-site acquisition of mitigation land located within the City of Temecula and preferably inside of the MSHCP Conservation Area. In addition, the following guidelines are recommended and adapted from the ' Riverside County Oak Tree Management Guidelines: • Construction and development activities should be avoided within the root zone (e.g. encompassing an area one-third larger than the drip line [Johnson 1995]) of an oak tree; ' • Landscaping, trenching, or irrigation systems should be avoided within the root zone; • Land uses that would cause excessive soil compaction within the root zone should be avoided; • Manufactured slopes should not be located in the root zone; ' • Redirection of surface moisture which alters the soil moisture within the root zone for an extended period should be avoided; ' • Filling around the bases of oak trees should be avoided through sedimentation and siltation control; • Dead and dying oak trees should be retained in place unless determined to pose a health or ' safety hazard; • Relocation of trees should not constitute mitigation; • Oak protection should be oriented toward protection of the life cycle of oak trees and ' woodland. 9) Development-associated impacts to MSHCP Conservation Areas shall be reviewed for ' consistency with the MSHCP reserve and buffer development requirements, and comply with the following MSHCP Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines (Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP Plan, Volumn 1): 1 Temecula General Plan Update City of Temecula ' Screencheck Draft EIS/EIR 39 September 2003 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources ' • "Drainage:. Proposed developments in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall ' incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality. of runoff discharged to' the MSHCP Conservation Area is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials or other elements that might degrade or ' harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within the MSHCP Conservation Area. This can be accomplished using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective ' operations of runoff control systems." • "Toxics: Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts such as manure that are potentially toxic or may adversely ' affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues shall be implemented." ' • "Lighting: Night lighting shall be directed away from .the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species within the MSHCP Conservation Area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased." 7 • "Noise: Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP ' Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation " Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards." ' • "Invasives: When approving landscape plans for development that is proposed adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area, permittees shall consider the invasive, non-native plant species listed in Table 6-2 of the MSHCP and shall require revisions to.landscape plans (subject to 1 the limitations of their jurisdiction) to avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of development that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Considerations in reviewing the applicability of this list shall include proximity of planting areas to the MSHCP ' Conservation Areas, species considered in the planting plans, resources being protected within the MSHCP Conservation Area and their relative sensitivity to invasion, and barriers to plant and seed dispersal, such as walls, topography and other features." ' • "Barriers: Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping in the MSHCP Conservation ' Area. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls,.signage and/or other appropriate mechanisms." • "Grading/Land Development: Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site ' development shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area." 10) Where potential impacts to federally and state listed, endangered and threatened species, MSHCP narrow.endemic species, and/or critical populations of sensitivity species occur as a result of ' proposed planning actions, the City of Temecula shall coordinate with -responsible listing agencies (USFWS and/or CDFG) as early as possible and in conjunction with, or prior to, the CEQA process for actions which may affect those species. Specific actions-necessary to protect Temecula General Plan Update - City of Temecula Screencheck DraftEIS/EIR 40 September2003 1 ' 1 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources .' those sensitive species shall be determined on a case-by-case basis and comply with MSHCP ' conditions of coverage. 11) Project actions resulting in potential impacts to nesting migratory birds (as defined under the , Migratory Bird Treaty Act) shall require work corridor surveys to identify active nests. Active nests shall be avoided if practical, and if necessary, seasonal timing constraints for any riparian habitat clearing and a MBTA Special Purpose,Permit (50 CFR 821.27) shall be required prior to removal of active nests of MBTA'covered species. 12) All future specific project actions undertaken shall be reviewed for consistency with the MSHCP and City of Temecula implementing plans/ordinances. , Impact Significance after Mitigation With implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures, biological impacts associated with ' the proposed project are expected to be mitigated to a level below significant at the General Plan EIS/E1R tier level. However, specific actions at lower tiers of environmental review may be ' determined to result in significant biological impacts requiring further mitigation. ' 1 1 ' 1 1 Temecula General Plan Update ...City of Temecula Screencheck Draft EISIEIR 41 September 2003 ' City ofTeniecula General Plan Amendment EIS/EIR Biological Resources Section September 2003 1 REFERENCES . ' American Ornithologists' Union. 1998. Check-list of North American Birds. Seventh Edition. American Ornithologists' Union. Washington, D. C. American Ornithologists' Union. 2002. List of the 2,030 Bird Species (With Scientific And English Names) Known from the A.O.U. Check-List Area; 43rd Supplement to the Check-list. Auk ' 1 19:897-906. Buchanan; B. W. 1993. Effects of Enhanced Lighting on the Behaviour of Nocturnal Frogs. Animal ' Behaviour45(5j:893-89. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Database. .2003a July. Special Animals. Quarterly. publication, Mimeo. 46 pp. -<htti)://www.(Ifa.ca.kiov/whdab/spaniinals.odf>. Accessed August 2003. ' 2003b July. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Biannual publication, Mimeo. 88 pp. <http://www.(Iff,,.ca.,_,ov/whd;ib/sl)i)lant.6df>. Accessed August•2003. 2003c July. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. Biannual publication, Mimeo. ' 10 pp. <htti)://www.dfiz.ca.i.iov/whdab/TEAnimals,r)df>. Accessed August 2003. 2003d July. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Quarterly publication, Mimeo. 14 pp. ' <httn://www.dfe.ca.eov/whdab/iEPlants.ndf>. Accessed August 2003. 2003 July. CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database,,commercial version. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis'Branch. California Resources Agency. 200f'February .1. CEQA Guidelines. Cooperative effort among the California Resources Agency, its programs CERES and LUPIN, and the Governor's Office of Planning and 'Research. <http://ceres.ca.gov/tonic/env law/cega/euidelines/art5.html>. Accessed August 2003. ' Crooks,-K.R. and M.E. Soule. 2000.. Mesopredator Release and Bird Extinctions in a Fragmented System. The Wildlife Society Western Section 2000 Annual Conference. Crother, B. I. (ed.). 2001. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence In Our Understanding. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Herpetological Circular ' No. 29iii + 82pp„ County of Riverside. 1993 March 2. Oak Tree Management Guidelines. County of Riverside Planning Department. <htto://www.tlma.co.riversicle.ca.uS/plannina/oak.html>. Accessed August 2003. Merkel &Associates, Inc. #00-109-01 42 City of Temecula General Plan Amendment EIS/EIR Biological Resources Section September 2003 Dudek & Associates, Inc. 2003a June 17. Final MSHCP, Volume I, The Plan. Prepared for the County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency. 10 Sections + t Appendices. <http://www.i-cip.ori.!/inslicpdocs/voll/inshcpvoiltoc-litm>. Accessed August 2003. 200315 June 17. Final MSHCP, Volume II, The MSHCP Reference Document. Prepared ' for the County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency. 4 Sections. <http://www.rcip.ore/inslicpdocsNol2/nishcpvol 2 toe hnn>. Accessed August 2003. ' 2003c June 17. Final MSHCP, Volume IV, Final EIR/EIS. Prepared for the County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency. 10 Sections + appendices. ' <http://www.rcip.or,g/inshcpdocs/vol4/cii-toc.htin>. Accessed August 2003. Frank, K. D. 1988. Impact of Outdoor Lighting on Moths: An Assessment. Journal of the , Lepidopterists' Society 42(2):63-93. Hendrickson, D. A. 1998. TNHC - North America Freshwater Fishes Index: Images, Maps and , Information. Texas Memorial Museum at UT Austin. <http://www.tmin.uLexas.edU/Lnhctfi,.;h/na/n-aindex.htmi>. Accessed August 2003. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California. University of ' California Press. Berkeley, California. 1400pp. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. t Nongame-Heritage Program, State of California. Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 157 pp. Johnson, S. G. 1995. Living Among the Oaks; A Management Guide for Landowners. Pub]. Of the 1 Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program, Department of Forestry and Resource Management, University of California, Berkeley. 8 pp. Knecht, Arnold A. 1971. Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area, California. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and United States Department of the ' Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs in cooperation with University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. 157 pp. + appendices + maps. Opler, Paul A., and A. B. Wright. 1999. A Field Guide to Western Butterflies. Second Edition ' Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston and New York. 540 pp. Reiser, Craig H. 2001 February. Rare Plants of San Diego County. Aquafir Press. 2001 edition. 1 299 pp. Rogers, Thomas H. 1Q66. Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet. State of California ' Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California. Sixth printing, 1992. ' Rydell, J. and H. J. Baagoe. 1996. Street Lamps Increase Bat Predation on Moths. Entomologisk Tidskrift 1 ]7(4):129-135. ' Merkel &Associates, Inc. #00-109-01 43 ' - City ofTeihecula General Plan Amendment E1S/EIR Biological Resources Section September 2003 ' Skinner, Mark W.,and Bruce M. Pavlik. 1994. California's Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare ' and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002 April 15. Designation of Critical Habitat for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha ' yuino), Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 72. <Iittp://ciirlsba(l.fws.pov/Rules/guinodocuments/OuinoPdfs/Ouino fcll odf>. Accessed August 2003. ' 2000 Ocotber 24. Designation of Critical Habitat for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher, Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 206. <Iittp://carisbad.f%&,s.gov/Ruies/Gn,,ktCatcher Documents/PDF/CAGN Final CH Fed Re gist er.bdf>. Accessed August 2003. ' United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS). 1988. Pechanga Quadrangle, California 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic); Sections 21, 22, 27-30, and 31-34, Township 8 South, Range 2 West. Denver, Colorado or Reston, Virginia. 1979. Murrieta Quadrangle, California-Riverside Co. 7.5.Minute Series (Topographic); Sections 6, 7, 18, 19, and 24, Township 7 and 8 South, Range 2 and 3 West. Denver, ' Colorado or Reston, Virginia. r. _ 1975. Temecula Quadrangle, California 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic); Sections 24, 25, ' 30, 31, and 36,;.Township,8,South,, Range 2 and 3 West. Denver, Colorado or Reston, Virginia. 1978. Bachelor Mtn. Quadrangle, California-Riverside Co. 7.5 Minute Series ' (Topographic); Sections 4-1 I, 14-22, 28, 32, and 33, Township 6 and 7 South, Range 2 West. tt Denver, Colorado or Reston, Virginia. Wilson, D. E. and D. M. Reeder, ed. 1993. Mammal Species of the World. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D. C. 1206 pp. 1 1 Merkel &Associates, Inc. N00-109.0I 44 1. 1 1 1 - 1 Appendix D Traffic Study 1 w r: t Draft ' City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN UPDATE '. Circulation Element Traffic Study Prepared by: Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705-7827 (714) 667-0496 1 . ' November 15, 2004 - ' ' � � CONTENTSPage 1.0lNTRO[)UC7l{)N Background .............................................................................................................................l'l Pcr6000uoueCriteria ...............................................................................................................l-2 Level uf Service Descriptions .................................................................................................l^3 Information io This Report......................................................................................................1.3 Definitions...............................................................................................................................l`8 References...............................................................................................................................l^V 2.0 TRANSPORTATION SETTING � mm DailyTraffic Volumes.............................................................................................................2'l Existing Levels uf Service.......................................................................................................2'] Future Traffic Growth^^``^~~^~^^^—^`^~^^~~^^~.........,.....`......,2'5 l0 PROPOSED HIGHWAY PLAN � Roadway Classifications .........................................................................................................3^l RoadwayDimensions.............................................................................................................. ^6 Principal Intersections.............................................................................................................3^6 Proposed Highway y1oo .......,...........—`.....,`......—......—,..]'8 4{) TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Long-Range Traffic Volumes..................................................................................................4`l Future Improvements..—,,............—........`...................4.3 SpecialIssues ........................................................................................................................4'l4 APPENDIX A: Intersection Capacity Utilization Worksheets � � � - � �� 1 ' LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 1 Pape FIGURES 2-1 Existing ADT Volumes..................................................................................................................2-2 2-2 Intersection Location Map.............................................................................................................2-3 ' 2-3 Temecula Planning Area................................................................................................................2-7 3-1 Roadway Cross-Sections................................................................................................................3-3 3-2 Proposed Highway Plan.................................................................................................................3-9 ' 3-3 Existing and Future Roadway System .........................................................................................3-10 ' 4-1 2025 ADT Volumes—Proposed Highway Plan.............................................................................4-2 4-2 Intersection Location Map—Principal Intersections......................................................................4-5 A-1 Intersection Location Map—Principal Intersections.....................................................................A-2 TABLES 1-1 Arterial Intersection Performance Criteria.....................................................................................1.4 1-2 Freeway Ramp Performance Criteria.............................................................................................1-5 ' 1-3 Level of Service Descriptions—Urban Streets..............................................................................1-6 14 Level of Service Descriptions—Signalized Intersections..............................................................1-7 ' 2-1 Existing ICU Summary..................................................................................................................2-4 2-2 I-15 Peak Hour Ramp Summary—Existing(2002).......................................................................2-6 2-3 Planning Area Land Use and Trip Generation...............................................................................2-9 3-1 Roadway Classifications................................................................................................................3-2 3-2 Intersection Lane Guidelines..........................................................................................................3-7 ' 4-1 2025 ICU Summary—Proposed Highway Plan.............................................................................4-4 4-2 Peak Hour Ramp Volumes—2025.................................................................................................4-6 4-3 Roadway Improvements ................................................................................................................4-7 4-4 Lane Configurations for Principal Intersections—Existing and 2025 .........................................4-11 1 1 Chapter 1 .0 ' INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a traffic study carried out for the City of Temecula General , Plan Update. It provides the technical background material for the Circulation Element update and , accompanying EIR. BACKGROUND , This Circulation Element Traffic Study analyzes the circulation system needs associated with the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. It describes the methodology and technical analysis results ' pertaining to the arterial highway component of the Circulation Element update, and thereby provides a resource document for the update and the accompanying EIR. The area addressed in this traffic study includes the City and its sphere of influence. In the General.Plan update it is referred to as the "Planning Area" and in this traffic study it is referred to as the ' - - Planning Area or the "Study Area." It is the area within which a detailed traffic analysis has been carried out and recommendations made with respect to a long-range transportation plan. One of the primary ' goals of the roadway system recommendations presented here is to ensure that land use and circulation as portrayed in their respcetive General Plan Elements arc in 'balance." ' - - To derive traffic forecasts for this analysis, use has been made of the City of Temecula Traffic ' Model (TTM). This traffic model covers a large portion of western Riverside County with particular focus on the City of Temecula. It produces average daily traffic (ADT) forecasts for the roadway system ' and peak hour forecasts for major intersections and for freeway ramps. Land use data from the updated Land Use Element has been used as the basis for the traffic forecasts, thereby showing future needs in ' relation to future land use projections. Detailed information on the traffic forecasting procedures can be found in the traffic model report ' (Reference 1 at the end of this chapter).. Additionally, the traffic.model technical notebook(Reference 2 at the end of this chapter) provides information on the land use and trip generation inputs for the traffic , forecasting process. City of Temecula General Plan Update 1-1 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rpt.doc , PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ' To evaluate the Circulation Element roadway system in relation to the Land Use Element, use is made of performance criteria. These criteria include "performance standards" and "thresholds of significance" the latter being used for identifying project impacts in an EIR context. The.performance standards form part of the City Policy (e.g, in the Circulation Element) and represent desired operating ' conditions for the City's roadway system. For the Circulation Element to be in "balance" with the Land Use Element, the circulation system must achieve such criteria.- - . The performance criteria used here are based on two primary measures. The first is "capacity" which establishes the vehicle carrying ability of a roadway and the second is "volume." The volume ' measure is either a traffic count (in the case of existing volumes) or a.forecast for a future point in time. The ratio between the volume and the capacity gives.a volume/capacity(V/C)ratio and based on that V/C ratio, a corresponding level of service(LOS) is defined. The end of this chapter contains level of service descriptions for arterial roadways and freeways as contained in the 2000 Highway.Capacity Manual 1 (ECM 2000)which.is the primary source for capacity analysis guidelines (see Reference 3 at the end of this chapter). For use in this traffic study, performance criteria aie defined for arterial streets and for freeway ' ramps. Peak hour data (AM and PM) is used in both cases,to establish V/C and'LOS measures. The following sections outline the criteria for each. Arterial Streets 1 - . For the arterial street system, peak hour volumes are used for roadway performance evaluation '- and a number of techniques are available to establish suitable V/C ratios and define.the corresponding - . LOS's. Those defined here are considered appropriate for planning level analyses (rather than detailed traffic operations analyses). 1 The analysis of the arterial road system is based on intersection capacity since this is the defining ' capacity limitation on an arterial highway system. Levels of service for arterial roadway intersections are ' determined based on operating conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology is applied using peak hour volumes and the geometric configuration of the City of Temecula General Plan Update 1-2 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Cimulation Element Traffic Study 171027rpt.doc 1- intersection. This methodology sums the V/C ratios for the critical movements,of an intersection and is ' r generally compatible with the intersection capacity analysis methodology outlined in the HCM 2000. , The ICU calculation methodology and associated impact criteria used for the study area arterial ' system are summarized in Table 1-1. The saturation flow rate and clearance interval parameters used here are representative values for planning purposes. . . 1 Freeway Ramps Similar to the arterial system evaluation, the peak hour is also the accepted time period used for • capacity evaluation of freeway interchange ramps. For this study, levels of service for freeway ramps ' within the traffic analysis study arca are based on AM and PM peak hour V/C ratios. Carrying capacities for the various ramp configurations on the freeway system within the traffic analysis study area are based ' - , on information contained in the July 1995 Caltrans Highway Design Manual and 'the January 2000 - • Caltrans Ramp Meter Design Manual. ' The capacities for calculating ramp V/C ratios are summarized in Table 1-2 together with the ' overall impact criteria for freeway ramps within the study area. The LOS "E"performance standard listed in the table is typically used by Caltrans as the operating standard for freeway ramps. ' LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS , ' Tables 1-3 and 1.4 summarize the level of service descriptions for arterial highways and ' intersections, respectively. These descriptions are taken from material contained in HCM 2000. INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT ' The information presented in this report is arranged as follows: ' Chapter 1.0 Introduction — background and scope plus a description of the performance ' criteria used-in the traffic analysis. Chapter 2.0 Transportation Setting—describes existing conditions with respect to circulation, , and present future growth forecasts. City of Temecula General Plan Update 1-3 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Ttaffic Study 171027rpt.doc , r ' Table 1-1 ARTERIAL INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE CRITERIA 1 V/C Calculation Methodology ' Level of service to be based on peak hour intersection capacity utilization(ICU)values calculated using the following assumptions: Saturation Flow Rate: 1,750 vehicles/hourAane. Clearance Interval: .10 Performance Standard Level of Service D(peak hour ICU less than or equal to 0.90). - Threshold of SlgnifIcance - ' For'an intersection that is forecast to operate worse than the perfo=nce standard'(i.e.,,ICU.greater than .90).the impact Of a,given project is considered to be significant if the project increases the ICU by more than 0.01.An ICU increase of more than.01 does not cause the threshold of significance to be exceeded if the with-project ICU does not exceed.90. Level of Service Level of smite ranges are as follows: .. 7 ' ICU LEVEL OF.SERVICE(LOS) 0.00-0.60 A 0.61—0.70 B 0.71—0.80 - C 0.81-0.90 D 0.91-1.00 E Above 1.00 F - 1 1 1 1 City of Temecula General Plan Update 14 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rpt.dac a _ - e 1 Table 1-2 ' c . FREEWAY RAMP PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ' VIC Calculation Methodology ' Level of service to be based on peak hour volume/capacity (V/C) ratios calculated using the following rani capacities: Metered On-Ramps ' A maximum capacity of 900 vehicles per hour(vph) for a one-lane metered on-ramp with only one mixed-flow lane at the meter. A maximum capacity of 1,080(20 percent greater than 900)vph for a one-lane metered on-ramp with one ' mixed-flow lane at the meter plus one HOV preferential lane at the.meter. A maximum capacity of 1,500 vph for a one-lane metered on-rump with two mixed-flow lanes at the meter. , A maximum capacity of 1,800 vph for a two-lane metered on-ramp with two mixed-flow lanes at the meter. Non-Metered On-Ramps and Off-Ramps , A maximum capacity of 1,500 vph for a one-lane ramp. A maximum capacity of 2,250(50 percent greater than 1,500)vph for a two-lane on-ramp Out tapers to one merge lane at or beyond the freeway mainline gore point and for a two-lane off-ramp with only one auxiliary lane. A maximum capacity of 7,000 vph for a two-lane on-ramp that does not taper to one merge lane and for a , two-lane off-romp with two auxiliary lanes. Performance Standard Level of Service E(peak hour V/C less than or equal to 1.00). , . Threshold of Significance for Impact Analysis For a freeway ramp that is forecast to operate worse than the performance standard, the impact of a given project , alternative is considered to be significant if, based an a comparison with the No Project alternative, the project alternative V/C increases by more than.01. 