HomeMy WebLinkAboutTemecula Old Town SP DEIR.pdfProgram Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2009071049
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
Draft
February 2010Prepared for
The City of Temecula
9191 Towne Centre Drive
Suite 340
San Diego, CA 92122
858.638.0900
www.esassoc.com
Los Angeles
Oakland
Olympia
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Francisco
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills
209294
Program Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2009071049
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
Draft
February 2010Prepared for
The City of Temecula
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment i ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Old Town Specific Plan
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
Page
Executive Summary S-1
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Purpose of the Draft Program EIR ................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Background .......................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 CEQA EIR Process .......................................................................................... 1-3
1.3.1 Notice of Preparation ............................................................................... 1-3
1.3.2 Draft Program EIR ................................................................................... 1-3
1.3.3 Public Review .......................................................................................... 1-4
1.3.4 Final Program EIR ................................................................................... 1-4
1.3.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ................................................ 1-4
1.4 Approach to this Draft Program EIR ................................................................. 1-5
1.5 Organization of this Draft Program EIR ............................................................ 1-5
1.6 Cumulative Development ................................................................................. 1-6
1.6.1 CEQA Analysis Requirements................................................................. 1-6
1.6.2 Geographic Scope ................................................................................... 1-7
1.6.3 Project Timing ......................................................................................... 1-8
1.6.4 Type of Projects Considered ................................................................... 1-8
2. Project Description ................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Background, Goals and Objectives .................................................................. 2-1
2.1.1 Project Background ................................................................................. 2-1
2.1.2 Project Goals and Recommendations ..................................................... 2-2
2.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................ 2-4
2.3 Project Location and Surrounding Area ............................................................ 2-5
2.3.1 Location ................................................................................................... 2-5
2.3.2 Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................... 2-5
2.4 Project Description ........................................................................................... 2-5
2.4.1 Land Use Districts ................................................................................... 2-8
2.4.2 Annexation and Removal of Old Town Specific Plan Areas .................. 2-11
2.4.3 Implementation through Changes to Standards and Guidelines ........... 2-11
2.5 Timeline ........................................................................................................... 2-16
2.6 Review and Approvals ..................................................................................... 2-16
Table of Contents
Page
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment ii ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................... 3-1
3.1 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................... 3.1-1
3.2 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 3.2-1
3.3 Global Warming/Climate Change .................................................................. 3.3-1
3.4 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 3.4-1
3.5 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................ 3.5-1
3.6 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................. 3.6-1
3.7 Noise ............................................................................................................. 3.7-1
3.8 Utilities and Services ..................................................................................... 3.8-1
3.9 Traffic and Circulation ................................................................................... 3.9-1
4. Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Cumulative Projects ......................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Description of Cumulative Effects .................................................................... 4-5
5. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes and
Growth-Inducing Impacts ................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Introduction to Growth Inducement Issues ....................................................... 5-1
5.3 Elimination of Obstacles to Growth .................................................................. 5-1
5.4 Economic Effects ............................................................................................. 5-2
5.5 Growth-Inducing Effects of the Proposed Project Elimination of
Obstacles to Growth .................................................................................... 5-2
5.6 Increased Demand on Secondary Markets ...................................................... 5-3
5.7 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects .................................................. 5-3
6. Alternatives Analysis 6-1
6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Project Alternatives .......................................................................................... 6-4
6.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................................................. 6-27
7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers ..................................................... 7-1
7.1 Acronyms ......................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 References ....................................................................................................... 7-8
7.3 List of Preparers ............................................................................................. 7-13
Appendices
A. Initial Study ................................................................................................................ A-1
B. Notice of Preparation of DEIR/Scoping Meeting Notice ............................................ B-1
C. Responses to Notice of Preparation/Scoping Meeting Sign-In Sheet ........................ C-1
D. Air Quality Analysis Worksheets ................................................................................ D-1
E. Cultural Resources Inventory ..................................................................................... E-1
F. Alternative Standards Noise Research Memo ............................................................ F-1
G. Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Report ................................................................... G-1
H. Utilities and Services ................................................................................................. H-1
Table of Contents
Page
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment iii ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
List of Figures
2-1 Regional Location Map ......................................................................................... 2-6
2-2 Project Location .................................................................................................... 2-7
2-3 Proposed Land Use Districts .............................................................................. 2-10
2-4 Specific Plan Amendment Boundary .................................................................. 2-12
3.4-1 Southern Emigrant Trail ..................................................................................... 3.4-8
3.5-1 Dam Inundation ............................................................................................... 3.5-12
3.6-1 Existing Land Use Districts and Photographic Survey Key ................................ 3.6-3
3.6-2 Downtown Core and Hotel Overlay Existing Land Uses .................................... 3.6-4
3.6-3 Civic District Existing Land Uses ....................................................................... 3.6-5
3.6-4 Residential/Limited Mixed Use Existing Land Use ............................................. 3.6-6
3.6-5 Neighborhood Residential and Open Space Existing Land Use ........................ 3.6-7
3.7-1 Effects of Noise on People ................................................................................. 3.7-2
3.9-1 Location Map (Existing Conditions) ................................................................... 3.9-4
3.9-2 Location Map (Future Conditions) ...................................................................... 3.9-5
3.9-3 Future Traffic Distribution ................................................................................. 3.9-11
3.9-4 Cumulative Projects ......................................................................................... 3.9-15
4-1 Cumulative Project Map ........................................................................................ 4-4
List of Tables
S-1 Old Town Specific Plan Comparison Table .......................................................... S-4
S-2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................. S-38
2-1 Old Town Specific Plan Comparison Table ........................................................... 2-8
2-2 Anticipated Review and Approvals for Old Town Specific Plan Project .............. 2-17
3.2-1 Air Quality Data Summary (2004–2006) ............................................................ 3.2-3
3.2-2 State and National Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources ........ 3.2-6
3.2-3 Riverside County Attainment Status .................................................................. 3.2-7
3.2-4 Air Quality Significance Thresholds ................................................................. 3.2-11
3.2-5 Mitigated Emissions from Proposed Specific Plan Amendment ....................... 3.2-14
3.2-6 Mitigated Emissions from Existing Specific Plan .............................................. 3.2-14
3.2-7 Proposed Construction Emissions minus Existing Construction ...................... 3.2-15
3.2-8 Proposed Specific Plan Build-out Operational Emissions ................................ 3.2-18
3.2-9 Existing Specific Plan Build-out Operational Emissions ................................... 3.2-18
3.2-10 Proposed Specific plan Build-out Operational Emissions minus
Existing Specific Plan Build-out Operational Emissions .............................. 3.2-18
3.2-11 Estimated Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ................................................... 3.2-20
3.3-1 List of Recommended Actions by Sector ........................................................... 3.3-4
3.4-1 Cultural Resources within the Project Area ........................................................ 3.4-9
3.4-2 Previously Identified Cultural Resources within the Project Area with
NRHP Ratings between 1 and 5 ................................................................. 3.4-10
3.4-3 Previously Identified Cultural Resources within Project Area ........................... 3.4-11
3.4-4 Previously Recorded Historic Resources within Specific Plan Area not
Reidentified in Field Survey ......................................................................... 3.4-12
3.5-1 Rancho California Water District Water Sources ............................................... 3.5-3
3.6-1 Existing Land Use Designations within the Project Boundary .......................... 3.6-13
3.6-2 Existing Zoning Districts within the Project Boundary ...................................... 3.6-15
3.6-3 Existing Old Town Specific Plan Land Use Districts ........................................ 3.6-16
3.6-4 City of Temecula General Plan Goals and Policies ......................................... 3.6-19
Table of Contents
Page
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment iv ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
List of Tables (cont.)
3.7-1 Temecula Land use / noise standards ............................................................... 3.7-7
3.7-2 Existing Noise Environments at Project Site ...................................................... 3.7-9
3.7-3 Measures of Substantial Increase for Noise Exposure .................................... 3.7-11
3.7-4 Typical Construction Noise Levels ................................................................... 3.7-12
3.7-5 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment ......................................... 3.7-13
3.7-6 Vibration Velocities for Construction Equipment .............................................. 3.7-14
3.7-7 Existing and Future Peak-Hour Noise Levels along Selected Roadways ........ 3.7-16
3.7-8 Existing and Future Peak-Hour Noise Levels along Selected Roadways ........ 3.7-18
3.8-1 Parks and Recreational Facilities ....................................................................... 3.8-2
3.8-2 Private Recreational Facilities ............................................................................ 3.8-3
3.8-3 RCWD Water Supply Sources ........................................................................... 3.8-4
3.8-4 Type of RCWD Customer Accounts .................................................................. 3.8-5
3.8-5 Existing and Projected Average Water Demands in the RCWD ........................ 3.8-5
3.8-6 EMWD’s Wastewater Consumption by Residential Classification ..................... 3.8-6
3.8-7 EMWD’S Wastewater Consumption by Non-Residential Classification ............. 3.8-7
3.8-8 Estimated Current and Future Electricity Demand ............................................. 3.8-8
3.8-9 Estimated Current and Future Natural Gas Demand ......................................... 3.8-9
3.8-10 Estimated Current and Future Solid Waste Generation ................................... 3.8-10
3.8-11 Water System Unit Demand ............................................................................ 3.8-17
3.9-1 Level of Service Descriptions ............................................................................. 3.9-1
3.9-2 Intersection Level of Service Definitions ........................................................... 3.9-2
3.9-3 Existing Intersection Level of Service ................................................................ 3.9-6
3.9-4 Project Trip Generation Estimates ..................................................................... 3.9-9
3.9-5 Cumulative Projects Trip Generation ............................................................... 3.9-14
3.9-6 Existing plus Ambient Growth with Proposed Specific Plan ............................. 3.9-17
3.9-7 Existing plus Ambient Growth with Proposed Specific Plan ............................. 3.9-19
3.9-8 Parking Spaces Required ................................................................................ 3.9-21
3.9-9 Commercial Uses – Retail and Service............................................................ 3.9-22
4-1 Planned and Approved Projects in the Project Area ............................................. 4-3
6-1 Ability of Alternatives to Meet Project Objectives .................................................. 6-5
6-2 Summary Comparison of Project Alternative Impacts ........................................... 6-6
6-3 Build-Out Comparison of Alternative 1 and Proposed Project ............................ 6-11
6-4 Mitigated Emissions from Alternative 2 Construction .......................................... 6-13
6-5 Mitigated Emissions from Existing Specific Plan Construction ............................ 6-13
6-6 Proposed Construction Emissions minus Alternative 2
Construction Emissions .................................................................................. 6-14
6-7 Alternative 2 Operational Emissions ................................................................... 6-14
6-8 Proposed Specific Plan Operational Emissions .................................................. 6-15
6-9 Proposed Specific Plan Operational Emissions minus Alternative 2
Operational Emissions ................................................................................... 6-15
6-10 Mitigated Emissions from Alternative 3 Construction .......................................... 6-21
6-11 Mitigated Emissions from Existing Specific Plan ................................................. 6-21
6-12 Proposed Construction Emissions minus Alternative 3
Construction Emissions .................................................................................. 6-22
6-13 Alternative 3 Operational Emissions ................................................................... 6-22
6-14 Proposed Specific Plan Operational Emissions .................................................. 6-23
6-15 Proposed Specific Plan Operational Emissions minus Alternative 2
Operational Emissions ................................................................................... 6-23
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-1 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
SUMMARY
S.1 Introduction
The City of Temecula (City) has prepared this Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
(Draft Program EIR) to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies information about
the potential effects on the local and regional environment associated with adoption of the
proposed Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP) Amendment (proposed project). This Draft Program
EIR has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines outlines the parameters of a Program EIR as follows:
A Program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be
characterized as one large project and are related either:
1. Geographically,
2. A logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions,
3. In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria
to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or
4. As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or
regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which
can be mitigated in similar ways.