1 - 1 r : City of Temecula General Plan Update 1-5 - Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. _ - Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rpt.doc ' t t Table 1-3 '-- LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS—URBAN STREETS The average travel speed along an urban street is the determinant of the operating level of service(LOS). The travel speed along a segment,section,or entire length of an urban street is dependent on the running speed between signalized intersections and the amount of control delay incurred at signalized intersections. The following general statements characterize LOS along urban streets and show the relationship to free flow speeds(FFS) PERCENT ' LOS DESCRIPTION OF FFS . . A LOS A describes primarily Gee-flow operations at average'travel speeds; usually about 90 percent 90 of the FFS for the given street class. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream Control delay.at signalized intersections is normal. B LOS B describes reasonably unimpeded operations at average. travel,speeds, usually about,70 70 percent of the FFS for the street class. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to ' maneuver with the traffic stream. Control delay at signalized intersections is minimal. ' C LOS C describes stable operations; however, ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock 50 locations may be more restricted that at LOS B, and longer queues, adverse signal coordination,or '• both may contribute to lower average travel speeds of about 50 percent of the FFS for the street class. - a D LOS D borders on a range in which small increases in flow may.cause substantial increases in delay 40 ., ' and decreases in travel speed. LOS D may be due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate signal timing, high volumes,or a combination.of these.factors. Average travel speeds are about 40 percent of FFS ' E LOS E is characterized by significant delays and average,travel speeds of 33 percent or less,of the 33 FFS. Such operations arc caused by a combination of adverse progression,high signal density,high volumes,extensive delays at critical intersections,and inappropriate signal timing. ' F LOS F is,characterized by urban street flow at extremely low speeds, typically one-third to one- 25 fourth of the FFS. 'Intersection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations,with high,delays, high volumes,and extensive queuing. - ' Source: Highway Cap acity Manual 2000,Transportation Research Board,National Research Council 1 1. 1 ` - City of Temecula General Plan Update 1-6 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rpt.doc - 1 Table 1-4 _ 1 - ' LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS—SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - ' Levels of service(LOS)for signalized intersections are defined in terms of control delay as follows: DELAY PER ' LOS DESCRIPTION VEHICLE secs A LOS A describes operations with low control delay, up to 10 seconds per vehicle. This LOS < 10 ' occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay values. .._ B LOS B describes operations with control delay greater than 10 and up to 20.seconds per vehicle.. _ 10-20 ' This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than the LOS A,causing higher levels of delay. C LOS C describes operations with control delay,greater thari 20 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle. 20—35 ' These higher delays may result from only fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle,failures may begin to appear at this level. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase does not serve queued vehicles, and overflows occur. The number of vehicles ' stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D LOS D describes operations with control delay greater than 35 and up to55 seconds per vehicle: .35-55• ' At LOS D,the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high VIC ratios. Many vehicles stop,and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. ' E LOS E describes operations with control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 seconds per vehicle. 55—80- • - These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent. , F LOS F describes operations with control delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. This level, >80 considered unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of lane groups. It may also occur at high V/C ratios with many , individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute significantly to high delay levels. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000,Transportation Research Board,National Research Council . . 1 1 City of Temecula General Plan Update 1-7 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rpt.doc ' Chapter 3.0 Circulation Plan Analysis —presents the proposed arterial highway component of the Circulation Plan. 1 _ Chapter 4.0 Traffic Analysis —presents the long-range traffic data for the Proposed Highway Plan, and shows the improvements needed to implement that highway plan. Technical appendices contain tabular data as appropriate and traffic model data can be found in the previously referenced traffic model report or technical notebook. 1 1 .. DEFINITIONS Certain terms used throughout this report are defined below to clarify their intended meaning: ADT Average Daily Traffic. Generally used to measure the total two-directional traffic volumes passing a given point on a roadway. DU Dwelling Unit. Used in quantifying residential land use. :s ' ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization. A measure of the volume to capacity ratio for t an intersection. Typically used to determine the peak hour level of service for a given set of intersection volumes. LOS Level of Service. A scale used to evaluate circulation system performance based on intersection ICU values or volume/capacity ratios of arterial segments. ' Peak Hour This refers to the hour during the AM peak period (typically 7 AM - 9 AM) or the PM peak period (typically 3 PM - 6 PM) in which the greatest number of vehicle trips are generated by a given land use or are traveling on a given roadway. ,• Tripend A trip generation measure which represents the total trips entering and leaving a location. TSF Thousand Square Feet. Used in quantifying non-residential land uses, and refers ' to building floor area. V/C Volume to Capacity Ratio. This is typically used to describe the percentage of ' capacity utilized by existing or projected traffic on a segment of an arterial or • intersection. VPD Vehicles Per Day. Similar to ADT, but more typically applied to trip generation (i.e., the amount of traffic generated by a given amount of land'use)._ VPH Vehicles Per Hour. Used for roadway volumes (counts or forecasts) and trip generation estimates. Measures the number of vehicles in a one-hour period, typically the AM or PM peak hour. ' , City of Tcmecula General Plan Update 1-9 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study .171027rpt.dw REFERENCES 1. "City of Temecula Traffic Modcl Description," Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., September ' 2003. 2. "City of Temecula Traffic Model — Technical Notebook," Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., ' (established September 2003 and updated on a regular basis). 3. "Highway Capacity Manual 2000," Transportation Research Board, National Research t Council. . . 1 . . 1 City of Temecula General Plan Update 1-9 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element TmfEc Study I71027rpt.doc Chapter 2.0. TRANSPORTATION SETTING ' This chapter discusses the transportation setting for the City of Temecula roadway system. Existing conditions are described including traffic volumes on the City's street system and peak hour 1 volumes and levels of service for the key intersections within the City and freeway interchanges serving the City. Information on future land use and the increase in study area trip generation is also given and discussed in relation to its growth implications. ' DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 2-1 shows the existing (2002) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the City's roadway system. The traffic flow patterns are oriented to regional components o`f the roadway system, which include Interstate 15 (I-15) and State Route 79 (SR-79). The I-15 Freeway traverses the western portion of the City, while SR-79 passes through the study area in two separate north and south arterial highway ' segments with I-15 serving as a link between the two. Volumes,on the northern segment (Winchester Road) reach 62,000 ADT near the freeway and on the southern segment reach 47,000 near the freeway. Freeway interchanges serving the City are located at Winchester Road (SR-79 north), Rancho California Road; and SR-79 south._ Overland Road and Santiago Road provide local crossings of the freeway, carrying 16,000 ADT and 5,000 ADT, respectively. Other roadways carrying relatively high traffic volumes are Rancho California Road (58,000 ADT near the freeway) and Ynez Road (36,000 adjacent to the mall and surrounding commercial area). 1 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE ' As discussed in the performance criteria section of Chapter 1.0, level of service (LOS) is defined according to peak hour intersection performance using intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values. Figure 2-2 shows the intersections included in this evaluation and Table 2-1 lists the current ICUs and ' corresponding LOS values. As can be seen here, three locations do not.meet the performance standard of LOS "D" or better, Nicolas and Winchester, Jefferson and Winchester, and Old Town Front Street and ' Rancho California. City of Temecula Gcneral Plan Update 2-1 - Austin-Faust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rpt.dw mu MO SPR/RC Yy 1 • J' S D CYlC W Pcs /3 kc p5 t 47"= r 1 �n b bti J� �0.F� WPY 1V �� 12� _wDy40 J SOLµq \ \\ c 2 µ0 1�� f? 4�9� Fr� 2g �vR\p R If P 8 0.D ,L yr 34 RMACHO GPV 4 1ti RAN CHO Iy PpVOP n m q it � Ic 10 ♦`�~ PO 16 1 \l ' � SP ti ''oo a1 5 µ0 y •p. S0.E�kN v a3 32 DE 29 Np ea 30 I y to J /) Y � WK q 003 �a a= Legend Figure 2.1 10 0 30 ADT Volumes City Limits EXISTING ADT VOLUMES(OOOs) City of Temecula General Plan Update 2-2 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rptftg2-l.dwg ' 1 ' =W T Y 1 ry i g ' YUq NO SPR/ry0 . y �Y Nt ' as 6 1 4 5 7 P 2 � 9 J IB + 1 10 5 '4 17 µ0. t P �'� .pe RANCHO 16 - P� Il s5 14 1217 19 RAracryo Pier. i 1 20 1� 21 grNc" - 5 0 2pO 27 y m a� 25 PO N� S4.�g24 . l 1 a AN% 4 O �0 1 � 1 ' Legend Figure 2-2 City Limits INTERSECTION LOCATION MAP City of Temecula General Plan Update 2-3 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rptfig2-2.dwg 1 1 -- Table 2-1 ' EXISTING ICU SUMMARY AM PEAK HOUR 'PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ICU LOS ICU LOS I. Diaz&Winchester .33 A .64 B ' - - 2. Jeferson&Winchester .59 A 1.00' E 3. 1-15 SB&Winchester .66 'B .80 C 4. 1.15 NB&Winchester .47 A .74 C 5. Ynez&Winchester .73 C .87 D ' 6. Margarita&Winchester .68 B .86 D. 7. Nicola&Winchester 1.00• E - .74 C 8. Jefferson&Overland .47 A .82 D 9. Ynez&Overland .39 A .73 C 10. Ynez&Solana .43 A .58 A ' 11. Diaz&Rancho California .52 A .51 A 12. Old Town Front St&Rancho California .59 A .96• E • 13. 1-15 SB&Rancho California .79 C .89 D 14. 1-15 NB&Rancho California .50 A .67 B ' 15. Ynez&Rancho California .79 'C .90 D 16. Margarita&Rancho California .59 A .74 C 17. Meadows Pkwy&Rancho California .43 A .36 A 19. Butterfield Stage Rd&Rancho Cali farnia .43 A .49 A ' 19. Ynez&Rancho Vista .84 D .82 D 20. Ynez &Pauba .69 B .64 B 21. Ynez&Santiago Rd .50 A .64 B 22. 1-15 SB&Old Town Front Street .69 B .73 C 23. 1-15 NB&SR-79(S) .61 B .74 C ' 24. Pechanga Parkway,&SR-79(S) .57 A .67 B , 25. Redhawk/Margarita&SR-79(S) .67 B .68 B 26. Butterfield Stage Rd&SR-79 .35 A .37 A •Does not meet performance standard ' Level of service ranges: .00- .60 A . 1 - . 0 B ' - .7I - .80C .81 - .90 D .91 -1.00 E Above 1.00 F ' Source: Year 2002 trufTic counts 1 i City of Terttecula General Plan Update 2.4 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study - 171027rpt.doc ' 1 ' It should be noted that the ICU values are calculated on the assumption of ideal operating conditions. Short roadway sections, which cause vehicle queues to block adjacent intersections or �- inadequate turn pockets, can prevent ideal conditions from occurring. Examples are Winchester Road on both sides of the I-15 Freeway interchange and Rancho California Road on both sides of the freeway ' interchange. ' The City has a continuing program to monitor traffic and implement improvements to maintain adequate levels of service. Deficiencies identified here are being addressed in this process, and improvements will be made as part of this Citywide program. ' Table 2-2 summarizes the existing peak hour freeway ramp volumes and,V/C values. Several • deficiencies are noted here,one at each of the three interchanges. Some discussion of these is given in the ' special issues section at the end of Chapter 4.0. ' . FUTURE TRAFFIC GROWTH Existing and future land use data for the planning area (see map in Figure 2-3) was prepared as ' part of the General Plan Land Use Element update process. Additional information for the surrounding area was then obtained from sources such as the City of Murrieta and countywide demographic data projections. This land use data formed the basis for preparing the future traffic volumes used in this traffic study. The.amount of traffic generated by a certain type of land use is estimated by applying a representative trip generation rate to the amount of land use in the area under consideration. The Temecula Traffic Model (TTM) uses a set of such trip generation rates to calculate both peak hour and ADT trips by land use. These rates are presented in the model description report (see Reference 1 at the l ' end of Chapter 1.0). 1 For traffic forecasting purposes, land use is specified geographically according to a set of traffic ' zones. Application of the trip generation rates to the land use in each zone then results in zonal estimates of daily and peak hour trips. Detailed information on land use and trip generation data can be found in ' the TTM Technical Notebook(see Reference 2 at the end of Chapter 1.0). City of Temecula Genctul Plan Update 2-5 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study - 171027tpt.doc 1 Table 2-2 T-15 PEAK HOUR RAMP SUMMARY-EXISTING.(2002) ' AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LOCATION CAPACITY VOLUME V/C VOLUME V/C ' NORTHBOUND ON Winchester Direct On 1,500 750 .50 _ 1,370 .91 ' Winchester Loop On 1,500 530 :35 1,150 .77 Rancho California Direct On 1,500 1,010 .67 1,280 .85 Rnncho Califomia Loop On 1,500 430 .29 990 .66 SR-79(S) 1,500 1,600 1.07 1,310 .87 ' . Sub-Total 7,500 4,320 .58 6,100 .BI SOUTHBOUND ON Winchester Direct On 1.500 120 .08 210 .14 ' Winchester Loop On 1,500 740 .49 490 .33 Rancho Califomia 1,500 910 .61 790 .53 Front 1,500 1,040 _69 440 .29 Sub-Total 6,000 2,810 .47 1,930 .32 ' TOTALON 13,500 7,130 .53 8,030 .59 NORTHBOUND OFF ' Winchester 1,500 790 .53 1,300 .87 Rancho California. 1,500 740 .49 1,220 .91 SR-79(S) 1,500 320 .21 810 .54 ' Sub-Total 4,500 1,850 .41 3,330 .74 SOUTHBOUND OFF Winchester 1,500 2,220 1.48 • 1,910 1.27 • , Rancho California 11500 2,050 1.37 • 1,800 1.20 Front/SR-79(S) 1,500 1,000 .67 1,350 .90 Sub-Total 4,500 5.270 1.17 5,060 1.12 TOTALOFF 9,000 7,120 .79 8,390 .93 ' Exceeds capacity ' . 1 1 1 City of Temecula General Plan Update 2-6 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rpt.doc ' 1 • maiw . � 8 1 . ewu ao 1 _Cu 0 9 8 1 Z• !� PM.wO 3 RµO r 1 a �Y 1 �y 1 e Legend Figure 2-3 '. Planning Area Boundary City Limits TEMECULA PLANNING AREA 1 City of Temecula General Plan Update 2-7 - Austin-Foust Associates,Inc Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rptfig2-3.dwg 1 Table 2-3 summarizes the existing and future land uses and trip generation for the planning area ' by four land use categories: residential, commercial, office/industrial, and other (primarily schools and ' --- institutional uses). Today, the total ADT trip generation for the planning area is close to 730,000 vehicle trips per day. Approximately 39 percent of this is attributed to residential land uses, and the remaining 61 ' percent to non-residential uses, primarily office and commercial. Buildout of the City's General Plan will translate to a total trip generation of just under 1,430,000 ' vehicle trips per day, an increase of 96 percent over existing. Approximately 33 percent of the projected vehicle trips will be attributed to residential land uses, and the remaining 67 percent to non-residential ' uses. These proportions are similar to existing, indicating a comparable growth in residential and non- ' ' residential land uses. In Chapter 4.0, these land use projections are converted to future traffic volumes on ' • the roadway system. 1 1 City of Temecula General Plan Update 2.8 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rpt.doc , 1 Table 2-3 ' PLANNING AREA LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION EXISTING(2002) BUILDOUT LAND USE CATEGORY UNITS AMOUNT ADT AMOUNT ADT % INCREASE ' Residential DU 30,691 287,244 51,419 478,918 67% Commercial TSF 7,360 , 296,539 14,738 580,207 96% ' Office/industrial TSF 9.120 87,241 30,812 300,290 244% Other — — 55,947 — 67,114 2096 TOTAL 726,971 1,426,529 96% Notes: 1.The following obbmviatiuns arc used here: DU-dwelling units . TSF—thousand square fat of floor act ADT-average daily vehicle trips generated ' 2.The planning area comprises the City of Temecula and its Sphere of Influence(see Figure 2-3) 11 1 1 r . 1' 1 1 City of Temecula General Plan Update 2.9 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rpt.doc I Chapter 3 .6 ' = = PROPOSED HIGHWAY PLAN This chapter describes the proposed highway component of the Circulation Element. Referred to ' as the "Arterial Highway Plan" or simply the "Highway Plan,'.' it defines the future street system for the ' Temecula Planning Area. ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS ' The highway plan is defined using a hierarchy of arterial roadway classifications. Each is ' described by size and function, and has specific physical dimensions. The Plan establishes eight ' classifications of arterial roadways, ranging from eight-lane divided roadways to two-lane undivided roadways. These classifications are listed in Table 3-1 and representative cross-sections,are illustrated in ' Figure 3-1. The following are brief descriptions of each classification. Urban Arterial ' Urban arterials are eight-lane roadways with raised landscaped medians. Arcess may vary ' depending on where the facility is located, but is typically limited to adjacent commercial properties at signal-controlled intersections. Curbside parking is prohibited. Traffic carrying capacities of 70,000+ ' vehicles per day can be achieved depending on the degree of access control, peak period traffic loadings, and lane configurations at the major intersections. ' Principal Arterial ' Principal arterials are six-lane roadways with raised landscaped medians. Unsignalized minor ' street and driveway access may be allowed but signalized access is preferred, and left-tum restrictions are typically placed at unsignalized access locations. Curbside parking is prohibited. Traffic carrying , capacities of 54,000± vehicles per can he achieved depending on the degree of access control, the peak period loadings, and the configurations of the major intersections. City of Temecula General Plan Update 3-1 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Citculation Element Traffic Study 171027rpt.doc t 1 • Table 3-1 ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS t . MAXIMUM TWO- ROADWAY WIDTH WAY DAILY CLASSIFICATION DEFINITION ROW/PAVEMEN • CONFIGURATION TRAFFIC VOLUME-' ' . Urban Arterial Highways carrying high volumes of 134'/l 10' 8 lanes with raised 72,000 regional and local traffic. Priority is median and additional given to through traffic flow, and turn lanes at intersections access is generally limited to signalized intersections Principal Arterial Highways acting as main 110786' 6 lanes with raised 54,000 thoroughfares and providing access median and additional to major activity centers and to the turn lanes at intersections regional -freeway system Direct access to adjacent properties is discouraged, except at signalized ' intersections. Major Arterial Highways that complement the 100Y76' 4 lanes with raised or 36,000 principal System by providing e ,painted median and '• medium capacity backbone system additional turn lanes at Only limited access is provided, intersections typically to commercial properties (i.e.,not to residential properties) Secondary Arterial Roadways intended to•carry traffic 88'/64' 4 lanes undivided, with 29,000 between local streets and Principal or turn lanes where needed . Major Arterials. They arc similar to - - major arterials, with only limited access to adjacent properties. Modified Secondary Secondary arterials designed to 88'!/0' 4 lanes undivided, no 20,000 '• Arterial preserve rural character of - curb and gutter surrounding areas. Limited Secondary Secondary aneriaks that have lower 88746' 2 lanes divided with turn 16,000 Arterial volumes such that four lanes am not lanes where needed needed. '• Collector Roadways providing property access, 66.78'/44' 2Imes undivided 14,000 and linking properties to secondary, major,and principal arterials. ' Rural Ilighway Roadways providing property access 89-110*/50' 2Imes undivided 10,000—20,000 and local circulation in rural areas. '' •ROW—Right-of--way including pavement and parkway. Refer to Figure 3-1 for typical crass sections. f •• Used as a general guideline only. Actual madway performance is determined from peak hour intersection volumes. 1 City of Temecula General Plan Update 3-2 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rpt.doc 1- 1 R/W R1W IT 12, IT 1 1 ZRAISEDMFD" ' _- URBAN ARTERIAL (B LANES DIVIDED) . . RM 110, ww ' �RAMFD MEDIAN PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL (6 LANES DIVIDED)] RM IMP RM 1 76' ZPAIM'ED MEDIAN . MAJOR ARTERIAL (4 LANES DIVIDED) t ww w PJw 64. Ir IT SECONDARY ARTERIAL (4 LANES UNDIVIDED) ' R/W 6a R W IT try IT LPAINIED MEDLW LIMITED SECONDARY ARTERIAL (2 LANES DIVIDED) ' Rfw 66.71t RM' m 1 COLLECTOR (2 LANES UNDIVIDED) ' R/W 88.110 IR/W 50, RURAL HIGHWAY (2 LANES UNDIVIDED) Figure 3-1 ' ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS 1 City of Temecula General Plan Update 3-3 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study l71027rptfig3-I.dwg - - 1 1 ' Major Arterial '- Major arterials are four-lane roadways with painted or raised landscaped medians. Left turn restrictions will generally be placed at minor unsignalized driveways. As a primary traffic carrier, ' curbside parking may not be appropriate along some of the more heavily traveled major arterial street segments within the City. Traffic carrying capacities of 36,000+ vehicles per day can be achieved depending on the degree of access control and peak period loadings. ' Secondary Arterial '• Secondary arterial are four-lane roadways without medians (undivided). Direct access from private residential properties should be avoided where possible unless medians can,be provided at such access points. . While the secondary roadway provides for curbside parking, such parking should be prohibited near intersections where left turn lane striping is provided.. Traffic carrying capacities of 30,000± vehicles per day can be achieved depending on the degree of'access allowed and peak period ' traffic loadings. - ' Modified Secondary Arterial t� ' Along DePortola Road between Santiago and Margarita Roads, a Modified Secondary Arterial J cross-section is shown on .the Circulation Element. The modified secondary arterial features four undivided lanes.' This roadway classification is intended to help preserve the,rural character of the area, while accommodating local circulation needs. Limited Secondary Arterial 1 ' A Limited Secondary Arterial features two lanes with a median within a similar right-of-way to ' the four-lane Secondary Arterial. The reduced cross-section anticipates one lane in each direction, with the potential to add a left turn pocket, and separated trail. This designation is used on Secondary Arterial ' roadways that feature a more rural appearance and have lower traffic volumes.Traffic carrying capacity is around 20,000± vehicles per day. 1 City of Temecula Gen=]Plan Update 3-4 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Tnlrc Study 171027rpt.doc e 1 Collector , - Collectors are two lane roadways with painted medians for two-way left turn movements. The ' right-of-way width for collectors varies from 66 feet to 78 feet, depending on location.. The 78-foot cross ' sections are typically applied to collectors located within industrial areas, whereas a smaller dimension may be appropriate for residential areas. Collectors provide for curbside parking, but parking should be restricted near intersection approaches where a separate right-turn lane is provided. Traffic carrying , capacities of 16,000± vehicles per day can be achieved depending on the degree of access control and peak period traffic loadings. ' - Rural Highway ' The rural highway classification is applied to roads within Rural Preservation Areas (RPAs) ' identified in the Land Use Element. Surrounding areas are primarily designated as vineyards/agriculture, hillside,rural, very low, or low density residential in the General Plan. , Rural highways feature two or four lanes within a right-of-way of 88 to 110 feet. For safety. ' reasons, left turn lanes should be provided at major access points (such as intersections) and the curb-to- curb width allows this to occur without the need for additional pavement width. Bike lanes can be located ' along only one side of the roadway to form a continuous system along each street, when needed. The carrying capacity of rural highways is approximately 10,000 20,000 vehicles per day, this relatively high capacity being achieved because of few signalized intersections and minimum side friction. , Most rural highways will initially be constructed to two lanes, and the intent of the rural highway ' classification is to preserve sufficient right-of-way for construction of additional lanes, either as future secondary,major or principal arterials,or as four lane highways having a rural character. ' Local Street ' Local streets are two-lane roadways without medians. Centerline striping is typically not ' provided, and curbside parking is allowed. While the traffic carrying capacity is similar to a collector roadway, the qualitative limit of acceptable traffic volumes in a residential environment is substantially ' lower(less than 5,000 vehicles per day). Local streets are not shown on the Circulation Plan. City of Ternecula General Plan Update 3-5 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rpt.dee ' v 1 ROADWAY DIMENSIONS �- The roadway sections shown earlier represent the desirable standards, but variations in right-of- way width and specific roadway improvements will occur in certain cases due to physical constraints and/or right-of-way limitations. In some situations, additional right-of-way may be required for bikeways and trails. The roadway classifications may deviate from the standards where physical constraints exist, where preservation of community character dictates special treatment, or on approaches to Principal Intersections (discussed below). Bikeways and sidewalks also affect the specific standards applied to ' various roadways. However, the overriding circulation goal is, that all roadways carry the designed • volumes of traffic at desired performance levels. In addition, the median width of major and secondary '• roadways will vary according to the area being -served,, right-of-way constraints and turn lane requirements. r- Intersection Dimensions The standard cross-sections presented here show midblock dimensions. Right-of-way needs of intersections are typically greater than for midblock, and Table 3-2 shows the intended guidelines for the ' number of intersection lanes: In most cases the right-of-way shown on the midblock cross-section will be adequate to accommodate the through and left turn lanes shown here. Right turn lanes will typically require some additional right-of-way on one side (the entering side of the intersection). The additional right-of-way ' should be a minimum of six feet and ideally 10 feet and should extend for at least 250 feet back from the intersection curb face. ' PRINCIPAL INTERSECTIONS ' The General Plan Circulation Element refers to a set of Principal Intersections. These generally determine the overall performance of the City's roadway system, and are thereby considered to have strategic importance within the overall Highway Plan. The intent is that these intersections be regularly • monitored and that priority be given to them in implementing roadway improvements. A set of Principal Intersections are identified here, but changes to this initial set may occur over time, and such changes are City of Temecula General Plan Update 3-6 -Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study - .171027rpt.doc i • Table 3.2 ' INTERSECTION LANE GUIDELINES - —NUMBER OF ENTERING LANES--•-------- ' ROADWAY THROUGH LEFTTURN RIGHTTURN CLASSIFICATION LANES LANES LANES COMMENTS Urban Arterial 4 20o 1 Pl ' Principal Anerial 3 2 t't 1 m At specific locations,two right turn lanes or a - free right turn may be needed. Major Arterial 2 2 of 1 nr • At specific locations,two right turn lanes or a , free right turn may be needed. Secondary Arterial 2 2 ttt 1 nt ' Limited Secondary I (2) 1 1 Two through lanes if changing to a higher Arterial classification at the inters.ectinn. Collector I I 0(1) Right turn lane.should be provided for turns onto , an Urban,Principal,or Major Arterial. Rural Highway 112 1 1 Notes: Irt Only one left turn lane if left turn is into a Limited Secondary,Collector,or two lane Rural Highway ' • tvt If roadway is changing to a lower classification on the far side of the intersection(e.g.,Urban to a Principal or Principal to a Major)then a right turn lane drop(trap lane)can act as a separate right turn lane,and an additional right rum lane would not be needed.. t 1 City of Temecula General Plan Update 3-7 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rpt.doc , 1' intended to be undertaken as an administrative function rather than as a General Plan Amendment. The locations of the initial set of Principal Intersections are shown in the next chapter. 