Use of a Program EIR can provide the following advantages:
1. Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and
alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action,
2. Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-
case analysis,
3. Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations,
4. Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide
mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to
deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts, and
5. Allow reduction in paperwork.
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-2 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
(c) Use with Later Activities. Subsequent activities in the program must be
examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine whether an
additional environmental document must be prepared.
The OTSP meets the requirements for a Program EIR. Future specific projects submitted for City
review and approval within the Specific Plan area will be required to prepare an Initial Study to
determine the need for any additional required CEQA compliance documentation. This document
serves as a Program EIR for the OTSP, which establishes development parameters but does not
propose any specific development, as the exact development proposals for future projects are not
yet known at this time. As such, the environmental baseline for the project varies with regards to
the environmental impact area analyzed. This Draft Program EIR is being circulated to local, state
and federal agencies, and to interested organizations and individuals who may wish to review and
comment on the document. Publication of this Draft Program EIR marks the beginning of a 45-
day public review period (public review period ends April 14, 2010) during which written
comments may be directed to the City of Temecula at the address below. Comments on the
project should be directed to:
Stuart Fisk
Senior Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Stuart.Fisk@cityoftemecula.org (e-mail)
951.506.5159 (phone)
951.694.6477 (fax)
S.2 Background
Old Town History
The approval of the Old Town Temecula Historic Preservation District by the Riverside Board of
Supervisors in October 1979 marked the first recognition of Old Town Temecula as a unique
place with a historic character worth preserving and enhancing. Since that initial recognition,
additional steps have also been taken to help plan Old Town's future and preserve its historic
buildings and character. The Temecula Community Plan Task Force (comprised of members
from the Old Town Temecula Museum Historical Committee, Old Town Temecula Merchants
Association, Temecula Town Association, and Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce)
prepared and submitted a plan for Old Town's revitalization in October 1988. This plan provided
a grass roots basis for existing concerns and future growth.
A renewed focus on the issues facing Old Town was established with the preparation of the City's
General Plan in early 1992. Throughout the various elements of the General Plan (including Land
Use, Circulation, Open Space, and Community Design) needs were identified to preserve and
revitalize Old Town. The primary policy recommendation that emerged from the General Plan
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-3 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
program was the need to prepare a specific plan for Old Town. Acting on this recommendation,
the Temecula City Council authorized preparation of the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan to
provide a master plan for the Old Town area.
Old Town Specific Plan
Temecula was incorporated on December 1, 1989. On November 9, 1993, Temecula adopted the
Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan. Since then, 13 specific plans have been adopted to
govern defined geographic regions of the City. The OTSP was prepared in 1992 and 1993 with
the assistance of Urban Design Studio and the council-appointed Old Town Steering Committee.
The Steering Committee members represented a wide-range of local business and resident
interests. The OTSP was approved by the City Council on February 8, 1994. The original purpose
of the document was to provide a comprehensive plan for land use, development regulations,
design guidelines, vehicular circulation, parking, development incentives and other related
actions aimed at implementing the goals and objectives set forth in the document itself.
The proposed project site has also been evaluated in previous planning documents including:
• Old Town Specific Plan, Originally Adopted February 8, 1994 (Revised October 10, 2000;
August 24, 2004; and June 13, 2006)
• City of Temecula General Plan EIR, prepared by The Planning Center, updated 2005.
S.3 Project Objectives
The project objectives as defined by the City are as follows:
• Update the current OTSP to provide enhanced desired services within the plan area to both
City residents and visitors while being compatible with the nearby residential area;
• Incorporate form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, to
better facilitate pedestrian friendly development through building placement and
streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town;
• Respect the history of the OTSP area while fitting with current economics, accommodating
greater residential density, and encouraging a variety of architectural styles;
• Implement significant new investment in the Old Town area to help promote rapid growth
in Temecula Valley and develop a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use
development;
• Enhance the quality of life of Temecula residents by balancing economic development
objectives with protection of the environment and the health and safety of the community;
and
• Promote economic activity within the City to maintain a healthy economy, provide revenue
for high-quality municipal services and infrastructure maintenance and improvements, and
preserve the unique character of Temecula.
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-4 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
S.4 Project Description
The project involves an amendment to the OTSP. The primary goal for the Specific Plan
Amendment is to incorporate form-based code principles to more clearly define development
regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian friendly development through building placement and
streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town. The Specific Plan
Amendment is intended to achieve these goals through changes to site planning standards and
guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural
standards and guidelines, parking lot guidelines, public art guidelines, paving material guidelines,
outdoor dining/sidewalk furniture guidelines, sign regulations and guidelines, alley guidelines,
and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will
also result in the annexation of approximately 2.4 acres into the Specific Plan at a location south
of First Street, along the west side of Old Town Front Street, and the removal of approximately
2.3 acres from the Specific Plan at a location west of the intersection of 6th Street and Pujol Street.
The mixed-use aspect of the Specific Plan Amendment is anticipated to result in a commercial
building floor space reduction in Old town of approximately 1,405,285 square feet and the
addition of approximately 749 residential units within the Specific Plan area. The reduction of
building floor space can be anticipated because residential uses require more open areas for
parking, courtyards, balconies, and other shared and private open spaces than commercial space
would, particularly due to the fact that commercial space in Old Town is not required to provide
parking, but residential uses are required to provide at least one parking space per residential unit.
Table S-1 below compares what currently exists today within the OTSP area, what has been
approved under the existing OTSP, what is proposed under the OTSP amendment, and the
differences between the approved and proposed OTSP.
TABLE S-1
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN COMPARISON TABLE
Currently Exists in
OTSP Approved OTSP
Proposed OTSP
Amendment
Difference of
Approved/Proposed
OTSP
Difference of
Existing/Proposed
OTSP
Commercial 537,632 sf 3,641,275 sf 2,235,990 sf -1,405,285 sf +1,698,358 sf
Residential 681,179 sf 1,575,892 sf 2,249,285 sf +673,393 sf +1,568,106 sf
538 du 1,659 du 2,408 du +749 du +1,870 du
1,184 residents 3,350 residents 5,298 residentsa +1,948 residents +4,114 residents
Civic 143,525 sf 159,809 sf 159,809 sf 0 sf +16,284 sf
Open
Space 19.7 acres 19.7 acres 25.4 acres +5.7 acres +5.7 acres
sf = square feet: du = dwelling units
a Multi-family dwelling unit assumption of 2.2 persons/du.
SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2010.
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-5 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Land Use Districts
The OTSP area is composed of land use districts which establish permitted land uses and
development standards intended to implement the goals, policies and objectives of this Specific
Plan and the City’s General Plan. These land use regulations and development standards
constitute the primary zoning provisions for the OTSP area. The Specific Plan Amendment is
intended to achieve the previously defined goals and objectives through changes to land use
district locations and titles within the Specific Plan.
Downtown Core District and Hotel Overlay
The Downtown Core District, located along the east edge of the Open Space corridor which
contains Murrieta Creek, is intended to provide for uses that will support pedestrian-oriented and
mixed-use development. This district is defined by multi-story urban buildings of up to four
stories that are intended to accommodate art galleries, museums, restaurants and small-scale
boutique retailers such as gift, specialty food, and antique shops, or similar retail uses. Service
and office uses are permitted within this district, but are restricted to the second floor and higher
for parcels along Old Town Front Street and Main Street. Residential uses are permitted in the
Downtown Core, but are also restricted to the second floor and higher for parcels along Old Town
Front Street and Main Street. All four-story buildings in the Downtown Core must contain at least
one floor restricted to residential use.
The Downtown Core/Hotel Overlay is intended to encourage the development of a hotel with
conference facilities, restaurant and other guest services. This area is located in the southeast
corner of the project area just west of the I-15 corridor. The Hotel Overlay permits a hotel with
conference facilities to be constructed at a greater building height (up to eight stories) than other
buildings in the underlying district. This will provide adequate visitor accommodations for Old
Town and the surrounding area.
Civic Districts
The three Civic Districts are located immediately north and south of the Residential/Limited
Mixed Use District (just west of the I-15 corridor) and on the west side of the Downtown Core
District along the open space corridor. These areas are intended to provide for public and quasi-
public uses such as parks, city offices, police/fire stations, senior citizen centers, community
centers and other community assembly uses, museums, and similar facilities.
Residential/Limited Mixed Uses
The Residential/Limited Mixed Uses Districts are intended to provide for attached residential or
mixed-use development of up to three stories. These districts accommodate a variety of housing
types with opportunities for ground floor retail, restaurants, and offices serving residents. These
uses are intended to provide convenience or services for the residents in the surrounding
neighborhood such as corner markets, takeout/delivery restaurants, dry cleaners, beauty shops,
florists, and similar uses. Appropriate building types include live/work, courtyard housing,
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-6 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
rowhouses, condominiums, and apartments. These districts are located between the Civic
Overlays just west of the I-15 corridor and at the northern boundary of the OTSP.
Neighborhood Residential
The Neighborhood Residential District is intended to provide for attached and detached three-
story residential development at a density of up to 35 dwelling units per acre. Typical housing
types in this area may include single-family detached, duplexes, triplexes, townhouses,
condominiums, apartments, and live/work units. This land use district would be located along the
western side of the project area just west of the Open Space corridor which contains Murrieta
Creek.
Open Space
The Open Space corridor, which traverses through the central portion of the project area, includes
both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek.
The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, and to
protect the public from flood hazards.
Annexation and Removal of Old Town Specific Plan Areas
As previously described, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will result in the annexation of
approximately 2.4 acres into the Specific Plan at a location south of First Street, along the west
side of Old Town Front Street. The removal of approximately 2.3 acres from the Specific Plan, at
a location west of the intersection of Sixth Street and Pujol Street, is also proposed.
Implementation through Changes to Standards and
Guidelines
A form-based code regulates development projects by providing specific regulations for the
physical form of a building to foster predictable built results and an active public realm. Form-
based codes emphasize building form over land use and encourage mixed-use development in an
urban environment. Form base codes also address the relationship between the building façade
and the public realm to achieve a pedestrian friendly environment along the streets, sidewalks and
alleys.
Form-based code regulations are provided through what is known as a regulating plan. The
regulating plan provides specific development regulations and standards presented in both words
and diagrams to designate the appropriate building form, scale, massing and character of a
building relative to the zoning district or geographic location of a lot or property within the
Specific Plan area. More specifically, the regulating plan regulates the site planning for buildings
which in turn defines the streetscape to achieve the human scale and walkability desired of the
Old Town area.
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-7 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Site Planning
The area comprising the core of Old Town Temecula is typical of many small town/rural main
streets. The buildings are predominantly side by side, forming a fairly continuous street wall, and
are placed on a build-to-line 10 feet behind the right-of-way. The pedestrian-friendly quality of
this relationship is enhanced by arcades, mature trees, benches, and lack of emphasis on parking
lots and parked cars. It is the intent of the urban standards to intensify the pedestrian activity
which characterizes this area by requiring side parking, rear parking, or no on-site parking lots.
Pedestrian passages to parking areas adjoining mid-block alleys are encouraged to facilitate the
screening of parking lot areas.
Streetscape Standards
The purpose of streetscape improvements for Old Town is to promote a high-quality comfortable
pedestrian environment that enhances the visual experience of the area for tourists and residents
alike. The preservation of the pedestrian scale and the relationship of buildings to streets are
important criteria in the Old Town area. Streetscape improvements along Old Town Front Street
and Main Street will be modified as specified in the plan.
The focus of the project area will be to provide pedestrians a network of simple, well-defined and
well-proportioned outdoor spaces. In an effort to ensure a comfortable urban downtown
experience, streetscapes that are simple and uncluttered will be emphasized. In addition, street
trees will be a major component. Trees will be located closer to the streets to allow a more urban
feel.
Circulation Standards
In the Old Town area, the project proposes to use an intersection Level of Service F (LOS F) as an
acceptable LOS for intersections on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road
North. In the past few years, several cities in California have, by using a variety of methods, made
the decision to allow lower LOS for intersections located in core or downtown areas. These
decisions are all linked to efforts to create the increased densities needed for mixed-use
development that supports pedestrian and transit uses, as well as a sustainable living and work
environments.1
Architectural Standards
Development standards and requirements for all projects within the OTSP area are intended to
ensure that proposed development within the Old Town area occurs in a manner that is consistent
with the community’s vision for building form, massing, architectural character, and the
building’s relationship to the street and public realm.
The most prevalent architectural style in Old Town relates most commonly to the Gold Rush
Style or Western Frontier Style. The architectural design guidelines for Old Town are organized
1 Case studies included the cities of Calistoga, Oakland, Roseville, San Diego, San Jose, and Walnut Creek. In
San Jose, downtown development is exempt from LOS requirements and mitigation measures.
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-8 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
into four topics: building form, frontage type, architectural style, and materials. While
architectural principles are defined, variety and individual expression within this framework are
encouraged. The community desires a character of architecture and streetscape reflecting
Temecula Valley’s history, natural landscape and climate. The amended OTSP will help to
provide a rich and varied character to the streetscapes in Old Town while acknowledging the
variety of Old Town’s historical buildings. The amended Specific Plan will encourage new
development to respect this old heritage, but still enable variety and individual expression through
building form, architectural style and materials.
Parking Lots
The public view of open parking lots can detract from the Old Town area. This is especially
important in retail areas.
In an effort to minimize the amount of land committed to parking lots within the Old Town area,
not all uses within the Specific Plan will be required to provide on-site parking. In most cases, the
determination whether or not parking will be required will be based upon the land use district and
the type of business. When on-site parking is required, the standards contained in Chapter 17.24
of the Temecula Municipal Code will normally be used to determine the number of required
parking spaces. However, the Temecula Director of Planning may require assembly uses with
high parking demands to provide additional off-street parking. In making this determination, the
Temecula Director of Planning can consider the size and location of the proposed use, the hours
of operation, the availability of nearby off-street parking, and its proximity to other assembly and
restaurant uses. In the retail portions of the project area, locating parking lots between the front
property line and any building will be prohibited. As needed, several additional parking strategies
could be incorporated into the Old Town area in the long-term. These additional parking
strategies could include time limits, informational programs, a Parking District, additional
parking supply, and parking charges as determined by the City. More specifically, the City could
establish time limits and parking charges once an area consistently surpasses 85 percent
occupancy. The City could also develop an informational program or Parking District at any time;
however, with the recent development of the Civic Center parking structure/lot, parking needs in
the short-term have been met. Additionally, near-term parking would be supplied through a
parking structure located at 2nd Street (behind the Stampede) and/or the City’s 6th Street surface
lot.
Public Art
The placement of public art within the project area will be encouraged on both private and public
property. Public art can be representative of the City’s culture and heritage in addition to promoting
social gathering places and interaction. Wall murals, lighting displays, sculptures, mosaics,
monuments and fountains will all be considered significant examples of artistic expression.
Proposals for public art will be subject to review pursuant to the public art ordinance.
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-9 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Paving Material
Enhanced paving materials are strongly encouraged in the Specific Plan area wherever possible.
The textures of paving can guide activities and movement patterns; it can channel traffic or
prevent it from encroaching on specific areas; it can speed movement or slow it down. Smooth
surface materials encourage walking, while rough surfaces slow or inhibit walking. Paving
materials therefore influence usability and comfort, as well as the perception of a historic time
period.
Outdoor Dining/Sidewalk Furniture
Outdoor patio furniture and umbrellas for private restaurants and other commercial uses within
the OTSP are considered an integral part of the street scene. Appropriate street-side furnishings
would be meant for private use and occur between the property line and the build-to-line, outside
of the right-of-way.
Sign Regulations and Guidelines
Signs in Old Town advertise a place of business or provide directions and information. The OTSP
directs signs to be architecturally attractive and should contribute to the retention or restoration of
the historic character of the area. The OTSP notes that signs should not compete with each other
or dominate the setting via inconsistent height, size, shape, number, color, lighting, or movement.
This revised Specific Plan has regulations to help control the size, location, and number of
storefront signs. In addition, the revised Specific Plan contains design criteria to encourage and
coordinate well-designed signs and provides guidelines intended to assure the local merchant that
all other Old Town commercial establishments are similarly regulated.
Alley Guidelines
The primary purposes of the remaining alleys are either for vehicular access or pedestrian access.
The primary goal of the vehicular access alleys is to provide service and rear area parking access
to adjacent properties. The majority of these alleys are located between Old Town Front Street
and Mercedes Street. The primary purpose of the pedestrian access alleys is to enhance the
pedestrian connections between Old Town Front Street and Murrieta Creek.
The following alleys between Old Town Front and Mercedes Streets will retain a primarily
vehicular function:
• Between First and Second Streets
• Between Third and Main Streets
• Between Fourth and Fifth Streets
• Between Fifth and Sixth Streets
The following alleys between Old Town Front Street and Murrieta Creek will retain a primary
pedestrian function:
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-10 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
• Between Fourth and Fifth Streets
Landscape Guidelines
Landscaping in the OTSP area is focused on achieving three main objectives:
1) To unify and establish a uniform urban streetscape in Old Town;
2) To soften mixed-use, commercial, civic, and residential development within Old
Town’s urban context; and
3) Establish an environment in Old Town that is pleasant and comfortable for
pedestrians, residents and visitors.
These three areas of focus will be accomplished by a highly recognizable use of repeated planting
treatments. Consistency and continuity within the street right-of-way and building setback areas
will also be extremely important for development.
Murrieta Creek
Old Town has historically turned its back to Murrieta Creek, using land along the creek for
backyards, storage and parking. The proposed flood control improvements provide the
opportunity for Old Town to create a positive relationship with the creek. The concept of the
Murrieta Creek Walk includes the creation of a pedestrian walkway along both sides of the water
course with buildings fronting portions of the creek. The improvements to the Murrieta Creek
corridor will be aesthetically compatible with the vision for Old Town while also capitalizing on
the improvements to add desirable pedestrian/equestrian trails along the creek’s edge.
Improvement plans to the corridor area will be coordinated with other master plans adopted by
the City.
S.5 Summary of Impacts
Table S-2, at the end of this chapter, presents a summary of the impacts and mitigation measures
identified for the proposed project. The complete impact statements and mitigation measures are
presented in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. The level of
significance for each impact was determined using significance criteria (thresholds) developed for
each category of impacts; these criteria are presented in the appropriate sections of Chapter 3.
Significant impacts are those adverse environmental impacts that meet or exceed the significance
thresholds; less-than-significant impacts would not exceed the thresholds. Table S-2 indicates the
measures that will be implemented to avoid, minimize, or otherwise reduce significant impacts to
a less than significant level.
The impacts associated with the proposed project would occur during the construction phase and
the operational phase. Although most construction impacts would be short term, they can pose
significant disruptions to nearby communities.
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-11 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Aesthetics
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The proposed amendment to the OTSP would not significantly impact a scenic vista, damage a
scenic resource and/or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site. The project site
is located in a mixed-use area that includes residential and commercial land uses. The project site
is predominantly flat, and it has been previously graded and developed.
State Highway 79 North (Winchester Road), part of the California Freeway and Expressway
System, is located approximately two miles north of the project site and is eligible for the State
Scenic Highway System. Due to road topography, however, the project site is not visible from
Winchester Road. The proposed project is located adjacent to I-15, which is designated as an
Eligible State Scenic Highway; however, it is not officially designated as a State Scenic Highway
by the California Department of Transportation. Therefore, no eligible or officially designated
scenic highways would be affected by the proposed project. Furthermore, the visual character of
the Old Town area is anticipated to improve with the implementation of the OTSP standards and
design guidelines.
The Community Design Element of the City of Temecula’s General Plan identifies important
scenic viewsheds to ensure that new public and private development projects will not obstruct the
public views of scenic resources. According to the General Plan Community Design Plan, the
project site has not been identified as a viewshed, nor is it located in the sightline of a nearby
viewshed. Tall structures in the proposed Hotel Overlay zone have the potential to block views of
the western escarpment when viewing west from I-15. However, the I-15 freeway is
approximately 40 feet higher in elevation than the proposed location for the Hotel Overlay zone.
Therefore, only about 60 feet of a 100-foot, eight-story building would be visible above grade
when viewing from I-15. In addition, the western escarpment is approximately 1,000 feet higher
than the proposed location for the Hotel Overlay zone. Since the plateau spans several miles
along the horizon, eight-story buildings constructed in the Hotel Overlay zone would not be
capable of substantially blocking views of the plateau.
The proposed Hotel Overlay area would allow for hotels of up to eight stories. Though hotels
would be required to architecturally integrate with the Old Town area, the potential building
height and mass could degrade the existing visual character and quality of the Old Town area and
its surroundings. As stated in the Community Design Element of the Temecula General Plan,
“Effective community design and planning combines important spatial considerations of land use
and circulation patterns to achieve community beautification, community pride, and quality of
life.” Therefore, the siting of the Hotel Overlay zone may adversely affect the visual quality of
the area should the surrounding land uses be incompatible with large-scale hotel land uses. An
example of an incompatible land use in this case would include low-density residential uses.
Therefore, to determine if an eight-story building permitted in the proposed Hotel Overlay zone
would degrade the visual character of the site and its surroundings, the following discussion
analyzes the land uses surrounding the Hotel Overlay zone for aesthetic compatibility.
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-12 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
The proposed Hotel Overlay would be sited in an area that currently contains multi-story hotels,
such as the Rodeway Inn,, and other mixed and commercial uses such as the 4-story Truax
Building and the Civic Center parking structure. Thus, the site proposed for the Hotel Overlay
zone already contains many of the uses that would be permitted in this zone under the proposed
amendment to the Specific Plan. To the north of the Hotel Overlay zone, dense mixed-
use/commercial and public institutional land uses exist. Examples of such uses include hotels,
antique shops, restaurants and offices. Land uses to the south of the Hotel Overlay zone consist of
service commercial uses, such as a U-Haul rental facility and a liquor store. To the west of the
Hotel Overlay area is the I-15 freeway, and to the east is the Murrieta Creek open space corridor.
There currently are no low-density residential land uses surrounding the proposed Hotel Overlay
zone. Thus, the presence of larger scale hotels in this area would not degrade the aesthetic quality
of the environment affecting people living in residential neighborhoods.