1 PROPOSED HIGHWAY PLAN Figure 3-2 shows the proposed arterial highway component of the Circulation Element (the Highway Plan). Illustrated here by color and by line width is the complete arterial classification system for the Temecula Planning Area. New roadways featured on this plan can be seen from Figure 3-3, and a listing of all new roadways and roadway widenings required to implement this plan can be found in the next chapter. Some key features of the proposed Highway Plan are as follows: 1� Urban.Arterials: Three roadway sections are classified as eight-lane,urban arterials, these being '• Winchester Road from Hunter Road to Jefferson Road,,Rancho California Road north and south of the I- 15 Freeway, and SR-79 South from Pechanga Parkway to the I-15 Freeway.. These classifications are in response to the high forecast volumes on these roadways as they approach the freeway. :s . . t� River/Freeway Crossings. The plan features two new Murrieta Creek crossings,Overland Drive ' and Rancho Way. The latter will also extend over Jefferson Avenue and the freeway to intersect with Ynez Road and then further extend to Margarita Road. New-Freeway Interchanges.; Two new I-15 interchanges are included in the proposed Highway ' Plan. At the northern end of the City, the French Valley Parkway-interchange has already undergone preliminary studies with.Caltrans. It will form the freeway connection for a new north-south roadway cxtending,from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Diaz Road. At the south end of the City, a new interchange is proposed near where the southerly boundary of the City crosses I-15. It will have a new roadway from that interchange to Rainbow Canyon Road and a further eastward extension from Rainbow Canyon Road to Pechanga Parkway, connecting as the south leg of the Anza Road intersection. _1 Eastern Bypass. It is proposed that Anza Road be'classified as a Rural Highway and provide a ' continuous eastern bypass from Auld Road in the northern part of the Planning Area to the new I-15 • - southerly interchange. Western Bypass Corridor. This roadway will connect from the new French Valley Parkway southerly termination point at Diaz Road to Old Town Front Road around the southwestern periphery of City of Temecula General Plan Update 3-8 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rpt.doc H y� i1paP5y, p0•• ' 1 F(1110Y \ N .y 1 WTT q 90 % o YIP�t! '® PD P.Wpb !yr � i � f \ C a . �... G' 3 a� Legend Figure 3-2 Utbm"crial(8-t.Pe dmd Rmd H.&ny(zl.an UedMdcd) PnncgwArid( 1m O �rchup impw M`t mmed�)scm dary Acril(414 ' PROPOSED HIGHWAY PLAN . -- Li. jwd ed ndwy Ary Anatol(4tePa mom) .-.-_ limited Seeomlary Arterial Imadivided) �...- Callum bl•^•• City of Temecula General Plan Update 3.9 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. , Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rptfig3-2.dwg N . n.wPson Po y ' easy Po Po 2 . " snq• o F Pw P � Tg YP P ' R S 8 N �~ f 4 1 'Legend Figure 3-3 City Limits Future Roadway EXISTING AND FUTURE ROADWAY SYSTEM Q Future Interchange ' City of Temecula General Plan Update 3-10 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc • Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rptfig3-3.dwg the City. A short portion is currently built (Via Industria) and the remainder will be built as a new four ' lane roadway. ' . . 1 ' 1 • 1 1 . . 1 1 1 , - 1 City of Temecula General Plan Update 3-11 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. -- CiMU12tion Element Traffic Study 171027rpt.doc , Chapter 4.0 �= TRAFFIC ANALYSIS This chapter presents long-range traffic data for the proposed highway plan. Future levels of ' service findings are discussed and the improvements needed to implement the plan are summarized. Special issues with respect to the plan are also discussed. ' LONG-RANGE TRAFFIC VOLUMES Future daily and peak hour traffic volumes on the analysis area circulation system were estimated for the General Plan land uses using traffic forecasts produced by the Temecula Traffic Model (TTM). They were derived for the roadway system described in the previous chapter, with intersection lanes for the Principal Intersections being specified so as to provide adequate capacity for the forecast demand. 1 Long-range ADT,volumes for this highway plan are shown in Figure 4-1. They are labeled here as 2025 and represent buildout land uses for the planning area and 2025 land use.proJections in the surrounding area. A comparison with the 2003 volumes presented in Chapter2.0 shows the effect of the ' increase in traffic associated with buildout of the General Plan Land Use Element (see discussion at end ' of Chapter 2.0). For example, total east-west volumes justeast of the freeway compare as follows: FAST-WEST ADT VOLUMES(000's) LOCATION EXISTING FUTURE French Valley — 41 Winchester 62 78 Overland 16 27 Rancho -- 22 + Rancho California 58 66 Santiago 5 7 ,• SR-79 47 59 New Road(Anna) 57 • TOTAL 188 357 _ Percent Increase 90% ' As can be seen here, the new roadways and freeway connections have a key role in providing the necessary increase .in capacity, since the existing facilities, particularly Winchester Road and Rancho California Road are nearing their ultimate capacity. 1 City of Temecula General Plan Update 4-1 Austin-Foust Associates,in—C. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rpt.doc 1- 1 sz 1 b Buren RD „ 1 p,N10R W 10 , D, ^ , y^ ,Rw°soR RD A A ID U BERTW RD a ' IJ 13 Ix xU0 q0 Qa r` l p O q h 19 11 BOBL1 RD °ORLL RD J b e ^rU_R 1 z 15 1. 15 a 1 b s \ ie IL gar' \s ♦ tr 9 B � J v' _ '� a \ 54wx 7 PD b Jr @ P J ' ' L} ) 4 r h ♦ _ a � \ti d lh-19 41 s � e h 1 s ry G � 11029N4 Legend Figure 4-1 l�ea� AM Volume(ODDS) 1 New Rose..,., 2025 ADT VOLUMES(000s) ____—— Qty 111niu -PROPOSED HIGHWAY PLAN City of Temecula General Plan Update 4-2 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc 1 Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rptfigurc4-l.dwg -- 1 1' ' With growth north and east of the City, the role of Butterfield Stage and Anza Road,as north- south bypass routes can be clearly seen from these future ADT volumes. Butterfield Stage has volumes that are within the capacity of the proposed Major Arterial classification, and likewise, Anza Road has adequate capacity as a Rural Highway. 1 ' The corresponding 2025 AM and PM peak hour ICU values for the Principal Intersection are summarized in Table 4-1 (Figure 4-2 shows the locations of these intersections). All intersections operate at the desired level of service standard ("D" or better) with the proposed improvements with four ' exceptions. The following intersections will remain deficient even with the proposed improvements. '. 5. Ynez&Winchester 10. Ynez& Solana 12. Old Town Front Street&Rancho California 15. Ynez&Rancho California Under the proposed land use and circulation plan, those intersections will require improvements beyond those identified here. They should be monitored over time and future traffic studies carried out to ' analyze the type of improvements needed. Table 4-2 shows the corresponding peak houninformation for the freeway interchange ramps, and shows a number of locations with deficiencies. These will also need to be monitored over time and improvements made in conjunction with the corresponding intersection improvements (see discussion later in this chapter). 1 FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS 1 • Roadway improvements in the form of new roadways, roadway widening, and intersection ' enhancements will be needed to build out the proposed Highway Plan. Table 4-3 summarizes the new roadways plus the arterial widenings, and Table 44 identifies potential intersection improvements for the '. principal intersections. These improvements are intended only as a guide at, this time, and actual improvements, particularly those at intersections, will be established at the time that engineering design _ work is carried out. 1 City of Temecula General Plan Update 4-3 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rpCdoc 1 1 = = Table 4.1 ' 2025 ICU SUMMARY-PROPOSED HIGHWAY PLAN AM PEAK PM PEAK ' - HOUR HOUR Intersection* ICU LOS ICU f.OS I.Diaz&Winchester .76 C .77 C 2.Jefferson&Winchester .83 D .90 D ' • 3.1-15 SB&Winchester .69 B .83 D 4.1-15 NB&Winchester .51 A .78 C 5.Ynez&Winchester .69 B .97•• E 6.Margarita&Winchester .73 C .90 D ' - 7:Nicolas&Winchester .83 D .84 D S.Jefferson&Overland - .63 B .90 D - 9.Ynez&Overland .61 ' B .86 D 10.Ynez&Solana .53 A .92#0 E 11.Diaz&Rancho California .38 A .47 A ' 12.Old Town Front St&Rancho California .73 C .91•• E 13.1-15 SB&Rancho Califomia• .77 C .79 C r 14.1-15 NO&Rancho California .59 A .74 C 15.Ynez&Rancho California .75 C .95'• E ' 16.Margarita&Rancho California .61 B .76 C 17.Meadows Pkwy&Rancho California .69 B .60 A IS.Butterfield Stage&Rancho California .69 B .70 B 19.Ynez&Rancho Vista .62 B .83 D 20.Ynez&Pauba .55 A .75 C ' 21.Ynez&Santiago Rd .0 B .58 A 22.Old Town From&Western Bypass .90 C .83 D 23.1-15 NB&SR-79(S) .66 B .82 D 24.Pala&SR-79(S)" .75 C .77 C ' 25.Redhawk/Margarim&SR-79(S) .72 C .76 C 26.Butterfield Stage Rd&SR-79 .78 C .80 C - 27.Jefferson&French Valley .72 C .86 D ' 28.1.15 SB&Fteneh Valley - .73 C .69 B ' - 29.1-15 NO&French Valley .54 A .45 A 30.Yncz&French Valley .74 C .72 C 31.Winchester&Murrietta Hot Springs .65 B .88 D 32.Butterfield.&Hot Springs .55 A .56 A 33.1-15 SB&Ann .89 D .72 C ' 34.1-15 NO&Ann .69 B .76 C • • See intersection location map in.Figum 4-2 ' •• Exceeds performance criteria Level of service ranges: .00-.60 A .61 -.70 B ' .7l -.80 C .81 -.90 D .91-1.00 E ' Above 1.00 F • 1 ' City of Temecula General Plan Update 44 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. - Circulation Elemcnt Traffic Study 171027rpt.doc ' . r 1' 1' MDIIVSpI Rp 1' HNIDv n . 6 y E 30 6 ` 29 r 23 9 F I 8 10 ��D.• 17 Y Nwr+D 16 1 2 4 5 - 1 ' 21 sW 26 s P» 25 � 23 ,a. H' s 24 x f FQ 3 ®„'N �vr• 33 34 v c 1 4 1 1 _ Legend Figure 4-2 ' City Limits INTERSECCION LOCATION MAP -PRINCIPAL INTERSECTIONS ' City of Temecula General Plan Update 4-5 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rptfig4-2.dwg 1- . • 1 • Table 4-2 ' PEAK HOUR RAMP VOLUMES-2025 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR ' LOCATION CAPACITY VOLUME V/C VOLUME V/C NB ON French Valley Direct 1500 150 - .10 1,010 .32 , French Valley Loop 1500 210 .14 1,400 .75 Winchester Direct 1500 1,010 .67 1,660 1.03• Winchester Loop 1500 660 .44 1,700 1.07• ' Rancho California Direct 1500 1,210 .81 1,870 .99 Rancho California Loop 1500 520 .35 1,160 .55 . . SR-79 1500 1,770 1.180 1,850 .95 Ann 1500 290 .19 1,050 .37 ' Subtotal 12,000 5,820 .49. 11,700 .76 SD ON French Valley Direct 1500 10 .01 180 .35 ' • French Valley Loop 1500 720 .48 _ 580 - .39 Winchester Direct 1500 180 .12. 220 .07 Winchester loop 1500 870 .58 530 - .35 Rancho California 1500 820 .55 700 .47 , Front 1500 1,040 .69 1,350 .59 Ann 1500 1,760 1.17• 1,450 .73 • Subtotal 10,500 5,400 .51 5,010 .42 TOTAL ON 22,500 11,220 .50 16,710 .60 , NB OFF French Valley 1500 660 .44 270 .22 , Winchester 1500 660 .44 1,150 1.15- RanchoCalifornia 1500 890 .59 1,220 .79 SR-79(S) 1500 430• .29 1.090 .75 Area 1500 860 .57 1.410 .89 ' Subtotal 7,500 3,500 .47 5,140 .76 SB OFF French Valley 1500 2.230 1.49• 1,160 .55 , Winchester 1500 2,780 1.85• 2,570 1.53• Rancho California 1500 2,650 1.77• 2,610 1.62• Front 1500 480 .32 1540 .98 Area 1500 1,000 .67 730 .37 ' • Subtotal 7500 9,140 1.22• 8,610 1.01• TOTAL OFF 15,000 12,640 .84 13,750 .88 •Exceeds capacity ' City of Temecula General Plan Update 4-6 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027tpt.doc ' Table 4.3 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS SEGMENT IMPROVEMENT CLASSIFICATION I.Arterials(City of Temecula) New Roadways or Extensions(City) Ana Road Via Pascal to Rainbow Canyon New 4-lane arterial Major _ Ann Road Rainbow Canyon to 1-15 New 6-lane arterial Principal . Ann Road extension SR-79 to Santa Rita Road Northward extrnsion as 2-lane roadway, Rural Butterfield Stage Road Chemin Clinct to Auld Road New 4-lane arterial Major Butterfield Stage Road Nighthawk to Ann Road Southward extension as 4-lane roadway Secondary Calle Chapos Walcon to Butterfield Stage - Eastward extension as 2-lane roadway Collector De Poriola Extension Butterfield Stage Road to Via Sabino Eastward extension as 4-1ane roadway Major El Chimiml Crestview to Via Pascal _ Southward extension as 2-lane roadway Collector French Valley Parkway Diaz Road to Via Industria New 4-lane arterial Secondary French Valley Parkway Jefferson to Murrieta Hot Springs New 6-lane arterial Principal Loma Linda extension Via Rio Temecula to Loma Linda Southward extension a54-lane roadway Secondary Morgan Hill Drive El Chimisal to An Road - New 4-lane arterial Secondary - Murrieta Hot Springs Road Calistoga Drive to Butterfield Stage Road New 4-lane arterial Major Overland extension Commerce Center to Diaz Street. Westward extension as 4-lane roadway Secondary Rancho Extension Margarita Road to Diaz Street Westward extension as 4-lane roadway Secondary Santiago Road John Warner Road to Avd de San Pmqual Eastward extension as 4-lanc roadway Modified Secondary Southern Bypass Avd Alvarado to Old Town Front Street New 4-lane arterial Major Unnamed Street#I (bisects Wolf Valley Road) North of Wolf Valley to South of Wolf Valley New 2-lane arterial Collector Ynez Road North of Winchester to French,Valley Parkway Northward extension as 4-lane roadway Major Parallel Winchester Road#1 Auld Road to Hunter Road New 4-lane arterial Secondary Parallel Road#2 Auld Road to Benton Road New 2-lane arterial Collector (Continued) City of Temecula Generel Pin Update 4-7 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rpt.doc j• Table 4-3(cunt) - ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS SEGMENT IMPROVEMENT CLASSIFICATION 1.Arterials(City of Temecula)(cont) Roadway Widenings(City) - Butterfield Stage Road Rancho Califomia to Rancho Vista Widen to 4-lanes Major Diaz Road - Dendy Parkway to Zevo Drive Widen to 4-lanes Major Diaz Road Winchester(SR-79)to Rancho California Widen to 4-lanes Major La Paz Roadway S.SR-79.to Ynez Road Widen to 4-lanes Secondary La Serena Way Margarita Road to Walcott Lane Widen to 4-Iona _ Secondary Margarita Road Pauba to Jedediah Smith Widen to 4-lanes Major - Margarita Road Solana Way to Avd Cima del Sol Widen to 642nes - Principal Margarita Road Pio Pico Road to S.SR-79 Widen to 4-lanes - Major Meadows Parkway La Serena to Rancho California Widen to 44anes Major . Momga Road Margarita Road to Rancho California Widen to 4-lanes Secondary Overland Drive Jefferson Avenue to Cormnerce Center Widen to 4-lanes Secondary Overland Trail Margarita Road/Redhasvk to Veil Ranch Parkway- Widen to 4-lanes Secondary Pechanga Parkway - Via Gilberto to South City Umits Widen to 4-lanes Major Pahanga Parkway - S.SR-79 to Via Gilberto Widen to 6-lanes Principal Pauba Road Ynez to V is Deanda Widen to 4-lanes Secondary Pauba Road Butterfield Stage to East City Umits Widen to 4-lanes Limited Secondary Peppercorn(hive Redhawk Parkway to Dar Hollow Widen to 4-lanes Secondary Rainbow Canyon Pechanga Parkway to South City Limits Widen to 4-lanes Secondary Rancho California Business Park to Old Front Street Widen to 6-lanes Major Rancho California East of Meadows Parkway to Butterfield Stage .Widen to 442nes Major Rancho California East of Ynez to Margarita Widen to 6-lanes. Principal - Rancho California Old Front Street to Ynez Road Widen to B-lanes Urban Rancho Vista Road Meadows Parkwaylo Butterfield Stage Road Widen to 4-lanes Secondary S.SR-79 1-15 to Pechanga Parkway Widen to 8-lanes Urban (Continued) City of Temecula General Plan Update 4.8 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Tragic Study - 171027rpt.doc _ Table 4.3(cont) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS SEGMENT IMPROVEMENT CLASSIFICATION 1.Arterials(City of Temecula)(mnl) - - Roadway Widenings(City)(rant) Santiago Road Old Town Front Street to Ormsby Road Widen to 4-lanes Secondary Winchester(SR-79) Jefferson to Hunter Road Widen to 8-lanes Urban Winchester(SR-79) Cxlle Patron to Diaz Road Widen to 44anes Secondary Ynezme Portola Rancho Vista.to Pauba Road Widen to 4-lanes Major Ynez/De Portola - Rancho Vista to Rancho Cali fomia Widen to 6-lanes Principal _ - YnezfDe Portola Pauba Road to Santiago Road Widen to 4-lanes Secondary Ynez/De Portola Santiago Road w Margarita Road Widen io 4-lanes Modified Secondary Ynez/De Portola Margarita Road in Meadows Pkwy Widen to 4-lanes - Major IL Arterials(SOI) - New Roadways or Extensions(SOI) Anna Road Vino Way to Buck Road Northward 2-lane connection Rural Borel Road Sky Canyon Drive to Pourroy Road New 4-lane arterial Secondary Jean Nicholas Road Winchester(SR-79)to Pourroy Road New 4-lane arterial Secondary Leon Road Thompson Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road New 4-1ane arterial Major Poumay Road Auld Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road New 4-lane arterial Major Pounoy Road Auld Road to Winchester(SR-79) - New 4-lane arterial Secondary Thompson Road Leon to Washington Street New 4-lane arterial- Secondary Unnamed Street#4 Abelia Road m:Thompson Road New 4-lane arterial Secondary Abelia Road Winchester(SR-79)to Washington Street New 4-lane arterial Secondary . (Continued) . City of Temecula General Plan Update 4-9 Austin-Foust Associates - Circulation Element Traffic Stud ,Inc Y 171027rpt.doc d-l�ill Table 4-3(cunt) ROADWAY IMPROVEMEMS SEGMENT BHPROVEMEN CLASSIFICATION H.Arterials(SOI)(cont) Roadway Widenings(SO[) Auld Road Winchester(SR-79)to Pourioy Road Widm to 4-lanes Secondary Auld Road Pourroy,Road to Washington Street Widen to 4-lanes Major Benton Road Leon Road to Washington Shut Widen to 4-lanes Major Benton Road Winchester(SR-79)to Leon Road Widen to 6-lanes Principal Borel Road Winchester(SR-79)to Sky Carryon Road Widen to 4-lanes Major - Murrieta Hot Springs Road Winchester(SR-79)to Calistoga Drive Widen to 4-lanes Major III.Intersections French Valley interchange Construct new interchange Ann Road interchange _Construct new interchange Intcrscction improvements(refer to Table 3-5) City of Ternecula General Plan Update 4-10 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Elentenl Traffic Study 171027tpt.doc Table 4.4 LANE CONFIGURATIONS FOR PRINCIPAL INTERSECTIONS - EXISTING AND 2025 -SOLTM LEG-- -NORTH LEG- -WEST LEG- -FAST LEG- LACATION YEAR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT F9R WBL W13T WBR 1. Diaz&Winchester 2003 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 2625 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 2. Jefferson&Winchester 2003 - 1 2 1 1 .2 1 1 3 0 2 2 1 2025 1 [31 1 [2] 2 1 121 3 0 2 2 1 3. 1.15 SB&Winchester 2003 0 0 0 1.5 0 1.5- 0 3 0 0 3 1 2025 0 0 0 [2.5] 0 1.5 0 3 [1] 0 3 1 4. I-15 NB&Winchester 2003 - 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 1 3 f 0 2.5 1.5 2025 1.5 0 [2.5] 0 0 0 101 3 f 0 [3) IQ 5. Ynez&Winchester 2003 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2.5 1.5 2 3 0 - 2025 [3] 2, 1 [2] [3] 1 1 [3.5] 1.5 2 3 [1] 6. Margarita&Winchester 2003 2 2 1 2 2 d 1 3 1 2 3 0 2025 2 2 [21 2 2 [I] 1 [41 1 2 [41 0 7. Nicolas&Winchester 2003 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 3 0 2025 [2] 1 1 1 1 - 0 [2] [4] [q 1 [4] 0 8. Jefferson&Overland 2003 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 1 0 _ 2 1 1 2025 ., 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 121 0 2 [21 1 9. Ynez&Overland 2063- 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 0 - 2025 2 3 - 1 2 3. - 1 2 2 1 2 [I.5] [1.5] 10. Ynez&Solana 2003 1 2 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 1.5 .5 1 2025 1-- 131 1 2 3 0 0 [1] 0 1.5 .5 1 11. Diaz&Rancho Califomia 2003 '0 ` I 0 1.5 - 0.5 1 1 2 .0 1 2 0 2025 '[f] [21 [1].' [2]. [2) 101_ 1 2 0 [21 2 [I] . 12. Old To,ry Front St&Rancho California 2003 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 2025 1- .2 1 2 2 0 l 2_ 0 1 2 . 1 13. 1-15SB&Rancho Cabfomia 2003 0 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 0 3 0 2 3 0 2025 0 0 0 [2.5] 0 1.5 0 3 [1] 2 3 0 City of Temecula General Plan Update 4.11 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rptdoc Table 44(cant) \ LANE CONFIGURATIONS FOR PRINCIPAL INTERSECTIONS -EXISTING AND 2025 -SOUTH LEG- -NORTH LEG- -WEST LEG- -EAST LEG- LOCATION YEAR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 14. 1-15 NB&Rancho Califomia 2003 1.5- 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 2.5 1.5 0 3.5 1.5 2025 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 2.5 1.5 0 3.5 1.5 15. Ynez&Rancho Califomia 2003 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 0 2025 [2) 131 1 2 2 2 2 13] 1 [21 [41 0 16. Margarita&Rancho Califomia 2003 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 I 1 2 1 2025 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 13] 1 1 13) 1 17. Meadows Pkwy&Rancho Califomia 2003 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 2 d 2025 [2] 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 d 1 2 d 18. Butterfield Stage&Rancho Califomia 2003 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 _ 2025 [1) (2] 1 [1] 121 1 1 121 [0) - 1 (21 0 19. You&Rancho Vista - 2003 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2025 [I] [2] 101 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 20. Ynez&Pauba 2003 0 1 d 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 l 2025 0 (2] d 1 [2) 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 21. Ynez&Santiago Rd 2003 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2025 12) [2] 0 1 121 101 '[l] 1 1 [I] 1 0 22. Old Town Front&Westem Bypass 2003 0 0 0 1.5 0.5 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2025 (11 [1] [21 [1] [11 I [1] 2 0] 2 [21 0 23. 1-15 NB&SR-79(S) . 2003 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3.5 1.5 2025 (2] 0 2 0 0 0 1 [31 0 0 3.5 1.5 - 24. Pala&SR-79(S) 2003 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 3 0 2025 [31 0 ,1 0 0 0 0 3 [21 1 - 3 0 25. Redhawk/Margarita&SR-79 2003 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 d 1 3 d 2025 2 2 '1 2 2 1 1 3 ,d 1 3 d 26. Butterfield Stage&SR-79 2003 1 2 0 1 2 'd 1 2 1 1 2 1 2025 [2) 2 0 [2) 2 [1] 1 [31 1 1 [3] 1 City of Temecula Crneral Plan Update 4.12 - Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element TnRc Study 171027rpLdoc Table 4.4(cont) LANE CONFIGURATIONS FOR PRINCIPAL INTERSECTIONS -EXISTING AND 2025 - —SOUTH LEG— —NORTH LEG- -WEST LEG— —EAST LEG— LOCATION YEAR NBL N13T .NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR W13L W13T WBR NEW INTERSECTIONS 27. Jefferson&French Valley 2025 [1] [31 101 (21 [21 [01 11) [31 101 [2) [3) (01 28. 1-15 SB&French Valley 2025 [01 [0) .(01 [1] [01 [21 [01 [3) [1) (01 [31 pJ 29. 1-15 NB&French Valley 2025 _ 111 101 P] [al to] (0) - [01 [31 [Q [ol 131 In 30. Ynea&French Valley 2025 . [2) [3) 101 [21 [31 101 ' 111 [31 101 [1] 131 101 - 31. Winchester Murrletta Hot Springs 2025 [❑ [4] [0) [I) [4) 101 111 12) [01 M [2) 101 32. Butterfield Stage&Murrieta Not Springs 2025 [21 (2] 101 [11 [21 101 [2] [21 [21 [21 (21 101 33. 1.15 SB&Ann Rd - 2025 ' [01 -101 [01 [21 101 101 101 (0) [01 . [21 101 101 34. 1-15 NB&Ann Rd 2025 101 [0) [2] [0] 16] [0] 101 121 101 101 [21 19 [J Parenthesized values ate for added or changed lane configurations - d-defacto right tun - f-free right tun - City of Temecula General Plan Update 4-13 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study - 171027rpLdoc t. . . 1 SPECIAL ISSUES ' There are a number of special issues with respect to the findings and.recommendations presented ' in this report. These are discussed here to provide background information and pertinent findings in ' relation to the Circulation Element. Freeway Performance ' While the traffic analysis addresses freeway access (peak hour freeway ramp performance) it , does not address freeway performance. This is a regional issue, largely outside the control of the City. However, traffic volumes on 1-15 through the City are exceeding the capacity of the freeway during peak ' periods, and this is starting to affcct freeway interchange performance. Over time, as the situation worsens, interchange performance will be further compromised and the performance of key intersections , in proximity to those interchanges will deteriorate. There are current studies aimed at seeking long-term freeway improvements. The intent is for ' demand to be matched by capacity increases and that freeway levels of service can improve, or at best not ' worsen. This analysis has assumed that such improvements will occur over time, and that in the future, freeway levels of service will not be worse than existing. While this assumption may not cant' any , certainty with it, to assume otherwise would require formulating a highway plan that responded to severe freeway congestion and the resulting problems due to City streets being used as "freeway avoidance" routes. The more rational approach is to have a balanced plan in which local trips and regional trips each ' use their respective components of the highway system and that improvements are made to both over time. ' Freeway Interchanges ' This analysis has shown existing and future deficiencies at the freeway interchanges serving the ' City. While the two proposed new interchanges will help address this problem, some improvements will also be needed at the three existing interchanges. Such improvements include added intersection lanes, ' added ramp lanes, and freeway auxiliary lanes to enhance ramp capacity. Such needs should be addressed as part of future freeway planning to ensure that access needs are considered in any future freeway ' improvement plans. 1 City of Temecula General Plan Update 4-14 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. — Circulation Element Traffic Study I71027tpt.doc ' tMeadowview Area Street System In the Meadowview area, a number of streets originally planned to provide access into and out of the community, are currently closed. This has occurred in response to a concern regarding traffic volumes on residential streets, and in particular, cut-through traffic. ' A special analysis was carved out to examine the affect on the local circulation system if the General Kearny Road connection is built. Year 2025 volumes were forecast for a network with the General Kearny connection and the comparative ADT volumes on selected roadway links are as follows: ' 2025 ADT COMPARISON SUMMARY ' —WITH AND WITHOUT GENERAL KEARNY CONNECTION 1 `------------------ADT Volumes(000s)-------------------- Location Base Case' With Connection Difference ' Winchester.Road south of Nicolas Road 56 49 -7 Nicolas Road east of Winchester 15 12 -3 Margarita.Road south of Winchester Road 52 45 -7 Overland Road west of Margarita Road . 18' 20 +2 General Kearny east of Margarita Road 5 20 +5 General Kearny south of Nicolas Road 1 10 +9 ' 'Base Case is without General Kearny Connection(as per.Proposed Highway Plan) The connection itself would carry 10,000 ADT, a volume that could be carried by a two-lane roadway. The corresponding ICU results are.listed below_ : 2025 ICU COMPARISON SUMMARY WITH AND WITHOUT GENERAL KEARNY CONNECTION Base Case' With Connection '. Intersection AM PM AM PM 5. Ynez&Winchester .69 .97 .67 .95 6. Margarita& Winchester .73 .90 .72 .86 7. Winchester Road&Nicolas Road .83 .84 .68 .81 t 'Base Case is without General Kearny Connection(as per Proposed Highway Plan) City of Temecula General Plan Update 4-15 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rpt.doc As seen here, all three intersections show improvements with the General Kearny connection, ' although Ynez at Winchester remains deficient. , French Valley Parkway Connection to Murrieta Hot Springs Road ' The short section of Murrieta Hot Springs Road between Winchester Road and the northerly , termination point of French Parkway is shown to have a future demand of 82,000 ADT. This high volume, particularly with the weaving and turn volumes involved,- will be difficult to accommodate with a conventional at-grade roadway. Nor does some form of grade separation appear feasible. Accordingly, ' the Highway Plan includes an east-west Secondary Arterial connection between French Valley Parkway and Winchester Road just south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. This will provide an opportunity to ' - implement a special operational plan that can distribute the left turns and thereby create the necessary • capacity at this critical location. The City will need to work with the City of Murrieta to ensure that. , : . adequate right-of-way is reserved to construct this roadway and.implement such a plan. 1 .1 City of Temecula General Plan Update 4-16 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Circulation Element Traffic Sandy 171027rpt.doc , 1 . ' . Appendix A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS Peak hour intersection volume/capacity ratios are calculated by means of intersection capacity utilization(ICU) values. ICU calculations were performed for the intersections shown in Figure A-1. For simplicity, signalization is assumed at each intersection. .Precise ICU calculations of existing non- signalized intersections would require a more detailed analysis. 1 The procedure is based on the critical movement methodology, and shows the amount of capacity '• utilized by each critical move. A capacity of 1750 vehicles per hour(VPI-i) per lane is assumed together with a .10 clearance interval. A"de-facto'right-turn lane is used in the ICU calculation for cases where a curb lane is wide enough to separately serve both thru and right-turn traffic (typically with a width of 19 ' feet from curb to outside of thru-lane with parking prohibited during peak periods). Such lanes are treated the same as striped righi-turn lanes during the ICU calculations, but they are denoted on the ICU ' calculation worksheets using the letter"d"'in place of a numerical eni y for right-turn lanes. 1 The methodology also.in corporates a check for right-turn capacity utilization. Both right-tum-on- green (RTOG) and right-turn-on-red (RTOR) capacity availability are calculated and checked against the total right-turn capacity need. If insufficient capacity is available, then an adjustment is made to the total capacity utilization value. The following example shows how this adjustment is made. Example For Northbound Right 1. Right-Turn-On-Green(RTOG) If NBT is critical move, then: RTOG =V/C(NBT) Otherwise, RTOG =V/C(NBL)+ V/C(SBT) -V/C(SBL) ' City of Temecula General Plan Update A-1 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. Traffic Study 171027rptdoc 1- . . 1 N I . Ixoursa xo ' B[xrw b suet w ' E '°'"eyxp 31 al r '1 32 294 5 3 9 1 8 to � sr 17 ' 5 1 2 / 1 '21 a 26 23 w 25 , s 24 N[ • 4rI .✓ 3 34 Legend Figure A-1 City Limits INTERSECTION LACATION MAP , • -PRINCIPAL INTERSECTIONS City of Temecula General Plan Update A-2 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc ' Circulation Element Traffic Study 171027rptfigA-1.dwg -- 1 1r 1. 2. Right-Tum-On-Red (RTOR) ' If WBL is critical move, then: ' RTOR=V/C(WBL) Otherwise, RTOR=V/C(EBL) +V/C(WBT) -V/C (EBT) ' 3. Right-Turn Overlap Adjustment If the northbound right is assumed to overlap with the adjacent westbound left, adjustments to the RTOG and RTOR values are made as follows: 1 RTOG=RTOG+V/C(WBL) RTOR=RTOR-V/C,(WBL) 4. Total Right-Tum Capacity(RTC)Availability For NBR ' RTC=RTOG+ factor x RTOR- Where factor=RTOR saturation (low factor(75%) Right-tum adjustment is then as follows: Additional ICU=V/C (NBR) -RTC A zero or negative value indicates that adequate capacity is available and no adjustment is necessary. A positive value indicates that the available RTOR and RTOG capacity does not adequately , accommodate the right-turn V/C, therefore the right-turn is essentially considered to be a critical ' movement. In such cases, the right-turn adjustment is noted on the ICU worksheet and it is included in the total capacity utilization value. When it is determined that aright-turn adjustment is required for more ' than one right-turn movement, the word "multi" is printed on the worksheet instead of an actual right-turn movement reference, and the right-tum adjustments are cumulatively added to the total capacity ' utilization value. In such cases, further operational evaluation is typically carried out to determine if under actual operational conditions, the critical right-tums would operate simultaneously, and therefore a right-turn adjustment credit should be applied. Shared Lane V/C Methodology i . ' For intersection approaches where shared usage of a lane is permitted by more than one turn movement (e.g., left/thru, thru/right, left/thnl/right), the individual tum volumes, are evaluated to '. determine whether dedication of the shared lane is warranted to any one given turn movement. The following example demonstrates how this evaluation is carried out: City of Temecula General Plan Update A-3 Auslin-Foust Associates,Inc. Traffic Study 171027rpt.doc 1- Example for Shared Left(I7tru Lane ' ` I. Average Lane Volume (ALV) ALV= Left-Turn Volume+Thru Volume Total Left+Thru Approach Lanes(including shared lane) 2. ALV for Each ADDroach ' ALV (Left)= Left-Turn Volume ' Left Approach Lanes (including shared lane) ALV (Thru)= Thru Volume ' Thru Approach.Lanes(including shared lane) 3. Lane Dedication is Warranted ' If ALV (Left) is greater than ALV,then full dedication of the shared.lane to the left-turn ' approach is warranted: Left-tum and thru V/C ratios for this case are calculated as follows: V/C(Left) = Left-Turn Volume 1 Left Approach Capacity(including shared lane) V/C(Thru) = Thru Volume ' Thru Approach Capacity(excluding shared lane) Similarly, if ALV (Thru) is greater than ALV then full dedication to the thru approach is t - " warranted, and left-turn and thru V/C ratios are calculated as follows: V/C(Left) = Left-Turn Volume ' Left Approach Capacity(excluding shared lane) • V/C(Thru)= Thru Volume ' Thru Approach Capacity(including shared lane) 4. Lane Dedication is not Warranted ' If ALV (Left) and ALV (Thru) are both less than ALV, the left/thm lane is assumed to be • . truly shared and each left, left/thru or thru approach lane carries an evenly distributed volume , of traffic equal to ALV. A combined left/thru V/C ratio is calculated as follows: V/C(Leftfrhru) = Left-Turn Volume+Thru Volume , Total Left+Thru Approach Capacity(including shared lane) This V/C (Left/Thru) ratio is assigned as the V/C (Thru) ratio for the critical movement , analysis and ICU summary listing. City of Temecula General Plan Update A4 Austin-Foust Associate,Inc. Traffic Study 171027rpt.dm 1' t If split phasing has not been designated for this approach, the relative proportion of V/C (Thru) that is attributed to the left-turn volume is estimated as follows: If approach has more than one left-tum (including shared lane), then: 1 V/C(Left)=V/C(Thru) If approach has only one left-turn lane(shared lane), then: V/C(Left)= Left-Turn Volume Single Approach Lane Capacity If this left-turn movement is determined to be a critical movement, the V/C (Left) value is posted in brackets on the ICU summary printout. These same steps are carried out for shared thru/right lanes. If full dedication of a shared thru/right lane to the right-turn movement is warranted, the right-turn V/C value calculated in step three is checked against the RTOR and RTOG capacity availability if the option to include right-toms in the VIC ratio calculations is,selected. If the V/C value,that is determined using the shared lane methodology described here is reduced due to RTOR and RTOG capacity availability, the V/C value for the thru/right lanes is posted in brackets. 1• e 1 City of Temecula General Plan Update A-5 Austin-Foust Associates,Inc. TmfTtc Study 171027rpt.doc 1 . 1 Existing ICU Worksheets 1 - 1 1 1 1' 1. Diaz 6 Winchester 2. Jefferson 6 Winchester ' I Existing Count (2002) I I Existing Count (2002) I I I I ', I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC I I LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC 1 ' I NBL 1 1750 30 .02 20 .01 I I NBL 1 1750 90 .05 170 .10 1 NBT 2 3500 40 .01* 30 .01* I I NBT 2 3500 200 .06* 630 .18* 1 NBR 1 1750 210 .12 650 .37 I I NBR 1 1750 170 .10 490 .28 I I I I '' I SBL 2 3500 130 .04* 250 .07* I I SBL 1 1750 160 .09* 410 .23* SBT 2 3500 40 .01 70 .02 I I SOT 2 3500 290 .08 770 .22 1 SBR 0 0 10 10 I I SBR 1 1750 210 .12 190 .11 1 I I I I EBL 1 1750 10 .Ol 10 .Ol I I EBL 1' 1750 90 05* 650 .37* I ' I EBT 2 3500 70 .02* 290 .10* I I EBT 3 5250 390 .08 1010 .21 1 EBR 0 0 10 50 1 I EBR 0 0 40 100 I I I I WBL 2 3500 550 .16* 320 .09* I I WBL 2 3500 570 .16 610 .17 WBT 2 3500 210 .09 80 .05 I I WBT 2 3500 1010 .29* 430 .12* WBR 0 0 100 100 ..06 I I WBR 1 .1750 200 .11 410 .23 1 I I I Right Turn Adjustment NBR .27* 1 I Clearance Interval .10* .10* 1 '. I Clearance Interval .10* _ .10* 1 I Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for NBR 1 Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for NBR ) TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .59 1.00 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .33 .64 3. 1.15 SB 6 Winchester 4. I-15 NB 8 Winchester ' I Existing Count (2002) 1 I Existing Count (2002) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC I I LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC 1 NBL 0 0 0 0 I I " NBL 1.5 330 (.14)* 230 .13* 1 NBT 0 0 0 0 I 1 NBT 0 5250 0 (.14) 0 1 . NBR 0 0 0 0 I 1 NBR 1.5 460 1070 .31 ' I SBL 1.5 1060 1190 .34* I I SBL 0 0 0 0 1 SBT 0 5250 0 .42* 0 I I SBT 0 0 0 0 i ' I SBR 1.5 1160 720 (.25) I I SBR 0 0 0 0 1 EBL 0 0 0 0 1 1 EBL 1 1750 0 .00 0 .00 1 EBT 3 5250 600 .14* 1700 .36* I I EBT 3 5250 1130 .22 1740 .33* 1 EBR 0 0 120 210 I I EBR f 530 1150 WBL 0 0 0 0 I I WBL 0 0 0 0 1 1 WBT 3 5250 620 .12 730 .14 I I WBT 2.5 7000 1030 (.23)* 990 .28 1 ' 1 WBR 1 1750 740 .42 490 .28 I 1 WBR 1.5 750 1370 .39 I I I I ' ' 1 Clearance Interval .10* .10* I I Right Turn Adjustment NBR .18* 1 Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .66 .80 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .47 .74 1- ' 5. Ynez & Winchester 6. Margarita & Winchester ' Existing Count (2002) I I Existing Count (2OD2) . . I I i I . . I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I , LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I , I NBL 2 3500 300 .09* 940 .27* I I NBL 2 3500 220 .06* 260 .07* I NBT 2 3500 120 .03 150 .04 I I NET 2 3500 220 .06 600 .17 NBR, 1 1750 100 .06 280 .16 I ( NBR 1 1750 190 .11 590 .34 • I SBL 1 1750 50 .03 290 .17 I I SBL 2 3500 40 .01 100 .03 I SBT 2 3500 50 .01* 300 .09* I I SBT 2 3500 310 .09* 590 .17* SBR 1 1750 110 .06 290 .17 I I SBR d 1750 470 .27 240 .14 I ' I I I I I. EBL 1 1750 440 .25* 190 .11 I I . EBL 1 1750 110 .06* 510 .29 ( EBT 2.5 7000 680 (.15) 1670 (.32)* I I EBT 3 5250 400 .08 1510 .29* EBR 1.5 470 950 I I EBR 1 1750 130 .07 310 .18 I I I WBL 2 3500 200 .06 300 .09* I I WBL 2 3500 440 .13 810 .23* ( WBT 3 5250 . 1370 .28* 1130 .23 I I WBT 3 5250 1230 .24* 1110 .22 WBR 0 0 80 60 I I WBR 0 0 40 70 Clearance Interval .10* .10* I I Right Turn Adjustment SBR .13* ' Note: Assumes Right-Turn,Over lap for NBR I I Clearance interval .10* .10* - -- I Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for NBR EBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION. 73 .87 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .68 .86 ' ' 7. Nicolas & Winchester 8. Jefferson & Overland ; Existing Count (2002) I ( Existing Count (2002) . I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I - AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I ' LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1750 570 .33* 280 .16* I I NBL 1 1750 50 .03* 90 .05 ' NBT 1 1750 210 .12 50 .03 I I NBT 2 3500 290 .08 640 .18* NBR 1 1750 200 .11 230 .13 I I NBR 1 1750 60 .03 590 .34 • I SBL- 1, 1750 60 .03 30 .02 I I SBL 2 3500 90 .03 480 .14* I SBT 1 1750 70 .07* 30 .04* , I I SBT 2 3500 480• .18* 560 .19 SBR 0 0 50 40 I I SBR 0 0 140 100 I I I ( EBL 1 1750 400 .23* 110 .06 I I EBL 1 1750 50 .03* 180 .10 I. EBT 3 5250 940 .18 1350 .26* I I EBT 1 1750 60 .05 370 .23* EBR 1 1750 280 .16 640 .37 I I EBR 0 0 20 46 I ' • I I I WBL 1 1750 130 .07 320 .18* I I WBL 2 3500 180 .05 210 .06* WBT 3 5250 1240 .27* 870 .17 I I WBT 1 1750 230 .13* 170 .10 I ' WBR 0 0 160 30 I I WBR 1 1750 180 .10 200 .11' i I I I Clearance Interval .10* .10* I I Right Turn Adjustment HER .11* Clearance Interval .10* .10 ' I TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.00 .74 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .47 .82 - 1 9. Ynez 8 Overland' 10. Ynez 8 Solana ' I Existing Count (2002) I I Existing Count (2002) 1 I I I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C 1 NBL 2 3500 170 .05* 310 .09 I I NBL 1 1750 0 .00 10 .01 NBT 3 5250 440 .08 810 .15* I I NBT 2 3500 540 .15* 990 .28* NBR 1 1750 80 .05 500 .29 I I NBR 1 1750 ISO .09 490 .28 1 I I I ' I SBL 2 3500 40 .01 350 .10* I I SBL 2 3500 170 .05* 320 .09* SBT 3 5250 370 .07* 700 .13 I I SBT 3 5250 400 .08 1050 .20 1 SBR 1 1750 30 .02 90 .05 1 I SBR 0 0 0 0 1 1 EBL 2 3500 30 .Ol*' 420 .12* I 1 EBL 0 0 0 0 1 1 EBT 2 3500 100 .03 810 - .23 1 1 EBT 0 0 0 0 1 1 EBR 1 1750 70 .04 290 .1.7 1 1 EBR 0 0 0 0 I I I I WBL 2 3500 80 .02 330 .09 1 1 WBL 1.5' 450 400 1 1 WBT 2 3500 440 :16* 490 .23* 1 1 WBT 0.5 3500 0 .13* 0 .11* 1 WBR 0 0 120 300 1 I WBR 1 1750 220 .13 190 .11 1 1 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .03* 1 J Clearance Interval .10* .10* Clearance Interval .10* .10* 1 y 1 Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for NBR EBR 1 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .43 .58 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION ' .39 .73 1� 11. Diaz 8 Rancho California 12. Old Town Front St 8 Rancho California ' 1 Existing Count (2002) 1 1 Existing Count (2002) L 1 I I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 1 1 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 1 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C 1 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C 1 1 NBL 0 0 0 10 1 1 NBL 1 1750 170 .10* 160 .09 1 ' 1 NBT 1 1750 10 .01* 10 .05* I 1 NBT 2 3500 270 .08 420 .12* 1 1 NBR 0 0 10 60 I I NBR 1 1750 230 .13 380 .22 1 SBL. 1.5 130 (.04)* 420 (.12)* I 1 SBL 2 3500 160 .05 630 .18* 1 1 SBT 0.5 3500 10 .04 10 .12 1 1 SBT 2 3500 150 .06* 530 .17 1 1 SBR 1 1750 60 .03 150 .09 1 1 SBR 0 0 60 70 1 1 EBL 1 1750 60 03* 90 .05* 1 1 EBL 1 1750 80 .05* 160 .09 1 • 1 EBT 2 3500 400 .11 660 .19 1 1 EBT 2 3500 400 .13 B40 .26* 1 1 EBR 0 0 0 0 1 1 EBR 0 0 60 140 1 I I I I 1 WBL 1 1750 20 .01 60 .03 I 1 WBL 1 1750 270 .15 490 .28* 1 1 WBT 2 3500 820 .34* 490 .19* 1 1 WBT 2 3500 990 .28* 480 .14 1 WBR 0 0 380 160 1 1 WBR 1 1750 530 .30 520 .30 1 ' ' 1 Clearance Interval .10* .10* 1 1 Clearance Interval .10* .10* 1 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .52 .51 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .59 .96 is 13. I.15 SB &,Rancho California 14. I.15 NB & Rancho California ' Existing Count (20U) 1 I Existing Count (2002) 1 I I I 1 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 1 ' I' LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC 1 I LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC I NBL 0 0 0 0 I I NBL 1.5 370 (.14)* 360 .21* ' 1 NBT 0 0 0 0 1 1 NBT 0 5250 0 .14 10 1 1 NBR 0 0 0 0 I I NBR 1.5 370 850 .24 1 I 1 I SBL 1.5 1120 1110 .32* I I SBL 0 0 0 0 , I SBT 0 5250 0 (.34)* 10 1 I SBT 0 0 0 0 1 SBR 1.5 930 680 (.15) I I SBR 0 0 0 0 1 I ' I I 1 1 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 - • I EBT 3 5250 650 .15* 1480 .35* I I EBT 2.5 7000 1340 .26* 1600 (.33)* I EBR 0 0 140 370 1 1 EBR 1.5 430 .25 990 1 ' . . 1 I I 1 1 WBL 2 3500 710 .20* 420 .12* I I WBL 0 0 0 0 1 WBT 3 5250 860 .16 810 .15 1 1 WBT 3.5 . 8750 1200 .23 870 .17 I ' • I WBR 0 0 0 0 I 1 WBR 1.5 1010 .29 1280 .37 ) I I I I Clearance Interval .10* .10* 1 1 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .03* 1 - . 1 Clearance Interval .10* .10* I , TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .79 .89 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .50 .67 15. Ynez & Rancho California 16. Margarita & Rancho California • I Existing Count (2002) 1 1 Existing Count (2002) 1 , I I I 1 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 1 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC 1 1 LANES CAPACITY .VOL V/C VOL VIC 1 ' I I I I NBL 2 3500 880 .25* 370 .11* 1 I NBL 2 3500 300 .09* 390 .11* 1 , NBT 2 3500 .450 .13 370 . .11 I 1 NBT 2 3500 280 .08 470 .13 1 , 1 NBR 1 1750 SO. .05 140 .08 I - I NBR 1 1750 80 .05 130 .07 1 I SBL 2 3500 40 .01 240 .07 1 1 SBL 2 3500 180 .05 630 .18 1 SBT 2 3500 290 .08* 530 .15* I I SBT 2 3500 330 .12* 650 .22* 1 ' SBR 2. 3500 360 .11 720 .21 1 1 SBR 0 0 100 120 1 I I I I EBL 2 3500 530 .15* 790 .23 1 1 EBL 1 1750 70' .04* 170 .10 ' I EBT 2 3500 850 .24 1360 .39* 1 1 EBT 2 3500 390' .11 860 .25* 1 - I EBR 1 1750 330 .19 300 .17 I 1 EBR 1 1750 110 .06 380 .22 I • I WBL 1 1750 120 .OJ 270 .15* I I WBL 1 1750 60 .03 100 .06* I WBT 3 5250 950 .21* 1060 .22 1 1 WBT 2 3500 B50 .24* 620 .18 1 1 WBR 0 0 160 90 I I WBR 1 1750 170 .10 190 .11 I ' 1 I I 1 Clearance Interval .10* .10* I I Clearance Interval .10* .10* 1 • 1 Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for SBR EBR 1 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .59 .74 1 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .79 .90 -- 1 17. Meadows Pkwy 6 Rancho California 18. Butterfield Stage Rd 6 Rancho California 1 Existing Count (2002) I I Existing Count (2002) 1 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C 1 I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C 1 NBL 2 3500 150 .04* 150 .04* 1 I NBL 0 0 140 (.08)* 130 '' I NBT 2 3500 80 .03 110 .04 I I NBT 1 1750 10 .09 30 .09* 1 NBR 0 0 30 30 I I NBR 1 1750 60 .03 50 .03 1 I I I '• I SBL 1 1750 30 .02 30 .02 I 1 SBL 0 0 10 10 (.01)* 1 SBT 2 3500 150 .08* 80 .04* 1 1 SBT 1 1750 40 .03* 10 .01 1 SBR 0 0 120 70 1 1 SBR 1 1750 0 .00 0 .00 1 1 EBL 1 1150 50 .03* 70 .04 1 1 EBL 1 1750 10 .01* 10 .01 1 EST 2 3500 340 .10 610 .17* 1 1 EST 1 ' 1750 170 .10 450 .26* 1 1 EBR d 1750 130 .07 ISO .10 1 1 EBR 1 1750 200 .11 170 .10 !• I I I 1 1 WBL 1 1750 50 .03 20 .01* 1 -WBL 1 1750 120 .07 50 .03* 1 1 WBT 2 3500 630 .18* 480 .14 1 1 WBT 1 1750 360 .21* 320 .19 1 WBR d 1750 40 .02 30 .02 1 1 WBR 0 0 0 10 1 I I I 1 ' = 1 Clearance Interval .10* .10* 1 1 Clearance Interval .10* .10* ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .43 .36 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .43 .49 ' 19. Ynez 8 Rancho Vista 20. Ynei 8 Pauba li• 1 Existing Count (2002) 1 1 Existing Count (2002) 1 �% 1 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 1 ( AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR • 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' 1 ' 1 NBL 0 0 0 0 1 1 NBL 0 0 0 0 1 1 NBT 1 1750 760 .43* 640 .37* 1 1 NBT 1 1750 390 .22* 490 .28* 1 1 NBR 1 1750 120 .07 120 .07 1 1 NBR d 1750 110 .06 140 .08 1 1 SBL 1 1750 230 .13* 470 .27* 1 1 SBL 1 1750 280 .16* 400 .23* 1 1 SBT 2 3500 530 .15 970 .28 1 1 SBT 1 1750 310 .18 590 .34 1 SBR 0 0 0 0 1 1 SBR 0 0 0 0 1 I I I 1 • 1 EBL 0 0 0 0 1 1 EBL 0 0 0 0 1 1 EST 0 0 0 0 1 1 EST 0 0 0 0 1 ' 1 EBR 0 0 0 0 1 1 EBR 0 0 0 0 1 1 WBL 1 1750 140 .08* 140 .08* 1 1 WBL 1 1750 260 .15* 60 .03* 1 ' 1 WBT 0 0 0 0 1 1 WBT 0 0 0 0 1 1 WBR 1 1750 490 .28 440 .25 1 1 WBR 1 1750 570 .33 300 .17 1 . . 1 1 1 1 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .10* 1 1 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .06* 1 1. Clearance Interval .10* .10* 1 1 Clearance Interval .10* .10* 1 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .84 .82 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 .64 is 21. Ynez & Santiago Rd 22. 1-15 SO & Old Town Front St rI Existing Count (2002) I I Existing Count (2002) I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I. AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1750 240 .14* 80 .05* I I NBL 0 0 0 0 NOT 1 1750 200 .11 330 .19 I I NOT 0 0 0 0 • I NOR 0 0 0 10 I I NOR 0 0 0 0 I I I I II• I SBL 1 1750 10 .01 10 .01 I I SBL 1.5 770 1200 SOT 1 1750 210 .12* 470 .27* I I SOT 0.5 3500 0 .22* 30 .35* SBR 1 1750 360 .21 170 .10 I I SBR 1 1750 230 .13 120 .07 I I I ► i I EBL 0 0 210 {12}* 370 I I EBL 0 0 0 0 • I EBT 1 17SO 10 .13 20 .22* I I EBT 1.5 3500 190 .11* 520 .20* EBR 1 1750 100 .06 240 .14 I' I EBR 0.5 240 .14 170 I I I I I I WBL 0 0 0 0 I I WBL 2 3500. 800 .23*. 270 .08* WBT 1 1750 10 .02* 10 .01 I I WBT 1 1750 360 .21 450 .26 I WBR 0 0 20 10 I I WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .10* .10* I I Right Turn Adjustment EBR .03* Clearance-Interval- .10* .10* I ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION . .50 .64 • TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 :73 23. 1-15 NO & SR-79 (S) 24. Pala & SR•79 (S) ' Existing Count (2002) I I Existing Count (2002) I I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I I NBL, 1 1750 60 .05* 150 .09* I I NBL 2 3500 660 .19* 840 .24* NOT 0 0 0 0 I I .NOT 0 0 0 0 I ' NOR 2 3500 240 .07 660 .19 I I NOR 1 1750 110 .06 400 .23 SBL 0 0 0 0 I I SBL 0 0 0 0 - I SOT 0 0 0 0 I I SOT 0 - 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 I I SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1 1750 70 .04 150 .09 I I EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 2 3500 890 :25* 1570 .45* I I EBT 3 5250 740 .14 1250 .24* EBR 0 0 0 0 I I EBR 1 1750 480 .27 790 .45 ' I WBL 0" 0 0 0 I I WBL 1 1750 140 .08 100 .06* I WBT 3.5 8750. 