Eight-story structures would be permitted in the Hotel Overlay zone to provide adequate visitor
accommodations for Old Town and the surrounding area. Visitors who stay at the hotels
constructed in this area would benefit from convenient pedestrian access to nearby restaurants,
retail and public institutional land uses. Businesses surrounding the Hotel Overlay zone would
benefit from the revenues associated with increased quasi-residency at the hotels. Thus, the
construction of large hotels in this area would be compatible with the uses surrounding the Hotel
Overlay zone. In addition, the area north of the proposed Hotel Overlay zone currently contains
four-story, mixed-use structures, which would lessen the visual prominence of an eight-story
hotel potentially constructed to the south. Therefore, notwithstanding architectural design, the
visual character of the existing environment in this area would not differ substantially should
larger hotel facilities be constructed.
The OTSP Design Guidelines and supplemental standards establish architectural provisions for
private development that would be applicable to the eight-story structures permitted in the
proposed Hotel Overlay zone. The Design Guidelines and supplemental standards would ensure
that the permitted large-scale hotels would be designed to architecturally integrate with the
surrounding area. Therefore, allowing an eight-story hotel (twice as tall as other nearby buildings)
within the proposed Hotel Overlay zone would not be out of character or substantially degrade
the existing visual quality of the site and its surroundings.
The OTSP Design Guidelines and supplemental standards establish architectural provisions for
private development that would be applicable to the eight-story structures permitted in the
proposed Hotel Overlay zone. The Design Guidelines and supplemental standards would ensure
that the permitted large-scale hotels would be designed to architecturally integrate with the
surrounding area. Therefore, allowing eight-story hotels within the proposed Hotel Overlay zone
would not substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the site and its surroundings.
The amendment to the OTSP could result in taller buildings and additional lighting needs beyond
those associated with the existing Specific Plan. Though the City of Temecula requires that all
new developments comply with the Palomar Lighting Ordinance (Ordinance 655), which requires
that all lighting sources be shielded and directed downward to avoid glare on adjacent properties
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-13 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
and to ensure low levels of glare in the sky, the potential for significantly taller hotel buildings,
allowed by the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan at the south end of the project site, could
result in a new source of substantial light or glare, which could adversely affect daytime or
nighttime views of the area. This is because the use of exterior lighting for security and aesthetic
illumination may contribute substantially to ambient nighttime lighting conditions. Reflective
light (glare) would be caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces such
as window glass, or other reflective materials.
The proposed amendment to the specific plan does not explicitly prohibit the use of reflective
surfaces for the Hotel Overlay zone. Therefore, tall buildings permitted in the proposed Hotel
Overlay zone may substantially contribute to new sources of glare in the area. However, with
implementation of mitigation measures in Section 3.1, potential light and glare impacts associated
with the proposed project would be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
With implementation of mitigation measures in Section 3.1, potential light and glare impacts
associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. These generally accepted
measures would be enforced by the City.
Air Quality
This is a Program EIR for a specific plan that establishes development parameters but does not
propose any specific development. As the exact development proposals are not yet known at this
time, the air quality impact analysis compares the amended OTSP at build-out to existing
conditions. Although operational emissions and some construction emissions would be lower than
the existing specific plan, the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable with
regards to impacts to air quality.
Air Quality Plan
The AQMP identifies construction activities as contributing factors to the overall emissions
sources and provides source control measures to reduce this contribution, but does not conclude
that individual projects would delay the attainment of air quality standards for the basin.
Compliance with the rules established by the SCAQMD to reduce construction emissions,
including fugitive dust control measures and vehicle maintenance measures, would ensure that
the proposed project would not conflict with the current AQMP. The proposed project is
consistent with growth assumptions included in the AQMP because it is consistent with the City
General Plan and SCAG goals, which are consistent with the RTP. As such, the impact would be
less-than-significant.
Construction
Construction-related emissions would occur intermittently for approximately 30 years. Project
construction activities would include site preparation, earthmoving, and general construction. Site
preparation includes activities such as general land clearing and grubbing. Earthmoving activities
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-14 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
include cut-and-fill operations, trenching, soil compaction, and grading. General construction
includes adding improvements such as roadway surfaces, structures, and facilities.
In the absence of mitigation, construction activities may result in significant quantities of dust,
and as a result, local visibility and PM10 concentrations may be adversely affected on a
temporary and intermittent basis during construction. In addition, the fugitive dust generated by
construction would include not only PM10, but also larger particles, which would fall out of the
atmosphere within several hundred feet of the site and could result in nuisance-type impacts.
NOx, ROG, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and CO2 construction emissions were estimated for a worst-case
day based on default crew, truck trip, and equipment. Emissions are based on criteria pollutant
emission factors from URBEMIS 2007. The results of this analysis are summarized in Section 3.2.
As shown in Section 3.2, construction emissions of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 with construction
under the Specific Plan Amendment would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and would
therefore be significant.
The approved existing Specific Plan is shown in Section 3.2 to produce NOx, CO, PM10, and
PM2.5 over the SCAQMD thresholds as well. Section 3.2 shows the difference in emissions
levels from the proposed Specific Plan Amendment minus the existing Specific Plan. As shown
in Section 3.2, emissions of ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 are lower in the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment versus the existing Specific Plan. However, impacts under the proposed Specific
Plan Amendment would remain significant and unavoidable.
The proposed project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of TAC
emissions. In addition, there would be no residual emissions after construction and corresponding
individual cancer risk. As such, project-related toxic emission impacts during construction would
be less than significant.
Operation
Operational emissions for the proposed project would be generated primarily from on-road
vehicular traffic, area sources (such as landscaping equipment), and indirectly by the energy
consumption of the buildings proposed under the Specific Plan Amendment. Because power is
provided to the City of Temecula over an integrated electricity grid, indirect emissions from the
use of electricity could occur at any of the fossil-fueled power plants in California or neighboring
states, or from hydroelectric or nuclear plants or renewable energy sources. For all power plants,
it can be assumed that the emissions are reviewed as part of the permitting process before the
power plant is built or expanded.
The operational emissions with build-out of the existing Specific Plan would exceed all
SCAQMD thresholds. When the proposed amendment to the OTSP at build-out is compared to
build-out of the existing Specific Plan, as shown in Section 3.2, a major reduction of all emissions
occurs. However, operational emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.
Carbon Monoxide
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-15 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Traffic generated by the amendment to the OTSP would result in CO emissions based on the total
volume of traffic and congestion along streets and intersections. CO emissions in future years are
expected to decline due to reductions in the predicted CO emission factors resulting from a
cleaner future mix of vehicles. However, as shown in Section 3.2, increases in CO emissions
would exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
The traffic study has found that the existing OTSP at build-out is projected to produce
approximately 11,165 net vehicles during the PM peak hour. The proposed amendment to the
OTSP at build-out is projected to generate approximately 7,357 net vehicles during the PM peak
hour. Therefore the proposed amendment to the OTSP would generate considerably fewer trips
and thus less CO emissions from traffic operations than the existing OTSP. As shown in Section
3.2, the estimated project-related CO operational emissions would be reduced in comparison to
build-out of the existing OTSP. However, with development of the project, automobile and truck
traffic would result in significant increases in localized CO concentrations over the existing
Specific Plan and over existing conditions.
Traffic generated by the proposed amendment to the OTSP was analyzed to determine its
potential to affect CO concentrations in the project area. The modeling method included
background CO concentration levels obtained from the Perris Monitoring Station, and traffic
projections prepared for the project at the most affected intersection (Old Town Front Street and
Main Street). Residents at specific intersections detailed in Section 3.2 would be the most
affected by project-related traffic. It was assumed that if CO concentrations on roadway segments
specified in Section 3.2 would not exceed the ambient air quality standards, the project’s
contribution to impacts at other intersections affected by project traffic to a lesser extent would be
less substantial. As shown in Section 3.2, the analysis demonstrated that no exceedances of the
CO one-hour or eight-hour standard would occur. Furthermore, future years would have even
lower background concentrations and vehicle emission factors. Thus, project-related traffic would
have a less-than-significant impact on local CO concentrations.
Global Warming/Climate Change
The proposed project would contribute to global climate change as a result of emissions of GHGs,
primarily CO2, emitted by construction and operational activities. GHG impacts are considered to
be exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative greenhouse gas emission impacts
from a climate change perspective (CAPCOA, 2008). Thus, the specific plan amendment analysis
of GHG emissions is to determine whether the proposed project impact is cumulatively
considerable.
Four types of analyses are used to determine whether the project could be cumulatively
considerable and potentially conflict with the state goals for reducing GHG emissions. The
analyses are as follows:
A. Any potential conflicts with the CARB’s thirty-nine (39) recommended actions in
California’s AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan.
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-16 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
B. The relative size of the project. The project’s GHG emissions will be compared to the size of
major facilities that are required to report GHG emissions (25,000 metric tons/year of CO2e)2 to
the state. The project size will also be compared to the SCAQMD GHG threshold, as well as the
California GHG emissions limit of 427 million metric tons per year of CO2e emissions by 2020.
In reaching its goals the CARB will focus upon the largest emitters of GHG emissions.
C. The basic energy efficiency parameters of a project to determine whether its design is
inherently energy efficient.
D. Any potential conflicts with applicable City of Temecula plans, policies, or regulations
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
With regard to Item A, the proposed project does not pose any apparent conflict with the most
recent list of the CARB early action strategies.
With regard to Item B, proposed project construction GHG emissions would be approximately
12,004 metric tons of CO2e/yr. The existing Specific Plan construction greenhouse gas emissions
would be approximately 11,848 metric tons of CO2E/yr. Therefore the proposed specific plan
amendment would have a 1% increase in construction emissions compared to the existing specific
plan.
The proposed specific plan amendment build-out operational GHG emissions from vehicle trips
and space heating would be approximately 240,415 metric tons of CO2e/yr, and indirect operation
emissions from electricity generation would be approximately 14,454 metric tons of CO2e/yr,
totaling 254,869 metric tons of CO2e/yr. The proposed project would be classified as a major
source of greenhouse gas emissions (total emissions would exceed the lower reporting limit,
which is 25,000 metric tons of CO2e/yr). Existing specific plan build-out operational emissions
from vehicle trips and space heating account for 323,931 metric tons of CO2e/yr, and indirect
operational emissions of approximately17,791 metric tons of CO2e/yr totaling approximately
341,721 metric tons of CO2e/yr. Therefore the proposed specific plan would have a 25%
reduction from the existing specific plan build-out emissions.
When compared to the overall state emissions limit of approximately 427 million metric tons
CO2e/yr, the proposed specific plan build-out (254,869 metric tons CO2e/yr) would be 0.06
percent of the state goal. However, since the project would result in GHG emissions that would
exceed the major source threshold (25,000 metric tons CO2e/yr) and the SCAQMD GHG
screening threshold (3,000 metric tons CO2e/yr), the project would potentially conflict with the
state’s ability to meet the AB32 goals.
With regard to Item C, the project would introduce high-density residential uses, thus creating a
mixed-use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment
opportunities, which would reduce the community’s reliance on automobiles.
2 As noted above the 25,000 metric ton annual limit identifies the large stationary point sources in California that
make up approximately 94 percent of the stationary emissions. If the project’s total emissions are below this limit,
its total emissions are equivalent in size to the smaller projects in California that as a group only make up 6 percent
of all stationary emissions. It is assumed that the activities of these smaller projects generally would not conflict
with State’s ability to reach AB 32 overall goals.
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-17 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
With regard to Item D, The City of Temecula does not have any plans, policies, or regulations
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, therefore the project would not pose
a conflict.
The review of Items A, B, C, and D indicate that the project would potentially conflict with the
State goals in AB 32 and therefore this impact would be significant without mitigation.