1060 .21 570 .11 I I WBT 3 5250 1450 .28* 710 .14 WBR 1.5 1530 .44 1160 .33 I I WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment Multi .21* NOR .10* I I Right Turn Adjustment EBR 03* Clearance Interval .10* .10* I I Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .61 .74 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .57 .67 1 25. Redhawk/Margarita 6 SR-79 (S) 26. Butterfield Stage Rd 8 SR-79 (S) ' I Existing Count (2002) I I Existing Count (2002) �• I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3500 510 .15* 220 .06* I I NBL 1 1750 100 .06* 90 .05* ' ' I NBT 2 3500, 370 .11 420 .12 I I NBT 2 3500 50 .02 90 .03 NBR 1 1750 120 .07 120 .07 I I NBR 0 0 20 30 I I I I '• I SBL 2 3500 70 .02 80 .02 I I SBL 1 1750 10 .01 60 .03 SBT 2 3500 420 .12* 580 .17* I I SBT 2 3500 50 .01* 90 .03* SBR 1 1750 130 .07 100 .06 I I SBR d 1750 130 .07 90 .05 I EBL 1 1750 270 .15* 350 .20 I I EBL 1 1150 80 .OS* 180 .10* I - . I EBT 3 5250 520 .10 820 .16* I I EBT 2 3500 190 .05 450 .13 EBR d 1750 120 .07 430 .25 I I EBR 1 1750 50 .03 100 .06 WBL 1 1750 310 .18 270 .15*' 'I I WBL 1 1750 10 .01 20 .01 WBT 3 5250 780 .15* 390 .07 J I .WBT 2 3500 380 .11* 300 .09* '• I WBR d 1750 60 .03 50 .03 I I WBR, 1 1750 20 .01 40 .02 I I I I ' I Right Turn Adjustment EBR .04* 'I I Right Turn Adjustment SBR. .02* I mow. Clearance Interval . .10* .10* I I Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .67 .68 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .35 .37 1 1 1 , 1 1 1. Diaz & Winchester 2. Jefferson & Winchester 1 I 2025 Proposed Circ. I I 2025 Proposed Circ. AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR r_ I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I I I NBL 1 1750 260 .15* 130 .07 I I NBL 1 1750 110 .06* 140 .08 '• I NBT 2 3500 70 .02 490 .14* I I NBT 3 5250 230 .04 1420 .27* NBR 1 1750 320 .18 860 .49 I I NBR 1 1750 230 .13 900 .51 . . I I I I SBL 2 3500 50 .01 10 .00 I I SBL 2 3500 380 .11 220 .06* SBT 2 3500 740 .28* 150 .05 I I SBT 2 3500 1190 .34* 890 .25 • I SBR 0 0 250 30 I I SBR 1 1750 440 .25 220 .13 I I I I '' I EBL 1 1750 10 .01 90 .05 I I EBL 2 3500 60 .02* 870 .25 EBT 2 3500 100 .04* 320 .18* I I EBT 3 5250 480 .10 1120 .23* EBR 0 0 30 320 I I EBR 0 0 30 100 I WBL 2 3500 670 .19* 440 .13* I I WBL 2 3500 600 .17 640 .18* I WBT 2 3500 140 .04 50 .02 I I WBT 2 3500 1070 .31* 500 .14 ,• I WBR 0 0 10 10 I I WBR 1 1750 60 .03 370 .21 I I I I . . I Right Turn Adjustment NBR .22* I I Right Turn Adjustment - NBR .06* Clearance Interval .10* .10* I Clearance Interval .10* .10* Nate: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for NBR I I Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for NBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .76 .77 •TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .83 .90 3. I-15 SB & Winchester 4.. I.15,NB & Winchester ' I 2025 Proposed Circ. I I 2025 Proposed Circ. AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I I I NBL 0 0 0 0 I I NBL 1.5 290 (.09)* 220 .13* NBT 0 0 0 0 I I NBT 0 7000 0 .09 0 NBR 0 , 0 0 0 I I NBR 2.5 370 1430 .27 SBL 2.5 1430 1840 .35* I I SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 7000 0 (.38)* 0 I I SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 1.5 1350 730 (.24) I I SBR 0 0 0 0 I I I I EBL 0 0 0 0 I I EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 3 5250 920 .18* 2010 .38* * I I EBT 3 5250 1690 .32+ 2150 .41I EBR 1 1750 180 .10 220 .13 I I EBR f 660 1700 I WBL 0 0 0 0 I I WBL 0 0 0 p I WBT 3 5250 360 .07 810 .15 I I WBT 3 5250 920 .18 1120 .21 WBR 1 1750 870 .50 530 .30 I I WBR f 1010 1660 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .03* I I Right Turn Adjustment NBR .14* Clearance Interval .10* .10* I I Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 .83 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .51 .78 1 5. Ynez 6 Winchester 6. Margarita & Winchester { 2025 Proposed Circ, I 1 2025 Proposed Circ. 1 1 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 1 I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 1 ' ` 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC 1 I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL VIC 1 I NBL 3 5250 370 .07* 1350 .26* 1 I NBL 2 3500 210 .06* 360 .10* 1 , NBT 2 3500 200 .06 B70 .25 1 I NBT 2 3500 200 .06 760 .22 I NBR 1 1750 70 .04 250 .14 1 1 NBR 2 3500 530 .15 1840 .53 1 . . 1 I I I 1 SBL 2 3500 180 .05 260 .07 1 1 SBL 2 3500 40 .01 70 .02 ' 1 SBT 3 5250 930 .18* 630 .12* 1 1 SBT 2 3500 580 .17* 490 .14* 1 1 SBR 1 1750 260 .15 50 .03 1 1 SBR 1 1750 580 .33 430 .25 1 ' ' 1 EBL 1 1750 160 .09* 250 .14 1 1 EBL 1 1750 70 .04 590 .34 1 EBT 3.5 8750 960 .18 2060 {.35}* 1 1 EBT 4 7000 400 .06* 1620 .23* .1 1 EBR 1.5 840 .24 1310 i 1 EBR 1 1750 280 .16 570 .33 1 1 WBL 2 3500 90 .03 490 .14* 1 1 WBL 2 3500 1060 .30* 1140 .33* J 1 ,WBT 3 5250 1300 .25* 1390 .26 1 1 WBT 4 7000 1040 .15 1240 _20 1 1 WBR 1 1750 30 .02 460 .26 1 1 WBR 0 0 20 130 1 ' I 1 i 1 . . 1 Clearance Interval .10* .10* 1 1 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .04* 1 1 Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for NBR 1 1 Clearance Interval .10* .10* 1 ' 1 Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for NBR EBR 1 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 .97 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION -.73 .90 • 7. Nicolas & Winchester 8. Jefferson & Overland 1 2025 Proposed Circ. 1 1 2025 Proposed Circ. 1 , AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR '1 ' 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC 1 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC 1 1 1 1 I 1 NBL 2 3500 1160 .33* 720 .21* 1 1 NBL 1 1750 90 .05* 90 .05 , • 1 NBT 1 1750 250 .14 60 .03 1 1 NBT 2 3500 250 .07 1240 .35* 1 1 NBR 1 1750 50 .03 310 .18 1 1 NBR 1 1750 160 .09 770 .44 1 1 SBL 1 1750 50 .03 90 . .05 1 1 SBL 2 3500 350 .10 610 .17* 1 1 SBT I 1750 70 .05* 70 .07* 1 1 SBT 2 3500 980 .34* 410 .16 1 1 SBR 0 0 10 60 1 1 SBR 0 0 220 150 1 1 1 • 1 EBL 2 3500 410 .12* 60 .02 1 1 'EBL 1 1750 70 .04 210 .15 1 EBT 4 7000 980 .14 2270 .32* 1 1 EBT 2 3500 120 .05* 450 .14* 1 EBR f 480 1280 1 1 EBR 0 0 40 40 1 1 WBL 1 1750 350 .20 250 .14* 1 .1 WBL 2 3500 320 .09* 480 .14* i 1 WBT 4 7000 1340 .23* 1010 .15 1 1 WBT 2 3500 350 .10 300 .09 1 1 WBR 0 0 260 50 1 1 WBR 1 1750 250 .14 470 .27 1 ' 1 Clearance Interval .10* 10* 1 Clearance Interval .10* .10* 1 1 Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for WBR 1 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .83 .84 ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .63 ..90 9. Ynez 6 Overland 10. Ynez 8 Solana 2025 Proposed Circ. I I 2025 Proposed Circ. AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3500 270 .08* 560 .16* I I NBL 1 1750 10 .01 20 .01 '• I NBT 3 5250 420 .08 1250 .24 I I NBT 3 5250 460 .09* 1330 .25* NBR 1 1750 240 .14 690 .39 I I NBR 1 1750 330 .19 1000 .57 ' I SBL 2 3500 10 .00 350 .10 I I SBL 2 3500 520 .15* 800 .23* SBT 3 5250 1170 .22* 960 .18* I I SBT 3 5250 1060 .20 1000 .19 SBR 1 1750 10 .01 360 .21 I I SBR 0 0 10 10 I I I I '' I EBL 2 3500 40• .01* 340 .10 I I EBL 0 0 10 20 EBT 2 3500 170 .05 950 .27* I I EBT 1 1750 10 .02* 10 .02* EBR 1. 1750 440 .25 630 .36 I I EBR 0 0 10 10 ( WBL 2 3500 140 .04 240 r.07* I I 418E 1.5 530 (.15)* 670 (.19)* I WBT 1.5 5250 690 .20* 630 (.24) I I WBT 0.5 3500 10 .15 10 .19 WBR 1.5 330 .19 740 I I WBR 1 1750 510 .29 650 .37 I I I I Right Turn Adjustment NBR .08* I I Right Turn Adjustment WBR .02* NBR .13* Clearance Interval .10* IV I I Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for NBR EBR I I Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for NBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 61 86 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .92 11. Diaz 8 Rancho California 12. Old Town Front St 8 Rancho California J . ' I 2025 Proposed Circ. 2025 Proposed Circ. AM PK HOUR 'PM PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR ' I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I I NBL 1 1750 . 10 .01* 30 .02 I I NBL 1 1750 10 .01* 150 .09 NBT 2 3500 120 .03 270 .08* I I NBT 2 3500 240 .07 720 .21* NBR 1 1750 170 .10 420 .24. I I NBR 1 1750 230 .13 670 .38 I SBL 2 3500 70 .02 90 .03* I I SBL 2 3500 140 .04 300 .09* SBT 2 3500 70 .04* 100 .05 I I SBT 2 3500 370 .14* 560 .19 SBR 0 0 130 .07 80 I I SBR 0 - 0 110 90 I I I I '• I EBL 1 1750 10 .01 160 .09* I I EBL 1 1750 100 .06 170 .10 EBT 2 3500 270 .08* 200 .07 I I EBT 2 3500 380 .13* 550 .17* ' I EBR 0 0 10 30 I I EBR 0 0 60 40 I WBL 2 3500 540 .15* 210 .06 I I WBL 1 1750 610 .35* 590 .34* I WBT 2 3500 450 .13 300 .09* I I WBT 2 3500 930 .27 390 .11 WBR 1 1750 80 .05 60 .03 I I WBR 1 1750 470 .27 620 .35 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .08* I I Clearance Interval .10* .10* Clearance Interval .10* .10* ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .73 .91 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .38 .47 1 13. 1.715 SB d Rancho California 14. 1.15 NB d Rancho California , 2025 Proposed Circ. 2025 Proposed Circ. AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR ' I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBL 1.5 480 (.17)* 340 .19* , NBT 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 5250 0 .17 10 NBR 0 0 0 0 NBR 1.5 410 870 .25 4 SBL 2.5 1560 1600 I SBL 0 0 0 0 , SBT 0 7000 0 {.35)* 10 (.32)* I I SBT 0 0 0 0 • I SBR 1.5 1090 1010 I SBR 0 0 0 0 I EBL 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 � _ . I EBT 3 5250 620 :12* 1240 .24* I EBT 2.5 7000 1670 .32* 1690 (.37)* EBR 1 1750 120 .07 260 .15 EBR 1.5 520 .30 1160 ' I WBL 2 3500 700 .20* 440 .13* I WBL 0 0 0' 0 WBT 3 5250 860 .16 590 .11 I ' WBT 3.5 8750 1080 .21 710 .14 WBR 0 0 0 0 I WBR 1.5 1210 .35 1870 .53 Clearance Interval .10* .10* I I Right Turn Adjustment Multi .08* L - I Clearance Interval :10*-- - .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .77 .79 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .59 .74 15. Ynez d Rancho California 16. Margarita d Rancho California ' _ . I 2025 Proposed Circ. 2025 Proposed Circ. I , . . .I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C i i LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C ' � NBL 2 3500 650 .19* 560 .16* NBL 2 3500 240 .07* 470 .13 � NBT 3 5250 700 .13 650 .12 NBT 2 3500 470 .13 480 .14* I ' - . I NBR 1 1750 110 .06 210 .12 I NBR .1 1750 80 .05 180 .10 'I I SBL 2 3500 80 .02 460 .13 ,� SBL 2 3500 120 .03 570 .16* SBT 2 3500 460 .13* 820 .23*. I SBT 2 3500 340 .13* 270 .10 ' SBR 2 3500 690 .20 760 .22 I SBR 0 0 100 70 EBL 2 3500 510 .15* 920 .26* I EBL 1 1750 40 .02* 70 .04 ' I EBT 3 5250 1260 .24 1080 .21 I I EBT 3 5250. 540 10 1360 .26* EBR 1 1750 330 .19 560 .32 EBR 1 1750 270 .15 770 .44 WBL 2 3500 130 .04 330 .09 I WBL 1 1750 80 .05 120 .07* I ' WBT 4 7000 950 .18* 1230 '.20* I I WBT 3 5250 1510 .29* 700 .13 WBR 0. 0 430 .25 160 I I WBR 1 1750 310 .18 270 .15 Clearance Interval .10* .10* Right Turn Adjustment EBR .03* I ' Note: Assumes Right-Turn Overlap for SBR I I Clearance Interval .10* .10* � J � • TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .75 .95 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .61 .76 , 17. Meadows Pkwy 8 Rancho California 18. Butterfield Stage 8 R. California rI 2025 Proposed Circ. I I 2025 Proposed Circ. AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR ' I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3500 170 .05* 420 .12* 1 1 NBL 1 1750 250 .14* 70 .04 ' I NBT 2 3500 100 .03 180 .06 I I NBT 2 3500 240 .07 760 .22* NBR 0 0 20 30 I I NOR 1 1750 60 .03 10 .01 . . I I I I SBL 1 1750 50 .03 40 .02 I I SBL 1 1750 20 .01 10 .01* SBT 2 3500 240 .09* 150 .06* I 1 SBT 2 3500 560 .16* 390 .11 1 SBR 0 0 60 70 I I SBR 1 1750 80 .05 60 .03 I I' I I EBL 1 1750 50 .03* 10 .01 I I EBL 1 1750 10 .O1* 140' .08 EBT 2 3500 330 .09 1090 .31* I I EBT 2 3500 140 .08 880 .35* 1 EBR d 1750 260 .15 240 .14 I I EBR 0 0 180 .10 360 I WBL 1 1750 60 .03 20 .01* WBL 1 1750 20 .01 40 .OZ* I WBT 2 3500: 1460 .42* 440 .13 I I WBT 2 3500 960. .28* 340 .13 WBR d 1750 50 .03 60 .03 I I WBR 0 0 10 120 Clearance Interval .10* .10* 1 I Clearance Interval .10* .10* I ' r' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 .60 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 .70 "'- 19. Ynez 8 Rancho Vista 20. Ynez 6 Pauba ' ' I 2025 Proposed Circ. I I 2025 Proposed Circ. I 1 I I ' I AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR . . I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C 1 I • . I I � I NBL 1 1750 10 .01 10 .01 1 I NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 2 -3500 860 .28* 990 .32* I I NOT 2 3500 540 .15* 930 .27* NBR 0 0 120 120 I I NBR d 1750 120 .07 30 .02 �• I I I 1 SBL 1 1750 250 .14* 410 .23* I I SBL 1 1750 190 .11* 590 .34* I SBT 2 3500 670 .19 1510 .45 I I SBT 2 3500 580 .17 850 .24 1 SBR 0 0 10 60 I I SBR 0 0 0 0 r I I I _ I EBL 0 0 40 30 I I EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 10 10 I I EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 20 10 I I EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1750 170 .10* 130 .07* I I WBL 1 1750 180 .10* 70 .04* WBT 0 0 10 10 I I WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1750 260 .15 580 .33 I I WBR 1 1750 480 .27 180 .10 I, Right Turn Adjustment WBR .11* I I Right Turn Adjustment WBR .09* r' I Clearance Interval 10* .10* I I Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62 .83 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .55 .75 i • 1 21. Ynez 8 Santiago Rd 22. Old Twn Front 8 Wstrn Bypass , 2025 Proposed LirC. I I 2025 Proposed Circ. . . I I I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I ' LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 . 3500 40 .01* 110 .03* I I NBL 1 1750 60 .03* 130 .07 , NBT 2 3500 290 .09 820 .24 I I NBT 1 1750 260 .15 200 • .11* NBR 0 0 10 10 I I NBR 2 3500 1700 .49 1380 .39 I I ' I SBL 1 1750 20 .01 30 .02 I I SBL 1 1750 200 .11 330 .19* I SBT 2 3500 440 .23* 670 .27* I I SBT 1 1750 480 .27* 270 .15 •I SBR 0 0 370 270 I I SBR 1 1750 -0 .00 10 .01 I EBL - 1 1750 250 .14* 200 .11* I I ,EBL 1 1750 10 .01* 10 .01* I EBT 1 1750 20 .01 130 .07 I I EBT 2 3500 160 .05 410 .12 EBR 1 1750 140 .08 330 .19 I I EBR 1 1750 140 .08 240 .14 I , I I I I WBL 1 1750 10 .01 10 .01 I I WBL 2 3500 360 .10 430 .12. WBT 1 MO 190 .14* 60 .05* I I WBT 2 3500 530 .23* 420 .24* WBR 0 0 50 20 I I WBR 0 0 280 590 .34 I , I I I I • - I Right Turn Adjustment EBR .02* I I Right Turn Adjustment NBR .16* NBR .18* Clearance Interval .10* .10* I I Clearance interval .10* .10* I ' • TOTAL CAPACITY, UTILIZATION .62 .58 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .80 .83 23. I.15 NB 8 SR•79 (S) 24. Pala 8 SR-79 (S) 2025 Proposed Circ. I I 2025 Proposed Circ. I ' I I I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR, I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I ' I I I NBL 2 3500 200 .06* 380 .11* I I NBL 3 5250 560 .11* 940 .1B* NBT 0 0 0 0 I I NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 2 3500 230 .07 710 .20 I I NBR 1 1750 180 .10 690 .39 I I I I SBL 0 0 0 0 I I SBL, 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 I I SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 I I SBR 0 0 0 0 I ' i • I I I I EBL 1 .•1750 120 .07 220 .13 I I EBL 0 0 0 0 ' EBT 3 5250 1920 .37* 1910 .36* I I EBT 3 5250 1730 .33* 1320 .25* EBR 0 0 0 0 I I EBR 2 3500 540 .15 1000 .29 I I ' WBL 0 0 0 0 I I WBL 1 1750 360 .21* 210 .12* I WBT 3.5 8750 970 .18 770 .15 I I WBT ' 3 5250 1680 .32 1370 .26 I WBR 1.5 1650 .47 1630 .47 I I WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn•Adjustment Multi .13* Multi .25* I I Right Turn Adjustment NBR .12* I ' Clearance Interval .10* .10* I I Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION - .66 .82 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .75 .77 , - 1 25. Redhawk/Margarita 8 SR-79 (S) 26. Butterfield Stage Rd 8 SR-79 (S) 1 2025 Proposed Circ. I 1 2025 Proposed Circ. 1 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 1 ' I LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC I I LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC 1 NBL 2 3500 10 .00 10 .00 I I NBL 2 3500 370 .11* 290 .08* 1 NOT 2 3500 160 .05 220 .06 I I NOT 2 3500 210 .06 150 .05 .1 NOR 1 1750 280 .16 470 .27 I I NOR 0 0 10 20 1 . . I I I 1 ' • I SBL 2 3500 160 .05 200 .06 1 I SBL 2 3500 10 .00 90 .03 1 SOT 2 3500 460 .13* 450 .13* I I SOT 2 3500 100 .03* 240 .07* 1 - I SBR 1 1750 480. .27 250 .14 I I SBR 1 1750 840 .48 400 .23 1 I I I 1 ` I EBL 1 1750 220 .13 450 .26* I I EBL 1 1750 270 .15* 890 .51* 1 EBT 3 5250- 1190 .23* 1580 .30 I I EBT 3 5250 100 .02 310 .06 1 EBR d 1750 90 .05, 170 .10 1 I EBR 1 1750 170 .10 330 .19 1 I WBL 1 1750 450 .26* 180 • .10 1 1 WBL 1 1750 10 Ol 10 Ol 1 ` 1 WBT 3 5250 1200 .23 950 .18* 1 1 WBT 3 5250 280 .05* 220 .04* 1 WBR d, 1750 220 .13 340 .19 1 1 WBR 1 1750 50 .03 20 .01 1 Right Turn Adjustment NOR .09* 1 1 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .34* Clearance Interval .10* .10* I I Clearance Interval .10* .10* 1 '` TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .76 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .78 .80 27: Jefferson B French Valley • 28. 1-15 SB. 8 French Valley VC 1 2025 Proposed Circ. I 1 2025 Proposed Circ. AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 1 1 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 1 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC 1 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL . VIC VOL VIC 1 NBL 1 1750 10 .01* 10 .01 1 1 NBL 0 0 0 0 1 1 NOT 3 5250 550 .12 1360 .37* I I NOT 0 0 0 0 1 NOR 0 0 70 560 I I NOR 0 0 0 0 1 1 I I I 1 - I SBL 2 3500 40 .01 440 .13* I I SBL 1 1750 500 .29* 300 .17* 1 SBT 2 3500 1140 .34* 820 .25 1 1 SOT 0 0 0 0 1 ' I SBR 0 0 60 60 1 1 SBR 2 3500 1730 .49 860 .25 1 EBL 1 1750 10 .01* 10 .01 I I EBL 0 0 0 0 1 ' I EBT 3 5250 110 .02 _ 930 .18* I I EBT 3 5250 300 .06 2220 .42* 1 EBR 0 0 20 40 I I EBR 1 1750 10 .01 180 .10 1 1 WBL 2 3500 590 .17 280 .08* 1 I WBL 0 0 0 0 1 ' 1 WBT 3 5250 930 .26* 350 .10 1 1 WBT 3 5250 710 .14* 290 .06 1 1 WBR 0 0 460 250 .14 1 1 WBR f 720 580 1 I I I 1 Clearance Interval .10* .10* 1 1 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .20* 1 1 Clearance Interval .10* .10* 1 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .86 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .73 .69 29. 1.15 NB 6 French Valley 30. Ynez 6 French Valley 2025 Proposed Circ. I I' 2025 Proposed Circ. I , • _ I I I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I. AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR I , LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I NBL 1 1750 140 .08* 20 .01* I NBL 2 3500 30 .01* 780 .22* I NBT 0 0 0 0 I I NBT 3 5250 210 .04 910 .20 I , NBR 1 1750 520 .30 250 .14 I I NBR 0 0 20 160 I . . I I I I I SBL 0 0 0 0 I I SBL 2 3500 50 .01 400 .11 I , SBT 0 0 0 0 I I SBT 3 5250 1100 .22* 470 .10* I I SBR 0 0 0 0 I I SBR 0 0 70 40 I I EBL 0 0 0 0 I I EBL' 1 1750 170 .10* 40 .02 I EBT 3 5250 590 .11 1120 .21* I I EBT 3 5250 380 .11 h20 .24* I EBR f 210 1400 I I EBR _ 0 0 410 .23 130 I • I I I 1 1 I WBL 0 0 0 0 I I WBL 1 1750 290 .17 100 06* I WBT 3 5250 1290 .25* 850 .16 I I WBT 3 5250 1340 .31* 820 18 I WBR f 150 1010 I I WBR 0 0 270 140 I , I I I Right Turn Adjustment NBR , .11* NBR .13* I I Clearance Interval .10* .10* I Clearance Interval .10* .10* I ' TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 74 .72 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .54 .45 31. Winchester 8 French Valley 32. Butterfield 6 Hot Springs I 2025 Proposed Circ. I I 2025 Proposed Circ. I , I I I I _ I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I NBL 1 1750 0 .00 0 .00 I I NBL 2 3500 670 .19* 450 .13 I I NBT 4 7000 540 .08 2910 .42* I I NBT 2 3500 200 '.09 650 .24* I NBR 0 0 40 60 I I NBR 0 0 110 190 I ' SBL 1 1750 120 .07 390 .22* I I SBL 1 1750 100 .06 100 .06* I SBT 4 7000 3000 .44* 1760 .27 I I SBT 2 3500 700 .20* 480 .14 I SBR 0 0 90 120 I I SBR 0 0 10 20 I , I EBL 1 1750 80• .05* 100 .06* I I EBL 2 3500 10 .00 20 .01 EBT 2 3500 100 .03 136 .04 I I EBT 2 3500 120 .03* 200 .06* I ' EBR 0 0 0 0 I I EBR 2 3500 290 .08 780 .22 . . I I I • WBL 1 1750 20 .01 40 .02 I I WBL 2 3500 90 .03* 200 .06* I ' WBT 2 3500 100 .06* 140 .08* I I WBT 2 3500 100 .04 200 .10 I WBR 0 0 150 .09 190 .11 I I WBR 0 0 30 160 I • ' I Clearance Interval .10* 10* I I .Right Turn Adjustment EBR .04* I L I Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .65 .88 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .55 .56 ' -- 1 1 1 . ' Appendix E : Noise Study � 1 1 Appendix E Existing and Buildout Noise Contours Distance to iaNng N L Distance to rutum CN Contour Lines from Near lane Contour Lines from Near Lane I Change(feet ' Roadway Segment 6048 1 6mrs 1 7WI3 7548 WIT WIT 6MB 7448 7US a0411 WIT 6548 70111 754E BO4B ISTSTREET West of Old Town Front ruwre cmt mN 69 69 ANZA ROAD ' Peppercorn to Butterfield Stage Fume CNEL wily 235 100 — _ — 235 100 _ _ _ Butterfield Stage to Morgan Hill FutureCNF1 ant, 200 83 200 83 Morgan Hill to SR-79 Fuwm CNEL mN 215 90 215 - 90 SR-79 to De Portola Tissue eNEI only 300 130 50 300 130 50 ' - De Ponola to Pauba - Fuwm CNEL wily 215 90 — _ — 215 90 — _ _ Pauba to Madera De Playa Fuwm CNEL wily 215 90 215 90 Madera De Playa to Rancho California Fuwm CNEL wily 215 90 215 90 Rancho California to Buck Fuwm u+Et mN 278 120 278 120 ' AULD ROAD Wm — — — — — — chesler to Leon - ruwm CNEL wiry 200 B3 200 B3 Leon to Pourtoy Towle CNEL wily 185 75 185 75 JVFNIDA to Washington F.W.CNEL wily 200 83 200 83 RADO — — — _ — — — —Westof.Diaz 185 75 185 75 z to Commerce Fuwm CNEL only 130 50 130 50ISSIONSouth of SR-79 Fuwm CaEL u4F 147 56 — — — 143 56 chestcr to Lcon Fuwm CNfl wily 395 185 75 '395 IBS- 75 on to Pourro - ruwre CNEL mly. 255 110 255 110 .Pourroy to Washington Fuwm CNEL ouF 200 83 — — — 200 83 — — — SORELROAD Winchester.to Sky Canyon Fuwm CNEL mN 235 100 235 100 Sky Canyon to Leon Frrwre CNEL only 255 110 255 110 • Leon to Pourroy Fuwm CNEI mN 215 90 — _ = 215 90 Auld to Bootle future CNEL wily 320 143 56 320 143 1 56 Bootleg to Buck Fuwm CNEI a* 320 143 56 1 320 143 1 56 - Fast of Buck Fuwm CNEL mN 83 83 BUCK ROAD — — — — — — ArizStoBorel - FuturecNEl wily 278 120 278 120 BUSINESS PARK Diaz to Rancho - Fuwm CNEL ontf 278 120 278 120 ' Rancho to Rancho California - Fu6rre CIJR surly 278 120 = = 278 120 — _ — BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD Pourro to Murrieta Hot Springs NE os Fuwm CNEL only 105 80 54 105 80 54 Murricia Hot Springs to Nicolas Fuwm CNEL wily 155 93 72 155 93 72' Nicolas to Calle Chapos Fuwm CNFL m4v 130 88 67 — — 130 88- 67 — — ' — - Calle Cha os to La Serena — fuwm CNEt wiry - 155 93 72 — — 155 93 72 — _ La Serena to Rancho California 110 82 57 110 82 57 Rancho California to Rancho Vista 86 64 115 84 61 29 20 61 Rancho Vista to Pauba 78 50 too 78 50 22 28 50 ' Pauba to De Portola 76 — _ _ = 88 67 — _ — 12 67 — De Ponola to SR-79 82 57 100 78 50 18 21 50 SR-79 to Nighthawk 72 100 78 50EF 28 78 50 Nighthawk to Mza Fume CNEI wiry 84 61 84 61 ' CHERRY - — — — West of Jefferson crson Fu CNEL only 215 90 215 90 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE Rider to Via Montazum w a fum CNEL mly 110. 110 DEER HOLLOW — — — — 1-15 to Rainbow Can on Fuwm CNEI onN 520 255 110 520 1 255 1 110 Rainbow Canyon to City Limits Fuwm eNEI wily 460 215 90 460 215 90 City Limits to Pcchan a striveCNEL mN 278 120 278 120 Pechan ato Peppercorn Fuwm CNEI wily 320 143 56 — — 320 143 56 — — 1 Distance fo zrshng N E L Islance to utum NEL 1 Contour Lines from Near Lane Confour Lines from Near lane Chan a(feet Roachivay Segment 64dB 6Sd11 1 70d5 1 7S411 WE! 60dB 65dB 7048 75d8 WdS 60dB Will 7WB 75d8 B 11 ' DEL RIO ROAD Via Montezuma to Jefferson Furore CNEL uB1Y 100 IOO DENDY West of Diaz Fuwre CNEL only 69 — — — — 69 DE PORTOLA ROAD Jedediah Smith to Margarita 110 143 56 37 56 Margarita to Meadows Pkwy. 50 185 75 135 75 Meadows Pkwy.to Campanula 50 — — — — 143 5G — — — 93 Campanula to Butterfield Stage — — — — — 56 — — — — 56 — — — — Butterfield Stage to Linda Rosea Fuwm c L onh 155 62 155 62 Linda Rosea to Anza Furore CNEL mlr 120 120 East of Anza F.W.CNEL only 200 83 DIAZ ROAD Dendy to Zevo 83 215 90 133 90 Zevo to Winchester 110 155 62 45 62 Winchester to Avd.Alvarado 215 90 340 155 62 125 65 62 Avd.Alvarado to Via Montezuma 155 62 — — — 300 130 50 — — 145 68 50 — Via — , a Montezuma to Rancho 143 56 200 83 58 27 Rancho to Rancho Califomia 170 69 143 56 .28 43 South of Rancho California Fu Gvfl only 75 75 FRENCH VALLEY , Jefferson to Ynez FWrre CND only 428 200 83 428 200 83 Ynez to Margarita Fuhm CNEL.1, 368 170 69 368 170 69 Margarita to Murrieta Hot Springs Fawn CNEL m4r 395 1 185 1 75 395 1 1851 75 GENERAL KEARNY , East of Margarita FuOue CMl only 100 — — — I — 1 100 — I _ I _ I _ I-IS FREEWAY South of SR-79 South 1,325 810 428 200 1 83 1,500 950 1 520 1 255 1 110 1 175 140 92 55 27 SR-79 South to Rancho California 1,325 810 428 200 eJ 1,450 905 490 235 100 125 95 62 35 17 ' Rancho California to SR-79 North 1,450 905 490 1 235 1 100 11,65011,0501 600 1 300 130 1 200 145 110 65 30 North of SR-79 Nonh 1,500 950 520 1 255 1 110 11,72511,1001 640 1 320 1 143 1 225 150 120 65 33 LEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD SR-79 to Ynez 56 — — — — — — — — — -56 Ynez to Margarita /EFFERSON AVENUE North of Cherry FutxeCNEL udr 428 1 200 1 83 428 200 83 Cherry to Winchester FUN-CMI only 395 185 75 — — 395 1115 75 — Winchester to Overland 3001 13D 50 — — 395 1 I85 75 — — 95 55 25 — — Overland to Via Montezuma 255 110 320 147 56 65 37 Via Montezuma to Rancho California Fu CNEL.1y 278 1 120 278 120 /OSEPN ' Borel to Murrieta Hot Springs Euwm CNEL uNr 185 1 75 — — — 185 75 — — — - KELLER ROAD Winchester to Washin ton Fuwre CNEL op* 130 50 130 50 IA PAZ — _ _ Ynez to 1.79 Furure CNEL only 155 62 — — — 155 62 — — — LA SERENA WAY Margarita to Meadows Pkwv. 170 69 200 83 70 14 Meadows Pkwy.to Walcott Fumm CNEL only 155 62 — — — 155 62 LEON ROAD Winchester to Auld FumR CNEL u47 300 1 130 50 3001 130 50 Auld to Beret Fu6ne CNElmh 1 255 1 110 255 1 110 Beret to Murrietta HotSprings Fu CNEL only 69 — — — — 69 — — I — MAIN STREET , West.(Old Tnwn Frnnl Fun,n CNFr adr 50 50 MARGARITA ROAD North of city limits 95 1 74 1 — I — — 95 74 1 — — — 0 0 City limits to Winchester Fawn CNEL only 115 84 61Winchester to General Kearn 340 155 62 490 235 100 I50 80 38 General Kearnyto Overland 340 I SS 62 490 235 100 150 80 38 Overland to Solana 340 I55 62 — — 428 200 83 — — 88 45 21 Rancho to Mora Fu .r CNEL only 428 200 83 — — 428 1Distance to Existing CNEL Distance to tutum l Contour Lines from Near Lane Contour Lines from Near Lane Change feet ' Roadway Segment 6048 6548 7B4B 7MB BBdB WO WO 704E 7US IWB fiWB -45dB 704E 7UB Mill Mora a to La Serena 98 76 100 78 50 3 2 50 La Serena to Rancho California 100 78 50 98 76 -3 .2 Rancho California to Rancho Vora 93 72 98 76 5 4 Rancho Vista to Pauba I95 — — - — 230 — _ _ = 35 — _ Pauba to Santiago 1 r CaEL mN 88 67 88 67 Santiago to ledediah Smith ;UW.CNR rely 90 69 90 69 ledediah Smith to De Portola 215 1 90 170 69 - 45 .22 ' De Portola to SR-79 255 110 — — — 300 130 50 — — 45 20 50 — — MEADOWS PARKWAY La Serena to Rancho California 67 74 74 Rancho Califomia to Rancho Vista 80 54 86 64 6 11 t Rancho Vista to Pauba. 78 50 = _ = 86 64 — _ = 8 14 — _ _ Pauba to De Portola 78 50 84 .61 6. 11 Cassino to De Ponola Future CNEL mN 86- 64 86 64 De Ponola to SR-79 67 84 61 17 61 MORAGA _ _ _ ' Margadla to Rancho California Fwrse CNEL ur?1 1 185,1 75 1 185 75 — — — MORGAN HILL DRIVE El Chimisal to Butterfield Stage - Faun CNEI a Iv 50 50 Butterfield Stage to Anza. Fudm CM1 only 143 56 143 56 MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS — West of French Valley Fin CNEL 460 215 90 _ — 460 215 90 — French Valley to Winchester ramieF 11 rely 560 278 120 560 278 120 Winchester to Calisto a Future CNEL mty 320 1436 320 143 56 ' Calisto me r to Leon Fume Et mb 235 100 = _ _ 235 100 Leon to Joseph Future CNEL rely 235 100 235 100 Joseph to Butterfield Stage Fueae Call mIV 235 100 235 100 NICOLAS ROAD ., Winchester to General Kearny 200'1 83 1 — — — 215 90 = _ = 15 7 = _ _ General Kearnyin C to Los Choras we L mN 130 50 130 50 21"' Los Choras to Calk Girasol Future CNEL mN 56 1 56 Calk Girasol to Butterfield Stage . Fume[NFL mN 90 .90 ...-. ' NIGHTHAWK PASS _ _ — — _ — — — — — — — — — -- Redhawk P .to Butterfield Stage 56 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET Rancho California to Moreno 155 62. 200 1 83 45 21 ' Moreno to Main 200 83 — _ = 255 110 = _ _ 55 27 Main to sl 120 120 0 -I st to SR-79 Future[NEL mN 155 62 155 62 OVERLAND DRIVE West of Jefferson 130 1 50 = _ = 200 83 = _ = 70 33 Jefferson to Ynez 200 1 87 1 278 120 78 38 Ynez to Margarita 155 1 62 215,1 90 60 1 28 OVERLAND TRAIL ' Redhawk to Vail Ranch Futon CNEL only 1 155 1 62 1 - I - I - 1 155 1 62- — — — PAUBA ROAD Ynez to Margarita 185 75 170 69 .15 -7 Margarita to Meadows P 215 90 215 90 0 0 ' Meadows Pk .to Butterfield Stage 110 — — — — 255 110 = _ __ 145 110 Butterfield Stage to Callc Conlento runve CNEL rely 110 Ito Calk Conlento to Anza Road Fu (NFL rely 62 62 PECHANGA PARKWAY ' SR-79 to Rainbow Can on 400 — 430 — — _ = 30 — — _ _ Rainbow Canyon Io Loma Linda 395 185 75 460 215 90 65 1 30 1 15 Loma Linda to Wolf Valley 320 1 143 1 56 1 1 1 368.1 170 1 69 . 48 1 28 1 I3 East of Wolf Valle Future CNR rely 255 110 255 -110 POURROV ROAD _ South of Winchester rt uan — — — —nchester FUW rely 110 110 — North o1 Thompson Fume Can rely 170 69 170 69 Thompson to Benton ruwre CNEL rely 200 83 200 83. ' Benton to Auld rumre CNEI only 200 83 = _ = 200- Auld to Borel - Fume MEL mN 155 62 155 62 ts Ian ce to rsfmg L Orstance to alum N t Contour Lines from Near Lane Contour Lines from Near Lane Chan a feet) Roadway Segment bode bsde 1 lode 75da 4 B bode 65de lode 7Sda soda bode 6Sda 7odB 75da Uda ' RAINBOW CANYON ROAD Pechan a to Deer Hollow fuwm CNEL ouN 185 75 185 75 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD Corner of City Limits to Ride Park Fuum CNEL mN 185 75 — — — 185 75 Ride Park to Diaz 320 143 56 — — 340 155 62 — — 20 13 6 _ _ Diaz to Front 98 76 93 72 .5 .5 Front to I.I S 120 86 64 120 86 64 0 0 0 1.15 to Ynz 170 95 74 203 98 76 33 3 2 Ynez to Mora a 120 86 64 — — 130 88 67 — — 10 2 3 — — ' Mora a to Margarita 155 93 72 170 I S J J 95 74 Margarita to Meadows Pk 520 255 I10 600 J00 170 50 80 45 20 50 Meadows Pk .to Butterfield Stage 320 143 56 368 170 69 48 28 13 Butterfield Stage to La Serena Fugue CNEL.., 368 170 69 — — 368 170 69 La Serena to Calle Conlento Future CNEL mN 395 185 75 395 185 75 Calle Contenm to Anza Fume CNEL euN 768 I70 G9 36B 170 69 East of Anza 1utu CNEL.1y 395 185 75 395 1 185 75 RANCHO VISTA ROAD , Ynez to Mira Loma 88 1 67 84 61 4 1 6 Mar ma to Meadows Pkwy. 80 1 54 80 1 54 0 1 0 Meadows Pk ,to Butterfield Stage 64 64 RANCHO WAY — — — — — — — — _ Business Park to Diaz fume wEt mN 143 56 143 56 Diaz to Ynez Future CNEL only 278 1 120 1 1 1 1 278 1 120 Ynez to Margarita Future CNEL mly 255 1 110 255 1 110 REDHAWK PARKWAY ' 5R-79 to Overland 255 1 110 1 - I - 1 --12781 1201 278 1 120 11 - Overland to Vail Ranch Fu CNEL enIV 1 122 75 185 75 Vail Ranch to Wolf Valle future[ Et e* 215 90 215 90 Wolf Valley to Peppercorn Future CNEt mN 83 — — — — 83 Peppercorn to El Chimisal Future CNEL.., SAN77AGO ROAD Old Town Front to Ynez 83 I10 27 Ynez to Margarita 69 — — — — 69 — — — — 0 SOLANA WAY Ynez to Margarita 84 61 100 1 78 1 50 1 16 17 1 50 East of Margarita 76 50 78 50 0 0 SR.79 _ _ _ 1-15 to La Paz 760 395 185 1 75 860 460 215 90 1 100 65 30 15 La Paz to Pala 720 368 170 1 69 810 428 200 83 1 90 60 30 14 Pechanga to ledediah Smith 600 300 130 50 810 428 200 83 1 210 128 70 33 ledediah Smith to Avd.de Missions 600 300 130 50 — 760 395 185 7S — 160 95 55 25 Avd.de Missions to Margarita 600 300 130 50 — 810 428 200 83 — 210 128 70 33 Margarita to Meadows P 990 235 100 760 395 185 75 270 160 85 Meadows Pkwy.to Butterfield Stage 368 170 69 680 340 155 62 313 170 87 Butterfield Stage to Anza Fume CNEL wy 395 185 75 — — 395 185 75 — — ' East of Anza fume e L vdr 235 100 — — — 235 100 — — — IC4NYON'DRIVE nton to Auld Future C EL mN 155 62 155 62 Auld to Borel fu CNEL wy 235 100 — — — 235 100 —o Murrieta Hot S rin s rutum C L mN 320 143 56 — — 320 143 56ROADchester to Pourro fumm CNEL mly 170 69 f70 69 rro to Washin ton PARKWAY , Margarita to Overland Future CWL.11 100 100 Overland to El Chimisal rums CNFt only VIA INDUSTRIA North of Alvarado rune CNEt.1y 215 90 — — — 215 90 — — — WALCOTTL4NE South of Calle Cha os WASHINGTON STREET South of Keller Fume CNEL eNr 340 1 155 1 62 1 — — 340 155 62 — — , stance to Existing CNEL islanceto uture CNEt Contour Lines from Near lane Contour Lines from Near Lane Change feel ' Roadway Segment fA48 4548 7048 1 7MO 80d0 rn4B es48 7odB 15dB BodB 40dB fS4B JOdB 7SdB 8088 North of Thompson fume CNEL ouh 368 1 70 69 368 170 69 Thompson to Benton rumor wR.1, 368 170 69 368 170 69 Benton to Auld Fuwre CNEt ouh, 368 170 69 368 170 69 ' WINCHESTER ROAD — — — — — RoicktoDiaz Future CWL only 278' 120 278 120 — Diaz to Enterprise 340 155 62 368 170 69 28 15 7 Enterprise to Jefferson 460 215 90 490 235 100 30 20 10 ' Jefferson to I.I S 600 300 130 50 = 640 320 143 56 — 40 20 13 6 = 1.15 to Ynez 810 428 200 87 905 490 235 100 .95 62 35 18 Ynez to Margarita 680 340 155 62 760 395 185 75 80 55 30 13 - Margarita to Nicolas 640 320 143 56 760 395 185 75. 120 75 42 19 ' .Nicholas to Murrieta Hot SpringsWO 428 200 83 — 950 520 255 110 - 140 92 55 27 — MurrietaHotSprings to Sky Canyon FuWre cmiorrly 1,1501 680 340 155 62 1,150 680 340 155 62 Sky Canon to Benton -Nan,CNEL only f,1001 640 320 143 56 1,150 680 340 155 62- Benton toThompson Fume CNEL only 1,050 600 300 130 50' 1,150 680 340 155 62 ' Thompson to Pouroy future CNEL ouh 1,100 640 320 143 56 1,150 680 340 155 62 Pouroy to Abelia FueveC I.anb 1,1501 680 1 340 1 155 62 1,150 680 340 155 62 Abelia to Keller Femrec Rmly 1,150 680 1 340 1 I55 62: 1.150 680 340 155 62 WOUVALLEYROAD ' ' East of Pechanga- 200 83 — — — 320 143 56 = _ 120 60 56 = _ West of City Limits forme CN mEL lr 368 170 69 368 170 69 City Limits to Redhawk future o+n only 368 170 69 368 170 69 YNEZ ROAD North oLWmchester. 200 83 255 110 55 27 �= French Valley to Winchester FUWm CNEI,only - 300 130 50 — = 300 130 50 Winchester to Overland - 368 '170 69 490 235 WO 123 65- .31 Overland to Solana 395 185 75 490 235 100 95 50 25 --- Solana to Rancho 368 170 69 428 200 -83 60 30 14 Rancho to Rancho California 368 170 69 = = 428 200 83 — = 60• 30 14 = _ Rancho California to Rancho Vista -105 80 54 115 84 61 10 4 7 _ Rancho Vista to Pauba - 255 110 — — — 300 130 50 — — 45 20 50 -- Pauba to Santiago 200 83 278 120 78 38 —-- ' Santiago to La Paz 170 69 — — 235 100 — — — 65 31 — — — —,_ La Paz to Jedediah Smith 130. 50 — 200 83 70 33 Source:Wieland Associates,2002 and 2004.Adapted by Cotton Bdd es Associates. 1 1 Table 3. Measured Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL Project: City of Temecula Noise Element Technical Update Study Location: #3, Rear yard of 27117 Quail Creek Ct. Date: January 22/23, 2002 . .... ..................... our .......... . ...... .................................... ..................... ..... ...... ........................... . a M)B- y 1,3kl0asur&oeat.::KHod LeYd,,Af. 12:00 am- 1:00 am 57.9 12:00 pm- 1:00 pm 68.1 1:00 am -2:00 am 57.7 1:00 pm -2:00 pm 68.1 2:00 am -3:00 am 57.0 2:00 pin -3:00 pm 70.6 3:00 am -4:00 am 58.7 3:00 pm-4:00 pm 68.7 4:00 am - 5:00 am 65.1 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm 68.7 5:00 am -6:00 am 67.7 5:00 pm-6:00 pm 68.5 6:00 am -7:00 am 68.7 6:00 pm-7:00 pm 67.2 7:00 am -8:00 am 70.3 7:00 pm -8:00 pm 65.6 8:00 am-9:00 am 68.8 8:00 pm -9:00 pm 64.3 9:00 am - 10:00 am 67.6 9:00 pm- 10:00 pm 63.5 10:00 am -11:00 am 66.8 10:00 pm - 11:00 pm 61.7 11:00 am- 12:00 pm 68.2 11:00 pm - 12:00 am 59.5 CNEL: 71.4 75 V 70 1'—.:......I--- .......... 65 ... :7............ ............. 60 ......... .. .............. --- V 55 ... M --------- ---- --- 50 ......... .............................. ....... 45 ......... -------- ......... ........ ....... 40 4q q, dl T 'b- Time of Day WIEI.A NO ASSOCIATES,INC Table 5. Measured Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL Project: City of Temecula Noise Element Technical Update Study Location: #5, Rear yard of 27552 Jon Christian Pl. Date: February 7/8, 2002 .... .... ................. ... .... ........ ... ..... ................. ............... ... ... . ......... ..... .......—...... . ........................... ....... .. . ............ ..... .......... ................. .................. ........ .....I.. ............�I I ........ ................. ...... ............. .. .......... .... ...... ... ............I.... .. .. . ............ ..... ........ ............... ..... . ...... . .... ............. ............ .. ................. . .................. ....... . .......... ........ ...... ...........-......... ... ............. ... .. .. ...... .... ......... ..... .. ..... ...... ..... ...... ............. . ..... ......... ..... ........... . ....... ....... .......... .. Hourly Nos ........... ....... .... ........... ...... ..... ... ........... T�ourly Noss ............... M.e. A AB( ) M .... .. ...... Period Level,dB(A) 12:00 am - 1:00 am 49.3 pm 59.2 1:00 am - 2:00 am 46.9 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm 59.4 2:00 am - 3:00 am 44.3 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm 60.4 3:00 am - 4:00 am 48.4 3:00 pm-4:00 pm 60.4 4:00 am - 5:00 am 51.8 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm 60.8 5:00 am - 6:00 am 55.7 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm 60.8 6:00 am - 7:00 am 58.8 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm 60.0 7:00 am - 8:00 am 61.0 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm 59.3 8:00 am - 9:00 am 60.6 8:00 pm - 9:00 pm 57.9 9:00 am - 10:00 am 60.8 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm 56.9 10:00 am -11:00 am 58.4 10:00 pm - 11:00 pm 54.6 11:00 am - 12:00 pm 58.9 11:00 pm - 12:00 am 51.9 CNEL: 62.0 75 "a 70 .... ------I--- ................... .......... ........... 65 .... ................... ---------- ......... --------- 60 .......... --- M 55 ---- ---- ---- - z50 ---- .... ... ------------------------1--- 2:1 45 ------- - ......... 40 . . . Rp q, 4q' IQ IQ' 4 IQ NZI Time of Day WIFLA 1VD ASSOCIATES,INC. Table 8. Measured Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL Project: City of Temecula Noise Element Technical Update Study Location: 48, Rear yard of 29763 Via Puesta del Sol Date: April 16/17, 2002 ........ ..... .... .. ....I........ . .... .................I.. ................. ............... ......... . I............... ................. .................... .......... ...... .......... .... .. ....................... ..... ........... ................ ........... ................. ............... ............ ................ ................. .....I.......... ............ ..I I.... ..... ...........I... ............................ ............................................. ................ . ............... ........................ ... ................. ...I.........I............... ...I............. ............... .................... ..............—............................ ........ ........ ............... ................. ......... . ................. .....I................. ............. ...I...I....... .......................... .....I..................................... ................. ............... ........ ................. .... ............ ....... ..................... . ...................................................................................... .- ........................... H......d....l.:.......B...I.S. ............................... ........I............................. .,..............-....4.,.. : 1..L.4...'..........lI ...'.y...:N........0'I .. - .. ......1...4.. ....c L .. A .. .6il)dB(A ......... .Meaweofienfperlod ....... .....(..) ..12:00 am - 1:00 am 53.3 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm 63.2 1:00 am - 2:00 am 52.9 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm 63.4 2:00 am - 3:00 am 50.4 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm 63.6 3:00 am - 4:00 am 51.4 3:00 pm- 4:00 pm 63.6 4:00 am - 5:00 am 55.0 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm 64.1 5:00 am - 6:00 am 57.4 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm 64.2 6:00 am - 7:00 am 61.1 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm 63.9 7:00 am - 8:00 am 63.2 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm 62.8 8:00 am - 9:00 am 62.9 8:00 pm - 9:00 pm 62.2 9:00 am - 10:00 am 60.6 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm 60.8 10:00 am -11:00 am 62.5 10:00 pm - 11:00 pm 58.6 11:00 am - 12:00 pm 62.0 11:00 pm - 12:00 am 54.8 CNEL.- 65.1 75 co 65 --- ...... ------- ---------- 0.2 OU ... ........ .. .. .... ............... .. ..... 55 .... ------ O z 50 .......... --------- ........... I---------- .............. 45 .... .... .... .... ... ...................... ------- 40 ZZ IQ' 4 , 4Z' 1q, 4q lq' Time of Day WELAND ASSOCIATES,INC. Table 10. Measured Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL Project: City of Temecula Noise Element Technical Update Study Location: #10, Rear yard of 31005 Avenida de La Reina Date: February 7/8, 2002 ...... ..... ... ......... ... ....... ........ ........... ........... ....... ... ... ..... ........-.... .. ................. .. ................... . . .......... ... . . ........... ..... .. ....... . .......... .......... ...... ...... ....... ............ ......... ........ ......... ... ............. .. .. ....... ... .......... .. .... ... ..... .............. ...... .... ................ ... ....... ............ . .I - I......-... ...... .... ............. ... .. ................ ............... ................... ...... .................. our N' ..................... .... ..... .. . ............ ........ -& :Lp 6 d (A3 easur06iimtTer.i4d:::. erso !...O�..li...W.- 12:00 am - 1:00 am 53.9 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm 63.9 1:00 am - 2:00 am 52.7 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm 636 2:00 am - 3:00 am 51.0 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm 63.9 3:00 am - 4:00 am 53.1 3:00 pm- 4:00 pm 64.6 4:00 am - 5:00 am 58.4 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm 64.9 5:00 am - 6:00 am 60.3 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm 64.9 6:00 am - 7:00 am 63.3 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm 64.4 7:00 am - 8:00 am 64.7 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm 63.4 8:00 am - 9:00 am 64.5 8:00 Prn - 9:00 pm 63.0 9:00 am - 10:00 am 63.7 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm 61.4 10:00 am -11:00 am 63.5 10:00 pm - 11:00 pm 58.6 11:00 am - 12:00 pm 63.8 11:00 pm - 12:00 am 55.7 CNEL: 66.5 75 - 70 - .............. ................. 65 - ---------- 60 - .... ....... - --------- 55 . --- ---- ................ I..... z50 - ---- ...................... ------------ >1 Ic 45 ...................... 40 1b 4�1' lb 4p, a,0 1&%�,' mom. tb.,6V �tiRZ 16. Time of Day WIELAND ASSOCIATES, INC. Table 13. Measured Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL Project: City of Temecula Noise Element Technical Update Study Location: #13, Rear yard of 43027 Corte Fresca Date: February 6/7, 2002 . ....... --- .... ................... ............................ .........I....... ............... ... ................. .. ................. .............................. .. ....... .............-...... .........--.... ............... .........I....I..... ...I I ............................ ................ .. ......................... ............................ ............ . .. ............... ... ............................ .... ............ ...... ........ ..... ... ............ .............. ...... ......... .................. our HO rl N ......I............ U. PIPE ............................ .. ...... ........ . ........ .. . M ea s u'- e o�fp- L : :: JLevel -dB ;k) easuremtht:Nfl6d: ...... 12:00 am - 1.00 am 62.3 12:00 pro - 1:00 pm 69.0 1:00 am - 2:00 am 61.9 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm 69.4 2:00 am - 3:00 am 61.9 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm 70.0 3:00 am - 4:00 am 63.0 3:00 pm- 4:00 pm 70.7 4:00 am - 5:00 am 66.9 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm 70.5 5:00 am - 6:00 am 69.8 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm 69.5 6:00 am - 7:00 am 70.7 6:00 pro - 7:00 pm 68.6 7:00 am - 8:00 am 70.6 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm, 67.8 8:00 am - 9:00 am 69.6 8:00 pm - 9:00 pm 66.8 9:00 am - 10:00 am 68.9 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm 66.3 10:00 am -11:00 am 68.1 10:00 pm - 11:00 pro 65.3 11:00 am - 12:00 pm 68.3 11:00 pm - 12:00 am 64.1 CNEL: 73.6 75 - 70 - ......... ........... ........... .............. _4 65 - .......... . - ------------ 60 - ......... ......----------- 4 55 - --------- L.......... .......... .......... ---------- z ............I -------------- -------------- ......... 45 .... --------- I........... .... ..... 40 16, 1b, lb 4p, It, lb 0, Q 411, 4% ' IR pQ Time of Day WIE"ND ASSOCIA TES, INC. Table 14. Measured Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL Project: City of Temecula Noise Element Technical Update Study Location: #14, Rear yard of 43798 Butternut Dr. Date: April 16/17, 2002 ............ .. . ............. .............. ........... ......... ......... .............. ......... ....... ................ ...... ............. ...... . .. . ............... . .............. ... .. . ................. . ......... .......... ..... . ............. ..I I...... .... .........I.... ... ............................................. ................. ... ........... ..... ... . ....... ...... .. .... ....... ... ..........I ... .............I.. ....... ....... ............. ....... ... .. .... ........I..... ........ ....... .......... .11.1 ..... .............. . --................... . .. ....... . ............... .... ....... -. ................. ........ .. ..... ............. ... .... ..I.. ......... ............ ... .. ................. -........... .... . ......... .......... .... ............. .. ............-- .............. ...—.......I.... ...... ............... ............... .. . ..... ........... ....... ...... ...... ..... ... ........ .. ... ........ ........... ... .... ........... . ....... ....,.,..,..,....... :::: lHICItir Measurement Fertod .............. ... ........... ....... 'A .............. - eamirementT.016df..Level;e. e.. B(A) ..... .. 12:00 am - 1:00 am 51.3 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm 63.1 1:00 am - 2:00 am 52.5 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm 63.6 2:00 am - 3:00 am 48.0 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm 64.1 3:00 am - 4:00 am 48.5 3:00 pm- 4:00 pm 64.1 4:00 am - 5:00 am 53.6 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm 64.1 5:00 am - 6:00 am 57.0 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm 64.1 6:00 am - 7:00 am 59.4 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm 63.8 7:00 am - 8:00 am 62.8 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm 62.3 8:00 am - 9:00 am 64.0 8:00 pm - 9:00 pm 61.1 9:00 am - 10:00 am 67.0 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm 58.9 10:00 am -11:00 am 61.4 10:00 pm - 11:00 pm 56.3 11:00 am - 12:00 pm 65.2 11:00 pm - 12:00 am 54.6 CNEL: 64.7 75 - PC 70 . .... ........ ...................................... ---------- ................... --- --- ---- ------------- 65 - -----:-- i . . . . . . ............... --------- r ---------- -------- - 55 - z 50 - ----- --- 7.....7 --- ---- 45 ................. 4. Q. 4. Q. Q. SIPa. b. RP Time of Day WIELAND ASSOCIATES,INC Table 18. Measured Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL Project: City of Temecula Noise Element Technical Update Study Location: #18, Rear yard of 31518 Calle Los Padres Date: February 6/7, 2002 ... ............. . .......... ........I.. ................. ............... ............................. ................. ........................... .... ..... ... . ............... . ........—I...........I., .......I........................—I...... .. ................. ............... ......................... ... .... ............ .......... I.................. . .. ..I......... ...I........... ........................... ............................................. ................. ............... . ........................... ................. ............................................... ........ ...... . .................... ...... ................. .................I....... .I............... ............... ............................ ................. ................. ........... .................. I.............. . .......................... . ...........I............ .I......... .... ............... . .......................... ......................................................... ...... ..I I........... ............. ........... ..............I......I I. ............. ............... .................... ........ . ................... ................. ... .....I..... ........................ ...................—...... ................. ... ........... ........................ . ........................... .. 14 J' N .................. :::: Hour ........ ................. ........ ois .x........ .. U .....................:......... ..................... .... .............................. .....I........I...... B 1� .O..(A �v.. AB(A): 12:00 am - 1:00 am 53.8 12:00 pm " 1'56;7m 60.3 1:00 am - 2:00 am 51.1 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm 60.1 2:00 am - 3:00 am 50.5 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm 60.9 3:00 am - 4:00 am 52.2 3:00 pm- 4:00 pm 61.9 4:00 am - 5:00 am 56.5 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm 61.7 5:00 am - 6:00 am 60.8 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm 62.6 6:00 am - 7:00 am 62.3 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm 62.0 7:00 am - 8:00 am 62.9 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm 59.8 8:00 am - 9:00 am 61.9 8:00 pm - 9:00 pm 58.8 9:00 am - 10:00 am 60.9 9:00 pro - 10:00 pm 58.7 10:00 am -11:00 am 60.4 10:00 pm - 11:00 pm 57.4 11:00 am - 12:00 pm 60.6 11:00 pm - 12:00 am 55.0 CNEL: 64.8 H 75 - 70 - -------I.....I--- 65 - ..................... -- ---------- . . . . . . . . . . . 60 - ---- ---------- 55 - ----- .... .............L---- ......... ........... ......... L....L....Z.... z50 - ...... -- -- --- -------------------- ....... ---------- ------------ 45 .. .... r 7 40 . . . . . . . . 0' 4p' 0' 0' 0* 0' b., 1b V lb, V 4� 1q, 1q, 4�' 1q. 4Z. Time of Day WIELAND ASSOCIATES,INC Table 19. Measured Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL Project: City of Temecula Noise Element Technical Update Study Location: #19, Rear yard of 31210 Comotilo St. Date: January 22/23, 2002 ...............— .......... ................ ..........- ...... ........ . ...I I................... ...... ........... ......... ........ .... ..... ... . ..... ...... ................. .... . . ............... .. .......... ......... ..................... .......-........ .......... ..... ...... ....... ................. ... ............. .......... . ....... ... ......... .................. .... ............ . .. .. ..... .. .............. ...... ....... ............... ... ...........I..... ............ ... ..... .I................................... —, . -.... .. .. ............... ................. ... ...... ......... -...... ..... ....... ...... ............. ............... .... ............................. ..... .. .. ................ ........ ............. ................. ........ ... .. .. H dk.KiNiiise AourlyNo ls, t .................. 11leasnremenf Period ;Level, dB(A) Measurement Period Leve.I dB.. ,,) 12:00 am - 1:00 am 65.5 12:00 pm - 1:00 p7 70.7 1:00 am - 2:00 am 65.9 1:00 pro - 2:00 pm 70.1 2:00 am - 3:00 am 66.4 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm 70.5 3:00 am - 4:00 am 64.2 3:00 pm- 4:00 pm 68.1 4:00 am - 5:00 am 66.7 4:00 pm - 5:00 pm 67.2 5:00 am - 6:00 am 69.3 5:00 pm - 6:00 pm 70.0 6:00 am - 7:00 am 71.4 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm 69.6 7:00 am - 8:00 am 70.3 7:00 pro - 8:00 pm 68.8 8:00 am - 9:00 am 70.7 8:00 pm - 9:00 pm 68.2 9:00 am - 10:00 am 70.1 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm 67.7 10:00 am -11:00 am 70.1 10:00 pm - 11:00 pm 67.8 11:00 am - 12:00 pm 70.2 11:00 pm - 12:00 am 66.8 CNEL: 74.7 75 - 70 - ---- ------ 65 - ..... ---------- ......L 60 - ---- 4....4. .. ..... 55 .... z 50 - ........ .... 45 1......... o 40 4p, F, F Time of Day WIELAND ASSOCIATES,INC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix F: 1 General Plan Policies 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Temecula , Genera I Plan Proposed Goals and Policies 1 1 . Land Use Element Goal 1 A diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, 1 public and open space land uses. Policy 1.1 Review all proposed development plans for consistency with community goals, 1 policies and implementation programs of this General Plan, and consider potential impacts on surrounding land uses and infrastructure. 1 Policy 1.2 Promote the use of .innovative site planning techniques that contribute to development of a variety of residential product styles and designs, including housing suitable for the community's labor force. 1 Policy 1.3 Require development of unified or clustered community-level and neighborhood- level commercial centers and discourage development of strip commercial uses. 1 Policy 1.4 Support development of light industrial, clean manufacturing, technology, biomedical, research and development, and office uses to diversify Temecula's 1 economic base. Policy 1.5 Require the preparation of specific plans as designated on the Specific Plan Areas map to achieve the comprehensive planning and phasing of development and 1 infrastructure. Policy 1.6 Encourage flexible zoning techniques in appropriate locations to encourage mixed 1 use development, preserve natural features, achieve innovative site design, achieve a range of transition of densities, provide open space and recreation facilities, and/or provide necessary amenities and facilities. 1 Policy 1.7 Pursue opportunities to locate higher density housing with supporting commercial and public uses west of 1-15. 1 Policy 1.8 Encourage future development of a community hospital and related services, as well as a community college, major college or university. 1 Policy 1.9 Establish paseos, greenbelts, linear parks and trails within buffer areas between developments and at the City's edge. 1 Policy 1.10 Distribute high density housing throughout the community around transit nodes. 1 1 Goal Successful, high-quality mixed use development projects containing a mix of ' residential, commercial/office, and civic land uses, supported by alternative modes of transportation. Policy 2.1 Encourage development of mixed use projects to revitalize older commercial and ' industrial areas or to create village centers, provided that adequate capacity is available on the roadway system to support such projects. Policy 2.2 Require mixed use projects proposed within Mixed Use Overlay Areas to include a residential component, to contain a mixture of compatible uses, and to provide necessary supporting public and community facilities. ' Policy 2.3 Require preparation.of a detailed plan and a traffic study for all proposed mixed use projects within Mixed Use Overlay Areas. ' Policy 2.4 Link mixed use projects and village centers with trails and potential transit systems, including RTA bus, shuttles and commuter/high speed rail. , Policy 2.5 Ensure that the architecture, landscape design, and site planning of mixed use projects is of the highest quality, emphasizing a pedestrian scale and safe and , convenient access between uses. Policy 2.6 Ensure adequate public gathering areas or plazas are incorporated within mixed use projects to allow for social interaction and community activities. t Goal 3 A City of diversified development character, where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development. ' Policy 3.1 Provide physical and visual buffer areas to create a transition between rural residential and agricultural areas and commercial, industrial and other higher density ' residential development. Policy 3.2 Apply rural development standards within Rural Preservation Areas to maintain the ' rural character of those areas. Policy 3.3 Limit the number and size of additional structures on large lots to preserve the ' character of low density areas. Policy 3.4 Define the rural and historical areas of the community to be conserved, and ' establish a procedure for.adding areas or altering boundaries as necessary. Policy 3.5 Discourage the extension of urban infrastructure into Rural Preservation Areas, ' except in cases where required to protect public health;safety, and welfare. 