The State of California Attorney General’s office has compiled a list of GHG reduction measures
that could be applied to a diverse range of projects (State of California Department of Justice,
2008), many of which are included in mitigation measures in Section 3.3.
Even with implementation of all measures that are feasible from Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 as
detailed in Section 3.3, the project would be considered a major source of greenhouse gases and
would exceed the SCAQMD GHG screening threshold. Consequently, the increase in greenhouse
gases by the project places the project in conflict with the goal of the state to reduce up to 169
million metric tons CO2e/year. This impact would remain significant.
Cultural Resources
Thirteen previously recorded historic resources in Old Town Temecula were reidentified during
the field survey prepared for this Program EIR. The existing Old Town Historic Preservation
Ordinance, and numerous implementation procedures within the City of Temecula General Plan,
are designed to protect historic resources in Old Town Temecula. As no changes to these
ordinances or protection procedures are planned as part of the Specific Plan Amendment, no
significant direct or indirect impacts to those resources in particular are anticipated as a result of
implementing the Specific Plan Amendment.
The goals and recommendations intended to direct the City in its development of the OTSP area
include the protection of designated historic buildings by delineating a historic core, protecting
the historic grid of streets and alleys, and encouraging future development to maintain the historic
setting and character of the plan area.
The proposed amendment would include architectural standards intended to encourage new
development to respect the historic setting and character of the project area and its historic
structures by providing guidance and regulations concerning building form, frontage type,
architectural style, and materials. For example, the City would provide landscape guidelines to
soften the impact of commercial development and unify and establish the historical theme of the
OTSP area, and strongly encourage enhanced paving materials that reflect the materials used in
modern mission style buildings to be used in the Specific Plan area wherever possible.
Improvements to areas such as the Murrieta Creek Walk corridor are intended to be aesthetically
compatible with the vision for Old Town and the preservation of its historic character and setting.
Implementation of these guidelines would result in a less-than-significant impact to historic
resources within the OTSP area.
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-18 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would also result in the annexation of approximately 2.4
acres into the Specific Plan at a location south of First Street, along the west side of Old Town
Front Street, and the removal of approximately 2.3 acres from the Specific Plan at a location west
of the intersection of Sixth Street and Pujol Street. Neither the annexation nor the removal of land
from the OTSP area would result in a significant impact to historic resources, as neither area
includes any previously identified or potential resources. The 2.3 acres intended for removal from
the OTSP area includes predominantly modern residential structures located along a private road.
The Specific Plan area contains other buildings dating older than 50 years which have not been
comprehensively surveyed and evaluated and may be eligible for the National or California
Registers upon further review. If determined eligible, implementation of the Specific Plan
Amendment could result in the demolition or alteration of these potential historic resources,
which would be considered a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-2a in
Section 3.4 would minimize this impact to a less-than-significant level.
The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians recognize the
Specific Plan area as having cultural significance. Pechanga tribal cultural traditions including
oral histories, songs, and creation accounts directly refer to the project area and its immediate
environs. According to SB 18, the lead agency is required to consult with Native American tribes
to identify any Native American sacred places or geographical areas within which sacred places
may be located. SB 18 likewise requires the development of appropriate treatment or
management plans to ensure the protection and preservation of such sacred places. The
identification of sacred sites through appropriate consultation as required under SB 18, as well as
through Phase I investigation in coordination with local Native American groups for individual
projects as specified in Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a in Section 3.4, would ensure that no significant
impacts would occur.
There is no indication that any particular site in the Specific Plan area has been used for human
burial purposes in the recent or distant past. In addition, General Plan Implementation Procedure
OS-39: Tribal Cultural Resources, already protects previously unidentified human remains from
accidental damage. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries, the human remains could be inadvertently damaged,
which could be a significant impact. This impact could be further minimized by implementation
of Mitigation Measure 3.4-4a in Section 3.4.
The project area is underlain by the Pauba Formation and younger and older Quaternary
Alluvium. The Pauba Formation and older Quaternary Alluvium have a high paleontological
sensitivity, as they have a high potential to contain significant non-renewable paleontologic
resources. These formations occur throughout a large percentage of the Specific Plan area. In
addition, the Riverside County Planning Department’s Land Information System lists the
paleontological sensitivity for most of the project area as “High”.
Temecula’s General Plan (implementation measure OS-26) requires that a paleontologist be
retained to observe grading activities in areas where the probable presence of paleontological
resources is identified. However, significant paleontological resources can be uncovered even in
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-19 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
areas of low sensitivity, and it is possible that ground-disturbing construction activities associated
with implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could result in the inadvertent discovery of
paleontological resources, which could be a significant impact. The mitigation measures in
Section 3.4 would further reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Hydrology
Construction
Any proposed development within the OTSP area larger than one acre would have to satisfy all
applicable requirements of the NPDES Program and Chapter 8.24, Stormwater/Urban Runoff
Management and Discharge Controls of the City of Temecula’s Municipal Code, to the
satisfaction of the City of Temecula’s Public Works Department.
Operation
Development projects within the OTSP area would be required by the Stormwater/Urban Runoff
Management and Discharge Controls of the City of Temecula’s Municipal Code to submit and
implement a SWPPP using BMPs that would effectively reduce or prevent the discharge of
pollutants into receiving waters. Mitigation measures in Section 3.5 would further reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is not anticipated to affect the quantity of groundwaters,
either though direct additions or withdrawals, through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Less-than-significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.
The OTSP area is developed and served by existing stormwater collection and conveyance
systems which empty into Murrieta Creek. Construction activities associated with development of
the OTSP area could result in localized changes to drainage patterns. In particular, vacant lots that
drain via sheet flow would be developed with collection and conveyance systems. These changes
could increase the amount and rate of discharge into the storm drain system. Individual projects
developed within the OTSP area would include project design features that would aid in the
conveyance of stormwater to existing facilities. All runoff would continue to be conveyed via
streets and gutters to storm drain locations within the Specific Plan area. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would ensure that erosion or flooding remain less than significant.
The majority of the Specific Plan area is developed. However, build-out of the Specific Plan area
would decrease natural groundcover and increase impervious surfaces (such as paved areas and
buildings). Surface water runoff volumes and rates generated from undeveloped, unpaved areas
can increase significantly when a site is paved, the impervious surface area increased, and surface
water infiltration reduced or eliminated. Increased runoff volume and peak discharge rates from
development within the Old Town area over the course of 20 to 30 years could exacerbate
downstream drainage problems, particularly if the capacity of downstream infrastructure is
inadequate. Increased detention basin capacity and improvements to the storm drainage network
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-20 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
would be necessary to accommodate future storm flows, provide adequate drainage, and control
flooding.
Development under the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would involve residential and mixed
uses, a downtown core, office, retail, entertainment, and hotel uses. Open space would include the
creation of a pedestrian and equestrian walkways along both sides of the Murrieta Creek. Other
open space areas would include landscaped buffers and small parks. Surface water runoff
volumes and rates are anticipated to increase when the majority of the area is paved and
developed. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1, potential impacts related
to increases in stormwater runoff rates and volume would be reduced to less than significant.
Construction would typically require stripping of existing surface vegetation, additional site
grading, and soil excavation. During construction, established groundcover that currently serves
to stabilize site soils would be removed, potentially resulting in increased erosion and increased
sediment load to existing or planned storm drainage facilities. Construction activities can also
generate hazardous waste products such as adhesives, solvents, paints, and drilling and petroleum
products that, if not managed appropriately, can adhere to soil particles, become mobilized by
rain or runoff, and contribute to nonpoint-source pollution. In addition, during excavation and
grading, contaminated soils may be exposed and/or disturbed; this could impact surface water
quality through contact during storm events. Increased soil erosion and the accidental discharge
of construction materials and/or contaminated soils from the project site could adversely affect
water quality in downstream water bodies.
However, all individual development projects within the Old Town project area will be required
to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) pursuant to the Municipal Separate
Storm-Sewer permit (MS4 permit) issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board. Water quality control measures identified in the WQMP will be incorporated into project
designs to eliminate potential adverse impacts to receiving waters. A less-than-significant impact
is anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.
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 stream overflows. Murrieta Creek is the most flood-prone of the Temecula
creeks. However, specific building standards, as described within the flood damage prevention
and floodplain management regulations of the City Development Code, apply to flood-prone
areas, including anchoring, use of flood–resistant building materials, use of adequate drainage
paths, and elevating the structures to or above the base flood elevation.
Furthermore, 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
would also review development plans for projects within the floodplain, to ensure compliance
with City and FEMA floodplain development requirements. According to the Public Safety
Element of the City’s General Plan, no development of any kind will be allowed in the floodway
portion of the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-21 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
According to the Public Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, three local bodies of water
have the potential to impact the project site if such an event occurred:
• Lake Skinner
• Vail Lake
• Diamond Valley Lake
The City will maintain a Dam Inundation Evacuation Plan, will update the Multi-Hazard
Functional Plan as needed to address flood hazards, and will coordinate with the State Office of
Emergency Services to ensure that dam safety plans reflect the level of development within the
community. Therefore, the rare likelihood of such an event and compliance with these plans
would reduce any risks of death or loss to less than significant.
The proposed project would not expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow because the project site is not located near
a coast, large body of water, or steep enough slopes. The project site is located approximately 23
miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is a sufficient distance to avoid tsunami impacts. As
mentioned above, there are three dams within the City of Temecula, and the nearest dam is Lake
Skinner, located approximately 7.5 miles away from the project area. The lake is sufficiently far
away to eliminate impacts associated with seiches in the Specific Plan area. The nearest foothills
with exposed soils are located immediately adjacent to the west of the project site; however, due
to the gently rolling slope, mudflows would not likely reach the project site. Therefore, no impact
associated with mudflows is anticipated to occur. In summary, there would be no impact that
would expose people or structures at the project site to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudlow.
Land Use and Planning
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment strives to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly
development through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use
development within Old Town. The proposed project would implement many of the SCAG
policies related to high-density, infill development that is pedestrian oriented. The project would
also introduce high-density commercial uses that would create new jobs and regional shopping
and entertainment destinations. In addition, the project would introduce high-density residential
uses, thus creating a mixed-use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby
shopping and employment opportunities, which would reduce the community’s reliance on
automobiles. Thus, the project would be consistent with SCAG goals to reduce the prominence of
the suburban development pattern that exists throughout the SCAG region. The project would
have a less-than-significant impact with respect to consistency with SCAG goals and policies.
The proposed project would alter the existing General Plan land uses designated for the project
site. As such, a General Plan amendment is proposed. The primary goal for the proposed project
is to amend the existing Specific Plan to utilize form-based code principles to more clearly define
development regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-22 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within the Old Town area.
The proposed form-based code would serve as a zoning law for properties within the plan
boundaries. Compared with traditional zoning, a form-based code doesn’t focus on specific uses.
Rather, physical patterns, such as the design of buildings, streetscapes, and civic infrastructure,
are the central issue. The project proposes to change the existing specific plan by altering the
existing land use districts within the planning area.
The City will create a new General Plan land use category called Specific Plan Implementation
(SPI). As such, a General Plan amendment is proposed. In doing so, the City’s intent is to create a
land use category that identifies the area as having a Specific Plan, and the Specific Plan’s land
use map and land use narrative will describe the intended land uses and special provisions that
govern the Specific Plan. This will allow for more flexibility in the City’s Specific Plan land use
categories without resulting in inconsistencies with the General Plan. In essence, all existing
General Plan land use designations within the proposed Specific Plan boundary will be replaced
with one land use category [i.e., Specific Plan Implementation (SPI)] that will refer to the
Specific Plan for the land use map and descriptions. Table 3.6-1 in Section 3.6 summarizes the
permitted uses within the various General Plan land use designations. As shown, the uses
permitted in the various land use districts are comparable to and would not conflict with the uses
permitted in the existing General Plan land use designations.