1' 1 ' Goal 4 Orderly annexation and development of unincorporated areas within Temecula's Sphere of Influence. Policy 4.1 Annex lands to the City that can be developed in accordance with the General Plan and can be adequately served by public facilities and utility services. Policy 4.2 Evaluate proposed annexations using City Fiscal Impact and Traffic Impact Models. ' Policy 4.3 Evaluate the land use pattern and intensity/density of proposed annexations in terms of: Links to open space and trails from adjacent developments. ' Compatibility of the annexation to adjacent uses in the City. Demonstrated needs for additional housing; industrial, commercial and other ' uses. Policy 4.4 Create distinctive open space and other areas around the. City to prevent urban sprawl. az Policy 4.5 Influence and limit impacts on the City of development occurring beyond the Sphere of Influence. ' Policy 4.6 Continue to interact and develop strong working relationships and effective inter- L governmental review procedures with entities such as the Pechanga Band, City of ' Murrieta, and County of Riverside. _ Goal 5 A land use pattern that protects and enhances residential neighborhoods. Policy 5.1 Consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding•uses'in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, preservation of existing vegetation and landform, the location of access routes, noise impacts; traffic impacts,'and other environmental conditions. ' Policy 5.2 Require parcels developed for commercial or industrial uses to incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. Policy 5.3 Require proposed development to evaluate the incremental traffic impacts on local roads throughout the proposed project phasing in order to ensure that any adverse ' impacts to local roads in residential areas are avoided or adequately mitigated. 1 1 Goal 6 A development pattern that preserves aesthetics and enhances the environmental t resources of the Planning Area. ' Policy 6.1 Preserve the natural aesthetic quality of hillsides-and reduce hazards associated with hillside development within the Planning Area. ' Policy 6.2 Whenever possible, use alternative Flood control techniques to reduce capital and maintenance costs and provide recreational and open space opportunities. Policy 6.3 Conserve the natural resources of area watercourses, including Santa Gertrudis, t Temecula and Murrieta Creeks, through appropriate development densities, managing stormwater runoff, and conservation site planning. ' Policy 6.4 Protect and enhance significant ecological and biological resources within and surrounding Temecula. ' Policy 6.5 Create distinctive features at entry points to the City that emphasize Temecula's aesthetic and environmental setting. , Goal A viable, high-quality Old Town Temecula area that enhances the City economically, preserves historic structures, and provides civic, cultural, shopping, , and "meeting and gathering places for tourists and residents. Polity 7.1 Encourage revitalization of Old Town through implementation of the Old Town , Specific Plan.. Policy 7.2 Require preservation and reuse of historic buildings in and around the Old Town , area. Policy 7.3 Consider locating additional civic, public and cultural,facilities in and around the Old , Town area. Policy 7.4 Provide infill residential development incentives throughout Old Town. ' Goal A City compatible and coordinated with regional land use and transportation patterns. Policy 8.1 Provide a pattern of land uses that maintains and enhances the viability of ' neighboring communities including the City of Murrieta, and the counties of Riverside and San Diego, through compatible uses and links. Policy 8.2 Expand the City system of open space and coordinate with regional open space ' uses to comprehensively address the management of conservation resources. Policy 8.3 Participate with the Airport Land Use Commission in the implementation of the 1 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the French Valley Airport, to the extent feasible. _ 1 1 1 ' Circulation Element ' Goal 1 Strive to maintain a Level of Service "D" or better at intersections within the City during peak hours and Level of Service "C" or better during non-peak hours. ' Policy 1.1 Use the Circulation Element Roadway Plan to guide detailed planning and implementation of the City's roadway system, including appropriate road width and ' median transitions when a roadway classification changes. Policy 1.2 Pursue trip reduction and transportation systems management measures to reduce ' and limit congestion at intersections and along streets within the City. Policy 1.3 Actively monitor the capacity of principal intersections throughout the City. ' Policy 1.4 When Principal Intersections exceed LOS "D" during peak hours, or LOS "C" during off-peak hours, consider elevating the priority of CIP projects that reduce traffic congestion in these,areas. Policy 1.5 Require additional right-of-way and impose additional parking restrictions for approaches to all Principal Intersections to allow for future intersection - ' improvements and turning movement. ,~ Goal A regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community. Policy 2.1 Actively pursue. the construction of, system improvements outside the City's ;; ' jurisdiction in cooperation with Caltrans, the City of Murrieta, Riverside County, the Pechanga Band, and local developers. Measures should be taken to preserve anticipated right-of-way, needs and to identify funding .mechanisms -for needed ' interchange and regional arterial improvements. Policy 2.2 Develop a bypass system of roadways on the east, west and south sides of the City ' to accommodate traffic Flow from development outside the City and improve center- of-town traffic conditions. ' Policy 2.3 Actively pursue improvements to current freeway interchanges within the City and construction of new overpasses as required to achieve performance standards. ' Policy 2.4 Coordinate with public and private transit providers to provide fixed route transit service (bus or shuttle) along major transportation corridors connecting regional employment and commercial areas, airports, health care facilities, and major recreation areas.. Policy'2.5 Coordinate with Western Riverside Council of Governments to identify, protect, and pursue opportunities for light rail or high speed regional rail transit along major transportation corridors which connect Temecula to other population centers. 1 Policy 2.6 Identify, at the appropriate time, and reserve the necessary rights-of-way for future ' regional transit lines and facilities to address the valley's long-term transportation , needs. Goal An efficient City circulation system through the use of transportation system management and travel demand management strategies. t Policy 3.1 Require proper spacing and interconnect traffic signals where feasible to maximize the smooth progression of traffic flows and to minimize delay and stop-and-go , conditions. Policy 3.2 Discourage the provision of on-street (curbside) parking along principal arterial ' roadways to minimize traffic conflicts and increase carrying capacity. Policy 3.3 Provide a comprehensive system of Class I and/or Class II bicycle lanes to meet the ' needs of cyclists traveling to and from work and other destinations within the City. Policy 3.4 Encourage a mix of uses within projects designed to internalize trips, maximize use ' of parking facilities, and promote a shift from auto use to pedestrian, bicycle, and other alternative modes of travel. Policy 3.5 Encourage the provision of additional regional public transportation services and , support facilities, including park-and-ride lots near the 1.15 freeway and within mixed use overlay area and village centers. ' Policy 3.6 Discourage closing local streets to maintain the functionality of the arterial road network, achieve public safety goals, and improve the response time for police, fire, and ambulance services. ' Policy 3.7 Consider opening previously closed or blocked local streets to enhance the local road network, achieve public safety goals, and improve the response time for police, ' fire, and ambulance services while minimizing outside through traffic on local residential streets. Policy 3.8 Complete the construction of local connecting streets to enhance area circulation ' for local residents and improve the response time for police, fire, and ambulance services while minimizing outside through traffic on local residential streets. ' Goal A truck circulation system that provides for safe and efficient transport of commodities and also minimizes noise, air pollution and traffic impacts to the ' City. Policy 4.1 Designate primary truck routes on selected arterial streets to minimize the impacts ' of truck traffic on residential areas. Policy 4.2 Require loading areas and access ways for trucks that minimize or eliminate conflicts ' with automotive and pedestrian areas to maintain safe and efficient traffic circulation. 1 1 Goal 5 Safe and efficient alternatives to motorized travel throughout the City. Policy 5.1 Promote pedestrian and bicycle safety by adhering to uniform trail standards and ' practices and communicating safety practices to the public. Policy 5.2 Minimize potential conflicts between off-street bicycle and equestrian trails and ' automobile cross traffic. Policy 5.3 Ensure the accessibility of pedestrian facilities to the elderly and disabled. ' Policy 5.4 Provide a comprehensive network of multi-use trails and bikeways between residential areas and commercial/employment activity centers, public institutions, and recreation areas.. Policy 5.5 Apply appropriate restrictions (including, prohibiting) to _motorized vehicles and cycles using the City's multi-use trail system. ' Policy 5.6 Encourage the provision of facilities that support carpooling and public transportation within the City. ' Goal 6 Enhance traffic safety on City streets. Policy 6.1 Enforce speed restrictions throughout the City. ' Policy 6.2 Require that future roads and 'improvements to current roads be designed to J' ' minimize traffic conflicts which result from curb parking .maneuvers, uncontrolled access along heavily traveled roadways, and development of private driveways onto primary residential collector streets. . ' Policy 6.3 Require that vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic be.separated to the maximum extent feasible, especially in areas with high traffic volumes. ' Policy 6.4 Establish public education and enforcement programs to promote safe driving in the community. ' Policy 6.5 Work with schools and developers to improve circulation at pick-up/drop off areas and encourage that these facilities be provided on-site. ' Policy 6.6 Consider installing traffic calming measures on residential streets when other forms of traffic control have not been successful at reducing traffic speeds. ' Goal 7 An adequate supply of private and public parking to meet the needs of residents and visitors to the City. ' Policy 7.1 Enforce applicable City parking ordinances and standard design requirements. 1 Policy 7.2 Provide additional public parking in the Old Town area where feasible through ' common parking areas or establishment of a parking district. Policy 7.3 Encourage underground parking or parking structures where economically feasible ' in commercial areas. Policy 7.4 Consider the joint development and use of parking facilities where feasible, and require such parking in mixed use areas and village centers to maximize efficient use of available parking and increase developable site area. t Policy 7.5 Require parking for bicycles and other forms of alternative transportation. Open Space and Conservation Element Goal 1 A high quality parks and recreation system that meets the diverse recreation ' needs of residents. Policy 1.1 Ensure sufficient parkland and recreation facilities to support new development , through acquisition and/or dedication that meets the requirement for 5-acres of useable park land per 1,000 population. ' Policy 1.2 Pursue the joint use of public lands available and suitable for recreation purposes, including lands under the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control District, ' Southern California Edison, water districts, school districts, and other public agencies. Policy 1.3 Encourage the enhancement and preservation of historic structures and landscape, , and significant natural features, such as riparian areas, rock outcroppings, sensitive habitat areas, and viewpoints through par0esign and site development. , Policy 1.4 Encourage public safety and compatibility with adjacent uses in park design and development, including location of buildings, activity areas, lighting, and parking. ' Policy 1.5 Coordinate long-range park, trail and open space planning with Riverside County and the City of Murrieta. Policy 1.6 Encourage the establishment of natural habitat spaces for recreational hiking and , nature education. Policy 1.7 Consider the establishment of special use parks for seniors, pets, etc. 1 Goal 2 Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water , resources. Policy 2.1 Coordinate with the Riverside County Flood Control District to design Flood control , improvements that preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, important natural r ' features and resources of the local creeks and riparian forest of the Santa Margarita River. Policy 2.2 Identify and protect groundwater resources from depletion and sources of pollution in cooperation with the Rancho California Water District and the San Diego Water ' Quality Control Board. Policy 2.3 Conserve potable water by requiring water conservation techniques in all new ' development. Policy 2.4 Use reclaimed water for the irrigation of parks, golf courses, public landscaped areas ' and other feasible applications as service becomes available from Rancho California Watei District and Eastern Municipal Water District. ' Policy 2.5 Require the use of soil management techniques to reduce erosion, eliminate off-site sedimentation, and prevent other soil-related problems that may adversely affect waterways in the community. ' Policy 2.6 Regulate and manage lands adjacent to-or affecting watercourses as stipulated by the Regional Water Resources Control Board. ' Policy 2.7 Ensure that approved projects have filed a Notice of Intent and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act; prior to issuance ' of grading permits. Policy 2.8 Ensure. adequate inspection and enforcement of the requirements of general A construction permits, particularly related to erosion control during grading and ' construction. Policy 2.9 Participate in regional planning for the, Santa Margarita River Watershed in conjunction with federal, State, regional and local agencies, and non-profit organizations. t Policy 2.10 Participate in water resource management planning to facilitate the long-term availability of water resources for western Riverside County. ' Policy 2.1,1 Participate in outreach educational programs to educate the public about water conservation methods, new technologies and drought resistant landscapes. ' Policy 2.12 . Work with appropriate agencies to encourage ground water recharge facilities along flood control channels and creeks. ' Goal 3 Conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern, wildlife movement corridors, and general biodiversity. ' Policy 3.1 Require development proposals to identify significant biological resources and provide mitigation, including the use of adequate buffering and sensitive site planning techniques, selective preservation, provision of replacement habitats; and other appropriate measures. 1 1 Policy 3.2 Work with State, regional and non-profit agencies and organizations to preserve and enhance significant biological resources. ' Policy 3.3 Coordinate with the County of Riverside and other relevant agencies in the adoption and implementation of the Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation , Plan. Policy 3.4 Encourage developers to incorporate native drought-resistant vegetation, mature , trees, and other significant vegetation into site and landscape designs for proposed projects. Policy 3.5 Maintain an inventory of existing natural resources in the City. ' Policy 3.6 Limit recreational use of designated open space areas where there are sensitive ' biological resources as needed to protect these resources. Policy 3.7 Maintain and enhance the resources of Temecula Creek, Pechanga Creek, Murrieta ' Creek, Santa Gertrudis Creek, Santa Margarita River, and other waterways, to the ensure the long-term viability of the habitat, wildlife, and wildlife movement corridors. Goal 4 Conservation of energy resources through the use of available technology and , conservation,practices. Policy 4.1 Encourage the use of site planning techniques, building orientation, building design, ' and building materials that reduce energy use. Policy 4.2 Encourage the use of renewable and alternative energy generation such as fuel cells, ' solar energy, and other sources. Policy 4.3 Consider the feasibility of local or City-owned electrical distribution and/or ' generation facilities to ensure reliable and affordable supply. Goal 5 Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, ' and protection of natural resources and features. Policy 5.1 Conserve the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita ' River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and other important landforms and historic landscape features through the development review process. , Policy 5.2 Identify significant viewsheds to proposed projects that may be preserved through the dedication of open space or the use of sensitive grading, site design, and , building techniques. Policy 5.3 Encourage the use'of clustered development and other site planning techniques to ' maximize the preservation of permanent open spaces. 1 1 1 ' Policy 5.4 Retain and improve the quality of landscaping in parkways, public slopes, rights-of- way, parks, civic facilities, and other public open areas. Policy 5.5 Coordinate with Homeowners' Associations to maintain landscaping along slopes ' adjacent to public right-of-ways. Policy 5.6 Require the dedication and improvement of parkland. ' Policy 5.7 Require adequate open space in new development for both passive and active recreation. ' Policy 5.8 Require re-vegetation of graded slopes concurrent with project development to minimize erosion and maintain the scenic character of the community. ' Policy 5.9 Require connection between open space / recreation areas and adjacent developments or publicly owned recreation areas where appropriate. ' Policy 5.10 Incorporate seismic hazard safety zones into valley-wide open space and park systems where appropriate. Policy 5.11_ Encourage the use of native vegetation where re-vegetation and ,landscaping is to ' occur. Policy 5.12 Identify and develop natural habitat areas for low-impact hiking and nature education. Policy5.13 Utilize natural, undeveloped greenbelts as buffers ,between developments and on Y. ' outskirts of the City to preserve the rural and unique character of Temecula. Goal 6 Preservation,of significant historical and cultural resources. '. Policy 6.1 Maintain an inventory of areas with archaeological/paleontological.sensitivity, and historic sites in the Planning Area. ' Policy 6.2 Work to preserve or salvage potential archeological and paleontological resources on sites proposed for future development through the development review and ' mitigation monitoring processes. Policy 6.3 Preserve and reuse historical buildings in accordance with the Old Town Specific ' Plan. Policy 6.4 Assist property owners in seeking State and/or federal registration and appropriate zoning for historic sites and assets. Policy 6.5 Pursue the acquisition and preservation of historical buildings for public facilities in ' accordance with the Old Town Specific Plan when appropriate. Policy 6.6 Ensure compatibility between land uses and building designs in the Old Town ' Specific Plan Area and areas adjacent to Old Town. 1 1 Policy 6.7 Encourage use of California's Historic Building Code when preserving/rehabilitating ' historic structures. Policy 6.8 Support an integrated approach to historic preservation in coordination with other affected jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations for areas within the Planning Area ' and surrounding region that seeks to establish linkages between historic sites or buildings with other historic features such as roads, trails, ridges, and seasonal waterways. ' Policy 6.9 Encourage the preservation and re-use of historic structures, landscape features, roads, landmark trees, and trails. ' Goal 7 Protection of prime agricultural land from conversion to urbanized uses. Policy 7.1 Encourage conservation and continued use of prime agricultural lands in and around ' the Planning Area. Policy 7.2 Promote and aid in preserving and expanding the local wine industry. ' Policy 7.3 Coordinate with Riverside County to address the preservation of agricultural , resources. Policy 7.4 Discourage urban development in agricultural areas outside built-up areas of the ' City. Policy 7.5 Evaluate scenic or resource conservation easements as suitable means for protecting prime farmland located adjacent to residential areas and where the property. does ' not quality for inclusion in an agriculture preserve program. Goal 8 Development of a trail system that serves both recreational and transportation ' needs. Policy 8.1 Provide a citywide recreation system that connects to the County's regional trail ' system which provides for bicycling, •equestrian, hiking and jogging trails with appropriate support facilities. Policy 8.2 Negotiate land deeds as necessary to implement the citywide trail system. ' Policy 8.3 Require proposed development to provide trail connections to the citywide trail ' system through the dedication of land and the provision of.easements. Policy 8.4 Require development plans to identify locations for an internal trails/sidewalk system ' that links land uses and provides convenient travel to transit facilities. Policy 8.5 Develop trails and sidewalks suitable for multiple uses, including for the physically ' disabled and for personal transportation alternatives. 1 Goal Protection of dark skies from intrusive light sources which may impact the ' Palomar Observatory. Policy 9.1 Coordinate with the County of Riverside and California Institute of Technology to ' ensure preservation procedures for dark skies are implemented within the City development review process. Policy 9.2 Participate in Palomar Observatory's dark sky conservation requirements. ' Growth Management/Public Facilities Element Goal 1 Cooperative management of growth among local governments within Riverside ' County. Policy 1.1 Continue to participate in the preparation of plans and programs addressing regional issues. Policy 1.2 Implement, as appropriate, the policies of WRCOG's Growth Management Strategy ' that are consistent with Temecula's Growth Management Program. r Policy 1.3 Achieve economic growth and,prosperity while preserving natural beauty and the social quality of life in southwestern Riverside County. Policy 1.4 Encourage and assist in the establishment of natural reserves for the preservation of sensitive and endangered species, and to provide open space for residents. at Policy 1.5 Establish land use compatibility with adjacent _ jurisdictions for development standards related to infrastructure and engineering, whilepreserving unique zoning ' and design-standards. Policy 1.6 Work to establish a joint planning and review process with the County for future ' ,development in the Planning Area to ensure that adequate infrastructure and services are provided by the City. ' Policy 1.7 Guide the timing and provision of facilities and services to support development and protect and enhance quality of life. t Policy 1.8 Require development to pay its fair share of the costs of facilities and services necessary to serve the resulting level of growth. ' Policy 1.9 Pursue joint efforts to achieve fiscal stability for both City and County governments. Policy 1.10 Consider options to jointly contract with other jurisdictions for services or facilities to achieve economies of scale, where possible and appropriate.. 1 1 Goal 2 Orderly and efficient patterns of growth that enhance quality of life for Temecula ' residents. ' Policy 2.1 Implement and periodically update a Growth Management Program for Temecula. ' Policy 2.2 Ensure that phasing of public facilities and services occurs in such a way that new development is adequately supported as it develops. ' Policy 2.3 Establish and maintain level of service standards to document adequacy requirements. Policy 2.4 Encourage mixed-use developments, as defined in the Land Use and Community ' Design Elements, to reduce public service costs and environmental impacts through compatible land use relationships, and efficient circulation and open space systems. ' Policy 2.5 Encourage new development that helps create and maintain a balance between jobs and housing opportunities. ' Policy 2.6 Establish priority growth areas within the.City and Sphere of Influence where near- term urbanization will be encouraged. ' Policy 2.7 Discourage the use of assessment districts that promote urban sprawl and premature urbanization in rural and agricultural areas: ' Policy 2.8 Coordinate the Growth 'Management Program with the Congestion Management Program as necessary. ' Goal 3 Effective and cost-efficient police, fire and emergency medical services within the City. Policy 3.1 Evaluate police protection services for adequate facilities, staffing,. and equipment ' based on changes in population and development and to ensure an adequate response time for emergencies. Strive to provide a minimum of one full-time officer ' per 1,000 residents for police protection services. Policy 3.2 Require new development to address fire and police protection proactively through ' all-weather access, street design,, orientation of entryways, siting of structures, landscaping, lighting and other security features. Require illuminated addresses on new construction. Provide facilities, staffing, and equipment necessary to maintain a ' five-minute response time for 90 percent of all emergencies. Policy 3.3 Discourage the closure of streets that limit or delay access for emergency services. ' Policy 3.4 Coordinate with the County of Riverside,to locate and phase new sheriff facilities and fire stations to ensure that adequate service levels are maintained. ' 1 1 1 ' Policy 3.5 Promote community awareness regarding crime through the Police Department, public service organizations, and the establishment of citizen-involved programs and patrols. ' Goal 4 A quality school system with adequate facilities and funding to educate the youth of Temecula. ' Policy 4.1 Provide information to the Temecula Valley Unified School District when considering General Plan amendments, specific plans, zone changes, or other legislative land use policy decisions. ' Policy 4.2 Promote and encourage development phasing so that the School District may plan, finance, and construct school facilities to serve new development: Policy 4.3 Review proposed legislative land use decisions in the context of the adequacy of present and future facilities. ' Policy 4.4 Coordinate with the School District to provide safe access for school children walking, bicycling, or driving-to,and from school sites. ' Policy 4.5 Pursue the establishment of a trade school, a- junior college, and/or a four-year -r college that offers education required by the engineering, biotechnical and biomedical industries located in Temecula. — ' Policy 4.6 Plan for the joint use of school/municipal facilities wherever.feasible and desirable, including: school grounds, buildings, City parks, multi-purpose buildings, and ,y recreation facilities. _ Goal 5 Public and quasi-public facilities and services that provide for the social, cultural, civic, religious, and recreational needs of the community. ' Policy 5.1 Acquire a civic center site and construct a permanent City Hall facility to create a community focal point that is accessible to all members of the community. ' Policy 5.2 Continue to encourage citizens to participate in community programs and volunteer for public service positions. ' Policy 5.3 Evaluate the feasibility of providing child care facilities in connection with employment-generating uses. ' Policy 5.4 Explore opportunities to expand and provide additional community meeting space. ' Policy 5.5 Encourage provision of cultural facilities within the community, including: museums, theaters, a performing arts center, special exhibitions, an outdoor amphitheatre, and public art. ' Policy 5.6 Encourage provision of special recreation facilities such as a stadium, zoo, and amusement parks to meet local and area activity needs. 