The majority of the project site is zoned SP-5. However, the project proposes to include or annex
approximately 2.4 acres located south of First Street, currently zoned SC. Thus, the inclusion
would require a zoning amendment to reflect the incorporation of the proposed 2.4 acres into the
SP-5 zone. Also, the project would result in the removal of approximately 2.3 acres from the
Specific Plan area, at a location west of the intersection of Sixth Street and Pujol Street. This
deannexation would also require a zoning amendment to reflect the exclusion of these lands from
the SP-5 zone. The project proposes to amend the zoning code to reflect the proposed annexation
and deannexation. The proposed zoning code amendment would ensure that the proposed project
is consistent with the zoning code. Impacts related to zoning conformity would be less than
significant.
The existing OTSP states that the Specific Plan may be amended to further the systematic
implementation of the General Plan. With respect to the existing Specific Plan, the proposed
amendment would more effectively implement the applicable goals and policies established in the
General Plan (see Table 3.6-4 in Section 3.6). In addition, all actions proposed under the project
would be established through an amendment to the Specific Plan. Therefore, project
implementation would not conflict with the adopted Specific Plan. The project would have a less-
than-significant impact with regard to consistency with the OTSP.
Noise
Construction
Construction activity noise levels at and near the construction areas would fluctuate depending on
the particular type, number, and duration of uses of various pieces of construction equipment.
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-23 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Construction-related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes,
depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. In addition, certain types
of construction equipment generate impulsive noises (such as pile driving), which can be
particularly annoying. Pile driving, however, is not proposed for project development. Table 3.7-
4 in Section 3.7 shows typical noise levels during different construction stages. Table 3.7-5 in
Section 3.7 shows typical noise levels produced by various types of construction equipment.
Construction could occur adjacent to sensitive receptors. Table 3.7-4 in Section 3.4 states that
excavation noise is 89 dBA at 50 feet; if sensitive receptors were located at this distance,
construction noise at these levels would be substantially greater than existing noise levels at
nearby sensitive receptor locations. These construction noise levels, especially if they were to
occur during the nighttime hours when people are sleeping, would be potentially significant.
Subsequent exposure to construction noise by individual sensitive receptors could be lessened
over time due to attenuation of noise by project structures built in the interim.
The City of Temecula noise ordinance states that, when the site is within one-quarter mile from
an occupied residence, no person shall conduct construction activity between the hours of 6:30
PM and 6:30 AM Monday through Friday, and shall only conduct construction between the hours
of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on
Sundays and nationally recognized holidays. Daytime construction is commonly exempt from
noise ordinances because background noise is typically louder during the day than at night, and
sleep disturbance is typically considered to be a nighttime impact. However, even daytime noise
levels from construction can exceed daytime ambient levels and be a substantial annoyance to
nearby residential units. It should be noted that exceptions may be requested from the standards
set forth in the City’s Noise Ordinance. An application for a construction-related exception can be
submitted in writing at least three working days (seventy-two hours) in advance of the scheduled
and permitted activity (accompanied by the appropriate inspection fees), subject to approval by
the City manager or designated representative.
Although the mitigation measures in Section 3.7 would reduce the noise impact from
construction, construction sites are noisy locations with heavy equipment that could substantially
affect noise levels at nearby residences. Such impacts could last a substantial time before the
noise complaint system would be used to reduce the impact. Therefore, construction noise could
at times be a short-term significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project.
As shown in Table 3.7-6 in Section 3.7, use of a large bulldozer for project construction generates
vibration levels of up to 0.089 PPV or 87 RMS at a distance of 25 feet. The nearest sensitive
receptor or historic building to construction has yet to be determined. A large bulldozer would
reach 80 RMS at 45 feet and 0.2 PPV at 15 feet from operation. This impact would be less than
significant with implementation of the mitigation measures found in Section 3.7.
Operation
The heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) system for maintaining comfortable
temperatures in buildings within the Specific Plan Amendment area would consist of packaged
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-24 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
rooftop air conditioning systems. Such rooftop HVAC units typically generate noise levels of
approximately 55 dB at a reference distance of 100 feet from the operating units during maximum
heating or air conditioning operations. The noise level of the HVAC, if on the edge of the
building nearest the sensitive receptors, could exceed the City of Temecula’s 65 dBA noise
standard. Delivery trucks are expected to be used during on-site commercial operations. The
number of delivery trucks will depend on the individual businesses. Mixed-use areas are intended
and truck noise could potentially impact adjacent residents. An idling truck at 50 feet was found
to produce noise levels of 72 dBA Leq, and a passing truck at 50 feet was found to produce noise
levels of 68 dBA Leq. Cal-OSHA also requires backup beepers to be at least 5 dBA above
ambient noise levels. These noise levels would potentially exceed Temecula’s daytime and
nighttime noise standards if loading docks were to be located near residences. With
implementation of the specified mitigation measures, the operational (non-transportation) noise
impacts of the project would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
Most of the noise generated by the implementation of the project would result from increased
traffic. The proposed amendment to the OTSP would contribute to an increase in local traffic
volumes, resulting in higher noise levels along local roadways as compared to existing
conditions. To assess the impact of project traffic on roadside noise levels, noise level projections
were made using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) TNM Lookup model and the
project traffic study provided by RK Engineering Group, Inc., for those road segments that pass by
sensitive receptors. Traffic noise levels were analyzed for 10 roadway segments. The segments
analyzed and results of the modeling are shown in Table 3.7-7 in Section 3.7. As depicted in
Table 3.7-7 in Section 3.7, five of the 10 roadway segments would experience a significant
increase in traffic noise (compared to existing conditions) resulting from the proposed
amendment to the OTSP.
Notably, the traffic study has found that the existing Specific Plan at build-out is projected to
generate approximately 11,165 net vehicles during the PM peak hour. The proposed Specific Plan
Amendment at build-out is projected to generate approximately 7,357 net vehicles during the PM
peak hour. Therefore, the proposed amendment to the OTSP at build-out would generate
considerably fewer trips and less noise from traffic operations than the currently approved
Specific Plan at build-out.
Residences in the project area would be subject to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations,
which requires an interior noise standard of DNL 45 dBA in any habitable room. Residences
along affected roads exceeding 65 dBA would require sound-rated assemblies at the exterior
facades of project buildings. Implementation of measures detailed in Section 3.7 would ensure
that interior noise levels are reduced to 45 dB and are less than significant. However, as shown in
Table 3.7-7 in Section 3.7, exterior noise levels from project traffic would exceed the standards
for substantial noise increases along specified roadway segments. Exterior noise levels along
these specified roadway segments would be substantially greater with the project than existing
and would remain a significant and unavoidable impact.
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-25 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Utilities and Public Services
The Specific Plan Amendment would not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated. Overall, due to the improvements proposed by the
Specific Plan Amendment (Open Space corridor, improved landscaping and walkways, etc.) and
implementation of the mitigation measure listed in Section 3.8, impacts would be less than
significant. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would provide additional open space in the
City and would therefore have a beneficial impact. Furthermore, all development projects must
contribute their fair share to the maintenance or provision of public services through payment of
the City’s Development Impact Fee.
The construction and operation of uses associated with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment
would not require the preparation of a water supply assessment in accordance with Section 15155
of the CEQA Guidelines. Currently, RCWD provides services to more than 120,000 people. If
optimal development occurs, the project area can expect development of approximately 749
(Fisk, 2009) new residential units. However, the timing of the proposed project would be 20-30
years and there is no guarantee that a project resulting in optimal development would occur. As a
result, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would create a situation already within the
boundary of what has been accounted for by RCWD.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is anticipated to result in an increase in water demand
annually compared to the existing conditions. The Specific Plan Amendment would intensify the
land uses within the area (and expanded area proposed) such that it would increase water demand
to 449,4003 gpd for residential uses. However, the Specific Plan Amendment would reduce the
commercial uses by 1,405,285 square feet such that it would decrease water demand to
2,810,570,000 gpd for commercial uses. Thus, no new increase in water for commercial uses is
anticipated.
RCWD future water projections calculated the existing Specific Plan area in accordance with the
land use designation and current zoning. Therefore, this additional water demand was
incorporated into the RCWD’s future water projections and would not cause the water provider,
RCWD, to significantly increase its water entitlements to supply the project area. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not result in the need to expand
water service facilities or construct new water facilities. Overall, impacts related to water supply
would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
The Specific Plan area is part of the existing and 2030 projected water demand forecast for
RCWD. These projections were formulated for normal weather conditions. In the event of a water
shortage, RCWD’s program would take effect to provide water sustainability to the area.
3 There are 749 net new residential units proposed that fall into the category of high density (5-16 du/ac). The average
daily demand factor for high density residential is 600 gpd/ du. Thus, 749 units would equal 449,400 gpd of water
consumption (749 units x 600 demand factor).
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-26 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
According to the City of Temecula General Plan, no water supply shortage is expected in the near
future (City of Temecula General Plan, 2005).
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not likely cause a substantial
increase in the demand for wastewater treatment services, nor would it necessitate the alteration
of existing facilities to meet treatment capacity expectations. The majority of land uses proposed
would replace existing uses over 20 to 30 years (build-out). The EMWD treats approximately 46
mgd of wastewater, with a capacity of treating 56 mgd. To ensure that impacts remain less than
significant, implementation of mitigation measures detailed in Section 3.8 would be required.
Given the extended timeframe for build-out, the contribution of solid waste from the project area
would be limited. The project area is required to have recycling collection and loading facilities in
compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which
requires cities to divert 50 percent of their solid waste through source reduction, recycling, and
composting. The increased Specific Plan area (annexation of approximately 2.4 acres, reduction
of area by approximately 2.5 acres) and the intensity of development anticipated by
implementation of the project would result in an increased generation of solid waste. However,
that increase would be minimal given that the overall commercial building floor space would be
reduced in Old Town by approximately 1,405,285 square feet (even with the increase in
residential units proposed).
The City would be required to maintain the 50 percent diversion rate required by the state for all
solid waste. The solid waste generated by the project would place a minimal burden on the City to
maintain the required diversion rate. This increase would not require additional landfill capacity.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8-6 in Section 3.8-6 would ensure that the proposed
Specific Plan Amendment would comply with the required diversion rates, and impacts
associated with solid waste would remain less than significant. The project will be in
conformance with solid waste plans. Potential impacts to county landfills would be further
reduced through compliance with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations regarding
solid waste generation, transport and disposal. The Specific Plan Amendment is considered to
have no impacts in terms of compliance with federal, state or local statutes or regulations related
to solid waste.
Future development in the Specific Plan area would use existing electricity service provided by
SCE. Some extension of service may be necessary into undeveloped areas and would require
assessment at the time of development review. Based on the current availability of electrical
service in portions of the Specific Plan area, extensive infrastructure is not necessary, and the
project would not significantly affect electrical services.
The Specific Plan area is currently served by the Gas Company for natural gas service.
Development in the Specific Plan area may require an extension of service into undeveloped
areas and would require assessment at the time of development review. Future development in the
project area would not affect the current service provider or natural gas services.
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-27 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Traffic and Transportation
Old Town is envisioned to develop as a pedestrian-friendly, vibrant downtown. The activity that
is expected to occur by those biking, walking and getting around the area requires that the entire
right of way in Old Town be oriented toward the safety and comfort of the pedestrian, while
concurrently encouraging the use of transit. These principles, as well as the anticipated increase in
activity in the Old Town area, require that the streets become less automobile-oriented and more
pedestrian and people oriented. As a result of the amendment to the OTSP, streets will no longer
be considered for the fast-paced, high-volume movement of cars, trucks and other motorized
vehicles; the concept of a “street” in the OTSP area will be expanded to include the safe, efficient
movement of all pedestrians. Therefore, to facilitate this concept, the City will accept LOS E and
F inside the Old Town Temecula area for intersections on Old Town Front Street from Second
Street to Moreno Road North. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is expected to increase
traffic at build-out. However, the increase will be significantly lower than projected under the
current Specific Plan.
In the Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Proposed Specific Plan condition, nine (9) of the
fourteen (14) intersections studied will operate at acceptable levels of service. The following
intersections will not operate at an acceptable LOS:
• Old Town Front Street/Rancho California Road (LOS F for PM Peak Hour)
• Old Town Front Street/North Moreno Road (LOS E for PM Peak Hour)
• Old Town Front Street/Sixth Street (LOS F for PM Peak Hour)
• Old Town Front Street/Main Street (LOS F for PM Peak Hour)
• Old Town Front Street/Second Street (LOS E for PM Peak Hour)
The results of the intersection analysis are shown in Table 3.9-6 in Section 3.9. In order to
maintain the unique “Main Street” character of the Old Town area, LOS E and F will be deemed
acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North.
In the General Plan Buildout Plus Proposed Specific Plan condition, eight (8) of the fourteen (14)
intersections studied will operate at acceptable levels of service. The following intersections will
not operate at an acceptable LOS:
• Old Town Front Street/Rancho California Road (LOS F for PM Peak Hour)
• Old Town Front Street/North Moreno Road (LOS F for PM Peak Hour)
• Old Town Front Street/Sixth Street (LOS F for PM Peak Hour)
• Old Town Front Street/Main Street (LOS F for PM Peak Hour)
• Old Town Front Street/Second Street (LOS E for PM Peak Hour)
• I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rancho California Road (LOS F for PM Peak Hour)
The results of the intersection analysis are shown in Table 3.9-7 in Section 3.9. In order to
maintain the unique “Main Street” character of the Old Town area, LOS E and F will be deemed
acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North.
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-28 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
The existing OTSP is projected to generate approximately 106,092 net trip-ends per day, with
5,957 net vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 9,925 net vehicles per hour during the
PM peak hour. The proposed amendment to the OTSP is projected to generate approximately
70,046 net trip-ends per day, with 4,263 net vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 6,539
net vehicles per hour during the PM peak. Under the proposed amendment, the OTSP will
generate considerably fewer trips than the currently approved Specific Plan. Although the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment would increase traffic to a lesser extent than the existing
Specific Plan, overall traffic congestion in the Old Town area would be less than what is currently
projected.
Primary emergency access to the site would be provided from the fire station located at Mercedes
Street and Sixth Street. Emergency vehicles would access Old Town Front Street from Moreno
Road, Sixth Street, or Mercedes Street to reach project areas. Emergency vehicles would also be
able to access the project site from Santiago Road and SR-79 to the south. The proposed project
would not result in an impact related to vehicular and emergency access.
Parking in the Old Town area will be based on its district and its use, but residential uses are
required to provide at least one parking space per residential unit. The public view of open
parking lots can detract from the Old Town area. This is especially important in retail areas.
Currently, there is sufficient capacity to handle parking within the OTSP area. Additionally, an
Old Town Parking Structure, located at the corner of Mercedes Street and 3rd Street, has been
developed to address parking needs. The multiple-level parking structure would accommodate a
maximum of 488 vehicles. The parking structure has been developed as part of the Old Town
Temecula Civic Center. As needed, several additional parking strategies could be incorporated
into the Old Town area in the long-term. These additional parking strategies could include time
limits, informational programs, a Parking District, additional parking supply, and parking charges
as determined by the City. More specifically, the City could establish time limits and parking
charges once an area consistently surpassed 85 percent occupancy. The City could also develop
an informational program or Parking District at any time; however, with the recent development
of the Civic Center parking structure/lot, parking needs in the short-term have been met.
Additionally, near-term parking would be supplied through a parking structure located at 2nd
Street (behind the Stampede) and/or the City’s 6th Street surface lot.
S.6 Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment project area is located in the southwestern portion of the
City of Temecula (with 2.4 acres to be annexed into the OTSP area). Chapter 4, Cumulative
Impacts, considers the potential cumulative effects of the Specific Plan Amendment in
combination with other identified cumulative development projects. The potential for specific
project-generated impacts to contribute to a significant cumulative impact would occur if the
impacts are located within the same generalized geographic area. This geographic area varies
depending upon the resource area being evaluated (water quality, noise, etc.) and the geographic
extent of the potential impact. For example, the geographic area associated with construction
noise impacts would be limited to areas directly affected by construction noise associated with the
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-29 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
proposed project in conjunction with the identified cumulative projects. In contrast, the
geographic area that could be affected by the proposed project and cumulative construction-
related air emissions would include the entire air basin. Construction impacts associated with
increased noise, dust, erosion, and access limitations tend to be localized and could be
exacerbated if other development or improvement projects occur within proximal locations to the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment area.
The cumulative project area identified for traffic impacts was determined by the City of Temecula
Public Works Department as noted in Table 3.9-5 and Table 4-1. At the time the traffic impact
analysis was prepared, the SpringHill Suites hotel development (one of the projects included in
the cumulative scenario calculations) was under construction and not operational. However, since
completion of the traffic impact analysis and prior to circulation of the Program DEIR, the
SpringHill Suites hotel development has opened and is currently in operation. As determined by
the traffic impact analysis, the SpringHill Suites hotel was projected to have generated 1,160
daily trips at full occupancy. Therefore, the cumulative traffic impact calculations are based on a
worst-case scenario comparison of the proposed project at build-out to existing conditions.
Aesthetics
Visual Character and Scenic Resources
Within the vicinity of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, surrounding areas contain mixed
residential, business park uses and other commercial land uses. There are no eligible or officially-
designated scenic highways affected by the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. No scenic vistas
have been identified by the City’s General Plan and thus none would be adversely impacted from
developing the proposed project. Furthermore, the aesthetics of Old Town are anticipated to
improve with the implementation of the OTSP standards and design guidelines.
The projects within the area of potential effect for aesthetics as related to the OTSP area are listed
in Table 4-1 in Chapter 4 would include commercial and residential developments to the north
and south of the project area. Like the proposed modifications to the Specific Plan area, these
projects would represent an orderly, contiguous, and planned extension of the urban limit of the
City of Temecula. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would occur in an
area that has already been altered by existing developments. The intensification of use in the
Specific Plan area would be aesthetically consistent with the character and uses in the
surrounding area.
Development was anticipated and detailed within the OTSP that was originally adopted in 1994.
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would be a continuation of existing
land use patterns; therefore, the project’s incremental cumulative aesthetic impact is not
considered to be significant. In addition, individual aesthetics, visual, and light and glare impacts
of the related projects, if any, would be addressed on an individual project basis. Each project
would be subject to planning and zoning requirements, as well as design review by the City of
Temecula, to ensure that project design is consistent with City standards. Where potential impacts
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-30 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
could occur, the City would require appropriate environmental review and analysis and, if
required, mitigate as appropriate. Therefore, the cumulative development would not result in
significant impacts on scenic vistas or the visual character of the area.
Light and Glare
The existing Specific Plan area is partially developed and produces light within the local project
vicinity. Development of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in conjunction with other
cumulative projects would gradually result in an increase in light in the City of Temecula and
may increase ambient lighting in or adjacent to Riverside County. Proposed cumulative
development would also incrementally contribute to cumulative night lighting and daytime glare
and reflective impacts. However, the County has lighting regulations that preclude the use of
excessive or unshielded lighting, or lighting that would spill into neighboring properties.
Temecula adheres to Riverside County’s Light Pollution Ordinance, Ordinance No. 655, which
restricts nighttime lighting for areas within a 15-mile radius and a 45-mile radius of Palomar
Observatory. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment area is located within a 45-mile radius of
the observatory (45-mile Radius Lighting Impact Zone) and is required to comply with Ordinance
No. 655. All planned and approved projects listed in Table 4-1 fall within a 45-mile radius of the
Palomar Observatory and are also required to comply with Ordinance No. 655. The 45-mile
radius encompasses a large portion of Riverside County extending many miles beyond the
Specific Plan area. Since regulations are in place and adherence to these policies is required, no
significant cumulative impact related to lighting or glare is anticipated for the proposed Specific
Plan Amendment.
Air Quality
SCAQMD has set forth methods and significance thresholds for the assessment of a project’s
cumulative operational air quality impacts. The SCAQMD approach for assessing cumulative
impacts is based on the SCAQMD’s AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality
standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal and State Clean Air Acts. This
forecast also takes into account SCAG’s forecasts of future regional growth. As such, the analysis
of cumulative impacts focuses on determining whether the proposed project is consistent with
forecast future regional growth. Therefore, if all cumulative projects are individually consistent
with the growth assumptions upon which the SCAQMD’s AQMP is based, then future
development would not impede the attainment of ambient air quality standards and a significant
cumulative air quality impact would not occur.
Project construction could violate air quality standards (short-term) during construction.
Construction-related emissions would occur on and off for approximately 30 years. Construction-
related fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level and type of
activity. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would be significant and unavoidable on a
project level for ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions.
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-31 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Cumulative sources from projects throughout the basin would emit substantial amounts of TACS.
While the total TAC emission from all projects in the region would be significant, the TAC
emissions from the project are minimal for both construction and operations. Therefore, the
project would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact with regard to TACs.
Construction activity associated with other projects in the basin would generally involve the use
of similar equipment and may overlap with the construction schedule of the proposed project.
Though the project creates a significant and unavoidable impact, it is assumed that other project
construction activity would comply with the SCAQMD required mitigation measures, which
would reduce air quality impacts but not eliminate air pollutant emissions completely. This would
be a significant cumulative impact. As such, the mass regional emissions that would occur as a
result of developing the proposed project would be cumulatively considerable.
Global Warming/Climate Change
In 2005, the California governor signed Executive Order S-3-05 that sets forth a series of target
dates for the reduction of statewide emissions of GHG. This order calls for the progressive
reduction of GHGs so that by 2010, GHGs would be at year 2000 levels; by 2020, GHGs would
be at year 1990 levels; and by 2050 GHSs would be 80 percent below year 1990 levels. Since the
passage of Executive Order S-3-05, the California Assembly has passed the California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and CARB approved 37 strategies for GHG reduction and
developed GHG mandatory reporting regulations.
Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 in Section 3.3, the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment project would be considered a major source of greenhouse gases and would exceed
the SCAQMD GHG screening threshold. Consequently, the increase in GHG by the project
places the project in conflict with the goal of the state to reduce up to 169 million metric tons
CO2e/year. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Cultural Resources
The geographic scope of potential cumulative impacts (area of potential affect for cultural
resources) related to cultural resources encompasses the proposed Specific Plan Amendment
project area and immediate vicinity. As described in Section 3.4 Cultural Resources, construction
of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would include demolition activities and some
earthmoving activities that could unearth previously unknown archaeological or paleontological
resources. Cultural sites identified during construction would be recorded. Implementation of
project-specific mitigation measures would minimize this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Other development projects planned for the area could also encounter cultural resources. Each
project would be responsible for recording new sites appropriately. Uncovering archaeological
and paleontological resources generally adds to the regional understanding of the area’s history
and would not result in a cumulatively considerable adverse impact to cultural resources.