1 1 Policy 5.7 Encourage sharing or combining public facilities for educational, cultural, and , recreational purposes. Policy 5.8 Provide for library facilities and services that are consistent with community needs. , Policy 5.9 Continue to assist non-profit community organizations financially and in other ways, to the extent feasible. Goal 6 A water and wastewater infrastructure system that supports development in the , planning area. Policy 6.1 Require landowners to demonstrate that an available water supply and sewer ' treatment capacity exists or will be provided to serve proposed development, prior to issuance of building permits. Policy 6.2 Require landowners, prior to issuance of building permits, to demonstrate that adequate wastewater capacity exists to serve proposed development. ' Policy 6.3 Coordinate with the water and wastewater districts when considering General Plan amendments, annexations, -or development agreements, to assist the districts' in ' planning for adequate capacity to accommodate future growth. Policy 6.4 Coordinate with the wastewater district to make reclaimed water available for , irrigation purposes in the City. Policy 6.5 Encourage preparation of long-term water management programs by local water ' agencies. Policy 6.6 Require all new construction of water and sewer infrastructure to be.consistent with utility master plans and to implement the.policies of the General Plan. , Policy 6.7 Work with,local wastewater agencies to extend a brine line into the City. Goal 7 An effective, safe and environmentally compatible flood control system. 1 Policy 7.1 Work with the Riverside County Flood Control District and other agencies involved ' with Murrieta Creek flood control improvements to implement a solution that maximizes retention of natural resources and provision of recreation opportunities along the Creek. t Policy 7.2 Develop master drainage plans, when appropriate, for the Sphere,of Influence, in conjunction with the Flood Control District. ' Policy 7.3 Wherever possible, give priority to flood control methods that maintain natural areas, maximize the beneficial uses of water through natural systems, and provide ' additional trail opportunities. ' Goal A solid waste management system providing safe and efficient collection, ' transportation, recovery and disposal of waste. Policy 8.1 Coordinate with the County of Riverside to provide and expand solid waste ' collection, storage, transportation, recovery, and disposal services to meet the needs of the City. Policy 8.2 Establish collection and disposal procedures for household hazardous wastes ' through the adoption of a Household Hazardous Waste Element. Policy 8.3 Provide solid waste reduction and recycling within the City through implementation of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Goal Adequate electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication systems to meet ' development demand. Policy'9.1 Coordinate with responsible companies to provide continued maintenance, t development,- and expansion of electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications systems serving residents and businesses. ' Policy 9.2 Pursue the undergrounding of utilities along arterial roads, where feasible.. Policy 9.3. Encourage installation of new technological infrastructure 'throughout the City ' including broad band, fiber optics,wireless and other developing technologies. ' Public Safety Element Goal 1 Protection from natural hazards associated with geologic instability, seismic ' events, wild land fires, flooding, and dam failures. Policy 1.1 Identify and mitigate potential adverse impacts of ground surface rupture, ' liquefaction, and landslides at the project level. Policy 1.2 Apply and enforce seismic design standards and building construction codes for new ' development. Policy 1.3 Work with property owners to remediate hazardous buildings throughout the City. ' Policy 1.4 Monitor the potential for seismic events and other geologic activity with the County of Riverside and California Geological Survey. ' Policy 1.5 Establish development management techniques to lessen the potential for erosion and landslides. ' Policy 1.6 Provide and maintain adequate flood control facilities and limit development within the 100-year floodplain and potential dam inundation areas. 1 1 1 Policy 1.7 Prohibit development of any kind within the floodway portion of the 100-year ' floodplain. Policy 1.8 Reduce the risk of wild land fire through imposition of site-specific development , standards during project review and coordination with the City Fire Department and other organizations. ' Goal 2 Protection of the public and environmental resources from hazards related to hazardous materials and waste, and nuclear power production. ' Policy 2.1 Minimize the risks associated with hazardous materials through careful land use planning and coordination with responsible federal, State, and County agencies. ' Policy 2.2 Participate in local and regional programs that facilitate the proper disposal of household hazardous waste. , Policy 2.3 The policies and programs of the current Riverside County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (HWMP) are hereby adopted by reference. ' Policy 2.4 Coordinate with local, State and federal agencies to reduce the risks related to nuclear power production. ' Goal 3 A safe and secure,community free from the threat of personal injury and loss of property. ' Policy 3.1 Ensure adequate facilities and police and fire service personnel are provided in the City. Policy 3.2 Continue to work with the community in operating citizen involved programs and ' patrols that promote mutual assistance and crime prevention activities among residents. ' Policy 3.3 Incorporate crime prevention and defensible space, into site plans and building designs for new development. `• t Policy 3.4 Ensure that all-weather and appropriate secondary access is provided to ensure timely emergency response. Require all residential development with 35 or more ' dwelling units to provide all-weather secondary access that meets City standards. Goal 4 An effective response of emergency services following a disaster. ' Policy 4.1 Provide for and maintain a coordinated emergency services response to reduce community risks and property damage in the event of a disaster: ' Policy 4.2 Support the development and implementation of local preparedness plans and multi- jurisdictional cooperation for emergency situations consistent with the Standardized ' Emergency Management System (SEMS). 1 1 1 ' Policy 4.3 Coordinate emergency response planning with Riverside County and the Federal ' Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Policy 4.4 Encourage community-wide emergency preparedness among City residents and the ' business community. Policy 4.5 Regulate the location of critical facilities to ensure they continue to function after a disaster. ' Noise Element Goal 1 Separate significant noise generators from sensitive receptors. ' . Policy 1.1 Discourage noise sensitive land uses in noisy exterior environments unless measures can be implemented to reduce exterior and interior noise to, acceptable levels. ' Alternatively, encourage less .sensitive uses in areas adjacent to major noise generators but require sound-appropriate interior working environments. ' Policy 1.2 Limit the hours of construction activity next to residential areas to reduce noise intrusion in the early morning, late evening, weekends and holidays. Policy 1.3 Use information from .the. noise contour map in the General ; Plan in the ' development review process to prevent the location of sensitive land uses near major stationary noise sources. ' Goal 2 Minimize transfer of noise impacts between adjacent land uses. Policy 2.1 Limit the maximum permitted noise levels crossing property lines and impacting ' adjacent land uses. Policy 2.2 Establish criteria for placement and operation of stationary outdoor equipment. ' Policy 2.3 Require that mixed use structures and areas be designed to prevent transfer of noise and vibration from commercial areas to residential areas. ' Goal 3 Minimize the impact of noise levels throughout the community through land use planning. ' Policy 3.1 Enforce and maintain acceptable noise limit standards. Policy 3.2 Work with the County of Riverside and the City of Murrieta to minimize or avoid land use/noise conflicts prior to project approvals. ' Policy 3.3 Encourage the creative use of site and building design techniques as a means to minimize noise impacts. 1 1 Policy 3.4 Evaluate potential noise conflicts for individual sites and projects, and require , mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of project approval. ' Goal 4 Minimize impacts from transportation noise sources. Policy 4.1 Minimize noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation network, and ' mitigate sound levels where necessary or feasible to ensure the peace and quiet of the community. Policy 4.2 Ensure the effective enforcement of City, State and federal noise standards by all ' City Divisions. Policy 4.3 Enforce the speed limit on arterials and local roads to reduce noise impacts from vehicles, particularly in residential areas. Policy-4.4 'Coordinate with Caltrans to ensure the inclusion of noise mitigation measures in the ' design of new highways or improvement projects in the Planning Area. Policy 4.5 Participate in the planning and impact assessment activities of the County Airport , Land Use Commission and other regional or State agencies relative to any proposed expansion of the airport or change in flight patterns. ' Air Quality Element ' Goal 1 Continue coordination of air quality improvement efforts in the Western Riverside area. ' Policy 1.1 Coordinate planning efforts with other local,_regional and State agencies, including the County of Riverside, WRCOG, SCAQMD and SCAG. ' Policy 1.2 Encourage participation of local citizens, the business community and interested groups and individuals in air quality planning and.implementation efforts. ' Policy 1.3 Promote programs that educate the public about regional air quality issues, opportunities and solutions: ' Goal 2 Improve air quality through effective land use planning in Temecula. Policy 2.1 Encourage new development that provides employment opportunities for Temecula ' residents to improve the balance of jobs relative to housing. Policy 2.2 Encourage infill development near activity centers, within Mixed Use Overlay Areas, ' and along transportation corridors. Policy 2.3 Minimize land use conflicts between emission sources and sensitive receptors. ' 1 ' Policy 2.4 Mitigate air quality impacts associated with development projects to the greatest ' extent feasible. Goal 3 Enhance mobility to minimize air pollutant emissions. Policy 3.1 Use transportation demand reduction techniques to reduce motor vehicle trips. Policy 3.2 Use transportation systems management techniques to maintain an orderly flow of ' traffic and improve mobility. Policy 3.3 Pursue development of a public transit system consisting of local shuttle and bus ' routes, as well as bicycle and pedestrian trails that are linked to the regional transit network. ' Policy 3.4 Establish a convenient and efficient system of bicycle routes and pedestrian walkways. ' Policy 3.5 Promote the use of alternative clean-fueled vehicles, new transportation technologies, and combustion engine alternatives for personal and business use: ' Policy 3.6 Develop and implement programs that reduce local traffic congestion at peak hours x and during special events. •' Goal 4 Adopt effective energy conservation and recycling practices to reduce emissions. Policy.4.1 Encourage community-wide' reductions in energy consumption through ' conservation. Policy 4.2 Promote local recycling of wastes'and the use of recycled materials. Policy 4.3 Encourage energy-efficient design in new-development projects. ' Community Design Element ' Goal 1 Enhancement of the City's image related'to its regional and natural setting and its tourist orientation._ Policy 1.1 Develop a comprehensive system of trails and open space areas connecting schools, ' public recreation areas, residential areas, and commercial centers. ' Policy 1.2 Apply requirements of the Old Town Specific Plan to all new construction as well as to the rehabilitation of structures in the Old Town Area. ' Policy 1.3 Develop design standards to enhance the visual character of commercial centers located adjacent to 1-15. 1 1 Policy 1.4 Promote community identity by providing specially designed gateway signs and ' landscape enhancements at the primary entrances to the City. ' Policy 1.5 Maintain and incorporate natural amenities such as: rock outcroppings, indigenous vegetation, streams and watercourses within proposed development projects. Policy 1.6 Promote continuity throughout the community through design elements that ' maintain rustic and historic characteristics, and emphasize the agricultural significance of Temecula. , Goal 2 Design excellence in site planning, architecture, landscape architecture and signs. Policy 2.1 Establish and consistently apply design standards and guidelines for both residential and non-residential development. Policy 2.2 Require preparation of Specific Plans to promote cohesive and integrated patterns ' of development for large undeveloped areas. Policy 2.3 Provide development standards ensuring higher quality building and site design that ' is well integrated with the infrastructure and circulation systems. Policy 2.4 Formulate flexible design standards for commercial development that enhances ' special identity and visual character. Policy 2.5 Limit light and glare pollution through design standards for outdoor lighting, the use ' of low intensity lights, and lighting that supports the continued use of the Mt. Palomar Observatory. Policy 2.6 Enhance the visual identity of commercial districts. 1 Policy 2.7 Establish a program to encourage and oversee the placement of art in public and ' community places. t Policy 2.8 Encourage the use of public art at key intersections, and in public gathering areas to ' enhance the appearance and character of the community. Policy 2.9 Establish rehabilitation programs for older commercial centers to prevent blight and ' maintain the quality of the built environment. Goal 3 Preservation and enhancement of the positive qualities of.individual districts or ' neighborhoods. Policy 3.1 Improve the appearance of neighborhood areas and neighborhood edges through , landscaping, location of open space buffers, and special landscape features. Policy 3.2 Preserve the.scale and character of residential development by creating appropriate ' transitions between lower density and rural areas, and higher density development. 1 ' Policy 3.3 Encourage the use of creative landscape design to create visual interest and reduce ' conflicts between different land uses. Policy 3.4 Improve the pedestrian orientation, convenience and safety of commercial centers ' through the provision of pedestrian amenities such as benches, plaza areas, information kiosks and other street furniture, and through careful site planning and architectural design. Goal 4 A streetscape system that provides cohesiveness and enhances community image. ' Policy 4.1 Promote the development of a continuous sidewalk and trail system throughout the City. Policy 4.2 Establish a_ comprehensive streetscape program for the major streets in the City, ' including unified landscaping, lighting, paving ' patterns, and . other public improvements. ' Policy 4.3 Encourage variety in the design of sidewalks and trails, with respect to alignment and surface materials and'separating sidewalks from the curb along arterial streets to provide a convenient and enjoyable experience for pedestrians. ' Policy 4.4 Where feasible, require the provision of landscaped parkways between roads and sidewalks. ' Policy 4.5 Arterial roads should be designed as landscaped parkways that serve as unifying urban design elements. ' Policy 4.6 Encourage the use of drought tolerant landscape materials that are easy to maintain - and are recommended in the Landscape Standards of the Development Code. Policy 4.7 Establish -and enforce weed abatement programs on undeveloped properties and along major arterials. ' Policy 4.8 Work with Caltrans to implement a freeway and interchange landscaping and planting program to improve the appearance of the community. This program should incorporate appropriate native and drought tolerant species. Goal 5 Protection of public views of significant natural features. ' Policy 5.1 Work with the County of Riverside to protect surrounding hillside areas from inappropriate grading and development that affects the visual backdrop of the valley. ' Policy 5.2 Retain critical escarpment and major hillside areas to preserve open space areas on the west and south edges of the City. ' Policy 5.3 Establish a program to acquire, or permanently protect, critical hillside areas from development. 1 Policy 5.4 Require the use of native plant materials when revegetating open space areas. ' Policy 5.5 Require re-vegetation and maintenance of graded slope areas. Policy 5.6 Promote and implement underground utilities (cable, power, etc.) where feasible. , Goal 6 Maintain and enhance public spaces and resources within the City. Policy 6.1 Provide site furniture in areas with high pedestrian activity and provide for shade ' trees in pedestrian and plaza areas. Policy 6.2 Enhance the pedestrian-orientation of the City's public spaces. ' Policy 6.3 Assure that operating and maintenance costs are adequately provided for public ' facilities. Policy 6.4 Promote use of public art in public spaces, specifically open space areas and entry ' points throughout the City. Goal Community gathering areas which provide for the social, civic, cultural and , recreational needs of the community. Policy 7.1 Encourage public spaces and plazas within commercial developments that can ' accommodate cultural and social events and function as community gathering areas. Policy 7.2_ Encourage multi-purpose facilities within commercial developments that may be ' leased for a variety of public and private events., Policy 7.3 Encourage a range of uses within commercial developments that provide for both ' day and evening activities. - Policy 7.4 Encourage common areas and, facilities within residential developments to provide gathering areas for social and recreational activities. , Policy 7.5 Encourage employee lunch areas within industrial/business park facilities. Policy 7.6 Promote provision of cultural facilities within the community including: art museums,- 1 theaters, performing art centers, outdoor amphitheaters, special cultural exhibitions, and public art. ' Policy 7.7 Develop a civic center site that will create a community focal point and facilitate community functions. ' Policy 7.8 Encourage the development of public gathering spaces in commercial centers and include centrally-located public gathering and activity areas in shopping centers and ' office complexes. These gathering areas can include plazas and sidewalk cafes and need to be located adjacent to businesses whose patrons would use the spaces. ' (Examples of these businesses can include: delicatessens, restaurants, coffee houses, newspaper stands, and book stores.) 1 ' Economic Development Element Goal 1 A strong base of clean manufacturing activities which employs a skilled labor ' force and can be successfully integrated into Temecula's community character. Policy 1.1 Attract and retain a diverse range of business and industry that complements ' Temecula's character, utilizes the local workforce, and takes advantage of Temecula's location. ' Policy 1.2 Encourage the growth and expansion of industry by providing high quality municipal services, facilities, and economic development assistance. ' Policy 1.3 Encourage an environmentally-friendly business atmosphere that maintains local regulations favorable to clean industry and provides technical assistance to industries affected by new regional air quality regulations and other developing regional regulations. 1 Policy 1.4 Encourage the establishment of federal and State agency offices, corporate headquarters,facilities, and other white-collar employers in Temecula to expand local employment opportunities. •=1; Policy 1.5 Encourage the expansion and attractive appearance and design of professional ' office environments and industrial centers while maintaining the diversified manufacturing base. Policy 1.6 Develop and 'maintain strategic partnerships with the Chamber 'of Commerce, the Economic Development Corporation, and other organizations that encourage the establishment of high-paying jobs in the area. ' Goal 2 A diverse economic base including a range of manufacturing, retail and service activities. ' Policy 2.1 Provide for industrial land uses which facilitate a variety of user types, including biomedical And high technology operations, manufacturing, business office, and ' research and development. Policy 2.2 Plan for land use and development patterns that allow succession of use, adapt to Temecula's economic conditions, and promote development of properly located ' and well designed commercial centers.meeting the diverse service needs of the City. Policy 2.3 Use redevelopment powers and opportunities to enhance development, including the revitalization of older commercial areas through the development of mixed use projects. 1 1 Policy 14 Encourage professional office development in key locations, such as high traffic ' volume corridors along 1-15 and the SR-79 South Corridor. ' Policy2.5 'Promote retail and other support activities that provide a broader selection of high- quality goods and services for residents, workers and tourists, including apparel, general,merchandise, home furnishings and appliances. , Goal A sound economic base providing a fiscal foundation for the City, quality community facilities, and high service levels. ' Policy 3.1 Encourage a pattern of development that balances ,revenue generating land uses in phase with other uses that have negative fiscal impacts. ' Policy 3.2 Encourage the growth or relocation of industries that generate local tax and employment advantages. ' Policy 3.3 Evaluate fiscal impacts of new development on an ongoing basis and provide appropriate mitigation strategies. ' Policy 3.4 Take advantage of Temecula's regional capture of taxable 'sales and continue to establish Temecula as a retail center. ' Policy 3.5 Promote recycling and revitalization of older retail/commercial corridors within the City, including Jefferson Avenue, and 'potential increases in mixed use residential and , commercial projects. Goal 4 A diverse education; job training, and placement system which will develop and 1 maintain a high quality work force in Temecula. Policy 4.1 Support economic development goals through a range of education and training ' activities. Policy 4.2 Establish a proactive, continuing dialogue between the City and educational institutions, including school districts, community colleges and universities on the , phasing of development, service standards, and the needs of the work force. Policy 4.3 Encourage development of a comprehensive higher education center in conjunction , with interested private, community and state colleges or universities. Goal Promote the advantages to businesses of locating in Temecula, including cost ' advantages, amenities, housing, community activities, cultural amenities, and civic services. Policy 5.1 Continue to develop and maintain the marketing program to publicize the ' advantages of relocating to Temecula. Policy 5.2 Monitor economic conditions in Temecula in comparison to other locations in ' California and throughout the nation to determine relative advantages. 1 l 1 ' Policy 5.3 Monitor and maintain the supply of diverse housing types and price ranges in relation to the supply of jobs to balance area-wide jobs, households, worker earnings and housing expenses throughout the City. ' Policy 5.4 Monitor existing businesses and support small businesses and the business retention program to encourage local employment and growth of local businesses. ' Policy 5.5 Continue to attract industrial and high-technology businesses that require higher skilled employment to take advantage of Temecula's skilled work force. ' Policy 5.6 Encourage the provision of cultural arts and amenities with the development of cultural facilities that enhance the City's image and the local quality of life. ' Goal 6 A comprehensive, recognizable tourist destination, offering a range of attractions throughout and beyond the Planning Area. Policy 6.1 Encourage and enhance cooperative efforts with the wine-making industry and other '. tourism organizations in the Temecula Valley to promote Temecula as a destination resort. ' Policy 6.2 Support tourism venues, including commercial recreation, convention, resort, and wine-making activities, that spotlight the desirability of, and bring visitors to, the ' Temecula Valley. Policy 6.3 Continue to expand Old Town's role in local tourism and improve its attractiveness, . accessibility, and economic vitality, as well as it's interaction with other local attractions. Policy 6.4 Encourage development of lodging along the freeway which interacts well with the ' professional office and tourism markets and enhances fiscal viability. t 1 1 1