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-32 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Hydrology and Water Quality
As discussed in Section 3.5 Hydrology and Water Quality, the construction of the proposed
Specific Plan Amendment would increase impervious surface and stormwater runoff (given the
annexation of the 2.4 acres). With incorporation of project-specific mitigation measures, the
Specific Plan’s impact on the local drainage system would not be significant. Cumulative projects
could also contribute to increased runoff due to increases in impervious surfaces. Any proposed
development within the OTSP area larger than one acre would have to satisfy all applicable
requirements of the NPDES Program and Chapter 8.24, Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management
and Discharge Controls of the City of Temecula’s Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the City
of Temecula’s Public Works Department.
The related projects could have general construction-related impacts on water quality in the
project area. Construction activities at other project sites could also increase erosion and
subsequent sedimentation. As with the proposed project, all related projects are subject to the
same federal regulations (Clean Water Act), state regulations (Porter Cologne Water Quality
Control Act), and local regulations (SUSMP) that protect water quality and water resources.
These regulations include NPDES permit requirements, stormwater pollution prevention plans,
and post-development stormwater quality and quantity requirements. All of these regulations are
designed to ensure that the incremental effects of individual projects do not cause a substantial
cumulative impact.
Therefore, despite the potential for the related projects to alter drainage patterns and runoff
conditions, the adherence to the aforementioned requirements would ensure that they do not result
in cumulatively considerable impacts related to sedimentation, flooding, water quality, drainage
system capacity, flood hazard areas, failure of a levee or dam, seiche, tsunami, or mudflows. The
proposed project with mitigation measures would have a less-than-significant impact. Therefore,
because of these measures, when considered in combination with other developments similarly
bound by the same regulations, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to water quality
and quantity impacts, with proposed mitigation, would not be cumulatively considerable and is
less than significant.
Land Use and Planning
The two other projects planned in the vicinity of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment are both
hotel developments (Table 3.9-5 in Section 3.9). The modifications to the Specific Plan area are
not out of context with the other proposed developments in the general area. Currently, the
Specific Plan area contains a mix of uses, including commercial, residential, public facilities, and
recreational uses. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would replace most of the existing
development with new development that would allow higher density residential and higher
intensity commercial uses along with a limited residential/mixed-use zone. Build-out of the
proposed Specific Plan area would replace existing residences with new multi-family residential
structures and would result in new consolidated locations for commercial and retail uses. The
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-33 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
proposed Specific Plan Amendment would be consistent on an individual level, and therefore on
a cumulative level, with the applicable regulatory policies and plans. The contribution of the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment and the two planned developments would not result in
incompatible uses in an established community, the City or the City’s Sphere of Influence.
Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in conjunction with the other proposed
developments would not have a cumulatively considerable impact. Cumulative impacts are
therefore considered less than significant.
Noise
There are two development projects currently in the planning process located in the vicinity of the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment area. When considered alone, the proposed modifications to
the Specific Plan area would generate noise from construction over the estimated 20- to 30-year
build-out, and from additional traffic in the general area. Any project that would individually
have a significant noise impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative noise
impact, as cumulative impacts can even result from individually minor but collectively significant
projects taken place over a period of time. Noise impacts from cumulative development in the
project area would primarily be the result of construction and increased vehicle traffic on the
local roadway network.
As discussed in Section 3.7 Noise, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment
would result in construction that would generate noise levels in excess of standards. On a project
level, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable after mitigation. When considered
alone, the proposed project would generate noise mainly by adding more traffic to the area. The
traffic associated with operation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would result in a
significant increase in ambient noise levels on nearby roadways that would generate a significant
and unavoidable impact after mitigation. The cumulative interior noise impacts of the project
would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Other anticipated projects would contribute to
noise in the area due to increased traffic volumes. Therefore, the proposed project would result in
cumulatively considerable exterior noise levels along various roadways which would remain a
significant and unavoidable impact.
While there is the potential for the proposed project to contribute to construction noise levels
generated by the cumulative projects listed in Table 3.9-5, the actual schedule and timing of
construction activities is uncertain. The proposed project would coordinate with the appropriate
City departments to avoid conflicts with other projects to the extent possible. Given that the
proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable project-specific impact, the proposed
Specific Plan Amendment’s contribution to cumulative noise impacts would also result in
significant and unavoidable impacts to noise.
Traffic and Transportation
The geographic scope of this impact area lies within the City of Temecula and the County of
Riverside. The roadway network on which construction workers and construction vehicles
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-34 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
(including trucks that would transport equipment and fill material to and from the worksite)
would travel to access the site consists of regional highways and local roadways.
A traffic analysis was conducted for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment project. The traffic
analysis also analyzed future traffic conditions which took into account cumulative projects and
regional growth.
As discussed in Section 3.9 Traffic and Transportation, none of the intersections would operate at
an unacceptable LOS after mitigation. Project impacts will be reduced to a less than significant
level with implementation of proposed mitigation measures such as roundabouts, pedestrian
facilities and accepting LOS E and F for intersections on Old Town Front Street from Second
Street to Moreno Road North. The proposed project would increase traffic at a lesser rate than the
current Specific Plan for the Old Town area. Cumulative conditions were determined by adding
the traffic generated by other approved/pending projects. Traffic counts for these projects were
estimated based on trip generation rates from ITE’s Trip Generation, 8th Edition. The proposed
project would not contribute to cumulative traffic and circulation impacts when considered in
combination with projects listed in Table 3.9-5. Impacts to intersections outside of the OTSP area
would occur on a cumulative basis, as accounted for in the traffic impact analysis, but have
already been addressed by the mitigation measures included as part of this project. Therefore,
cumulative traffic impacts would not be significant.
Utilities and Services
Recreation
Development of the proposed project in conjunction with other cumulative projects would
gradually result in an increased intensity of land use and a corresponding increase in usage of
park and recreational facilities. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment includes the
development of an Open Space corridor which is approximately 25.4 acres (5.7 acres in addition
to what is planned under the approved OTSP) and would offer additional recreational options in
the City of Temecula and surrounding areas. The standard developer mitigation fees for parklands
would be implemented as necessary for all related projects. The proposed Specific Plan
Amendment would not have an individually significant impact on recreational services after
mitigation, and would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution. Therefore, the proposed
Specific Plan Amendment would not have a significant cumulative impact related to recreational
services.
Utilities
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is a continuation of planned urban development in an
area with sufficient existing facilities to provide water, wastewater and solid waste services to the
Specific Plan area and would not require the development of new facilities.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment along with cumulative projects would not result in a
significant use of water as compared to the existing developed uses in the Specific Plan area. The
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-35 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
proposed Specific Plan Amendment would redevelop many existing uses, and therefore future
water demand would be a minimal increase over existing demand. Furthermore, as previously
stated, the SpringHill Suites hotel development has opened and is currently in operation. The
majority of the cumulative projects are on small parcels of land, with the exception of the
proposed Pujol Apartments. Although water demand would increase as a result of the 168 room
Crown Plaza Hotel, this increase would not be considered cumulatively significant; thus,
cumulative impacts to water supply are not considered significant. In addition, there would be no
cumulative impact on wastewater treatment infrastructure as a result of project implementation.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is within the projected electric load growth for the
general area. SCE’s ability to serve all customers’ loads within this area of the City is in
accordance with SCE’s Design Standards, rules and tariffs, and would be adequate. SCE has a
proposed substation planned for the near future (summer 2010) which would assist in continuing
to meet future electrical demands. SCE completes all work in accordance with the rules and
tariffs as authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission and other governing entities.
Any cumulative impacts related to electric service would be addressed through this process.
As stated in Section 3.8 Utilities and Services, the two landfills which service the project area and
the City of Temecula have existing and substantial future capacity to accept solid waste.
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in conjunction with the cumulative
projects listed in Table 4-1 would not create demands for waste management services that exceed
the capacities of the waste management system. Impacts to solid waste facilities associated with
the proposed Specific Plan Amendment are less than significant.
Development of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would offset its limited contribution to
the cumulative impact of area development on these services and utilities. Standard payment of
established developer mitigation fees to address cumulative impacts would be required.
S.7 Analysis of Alternatives
Two alternatives are analyzed in Chapter 6 of this document. These two alternatives are
summarized as follows:
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative/Reasonably Foreseeable Development (Continuation
of Existing Specific Plan) – Under Alternative 1, the OTSP Amendment would not be pursued
and no associated components identified under the proposed project would be built. This
alternative evaluates the environmental effects of build-out of the Specific Plan area according to
the existing OTSP. Under Alternative 1, the impacts of the proposed project (Specific Plan
Amendment) are compared to the impacts that would occur if the existing OTSP continued to be
implemented in the OTSP area.
Alternative 2: Increased Residential and Reduced Commercial Alternative – With the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment, the mixed-use aspect of the proposed project would result in
an overall reduction in commercial building floor space in Old Town of approximately
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-36 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
1,405,285 square feet as compared to the existing OTSP, and the addition of approximately 749
residential units as compared to the existing OTSP. The reduction of building floor space can be
anticipated given that residential uses require more open areas for parking, courtyards, balconies,
and other shared and private open spaces than commercial uses.4 In comparison, Alternative 2
would increase the amount of residential units by 1,100 residential units in comparison to the
existing OTSP and reduce the building floor space for commercial use by 2,000,000 square feet
in comparison to the existing OTSP. Alternative 2 would essentially increase residential
development and decrease commercial development even further than the proposed project. As a
result of the reduced amount of commercial building space under Alternative 2, there would be
fewer trips generated per day and thus a reduction in noise and air quality impacts within the
OTSP area. Alternative 2 would achieve some of the proposed project objectives by updating the
current OTSP to provide enhanced desired services within the plan area to both City residents and
visitors while being compatible with the nearby residential area; respecting the history of the
OTSP area while fitting with current economics; accommodating greater density and encouraging
a variety of architectural styles; and implementing significant new investment in the Old Town
area to help promote rapid growth in Temecula Valley and develop a renewed interest in town
centers and mixed-use development. However, Alternative 2 would be less focused on promoting
economic activity within the City because residential development would be emphasized.
Therefore, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the project objectives.
Alternative 3: Reduced Residential and Increased Commercial Alternative – Alternative 3
would reduce the commercial square footage by 1,000,000 square feet in comparison to the
existing OTSP and reduce the number of residential units by 659 units in comparison to the
existing OTSP. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in an increase in 405,285 square feet of
commercial space in comparison to the proposed project and 1,408 fewer residential units in
comparison to the proposed project. Alternative 3 would result in fewer aesthetic impacts and a
reduced amount of impacts to public services and utilities as compared to the proposed project.
Alternative 3 would achieve some of the proposed project objectives by updating the current
OTSP to provide enhanced desired services within the plan area to both City residents and
visitors while being compatible with the nearby residential area and respecting the history of the
OTSP area. Alternative 3 would also encourage a variety of architectural styles and implement
significant new investment in the Old Town area to help promote rapid growth in Temecula
Valley and develop a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use development. Alternative 3
would be more focused on promoting economic activity within the City because residential
development would not be emphasized. Alternative 3 would not, however, encourage
development of an increased number of high-quality residential neighborhoods as compared to
the existing OTSP and proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not fully achieve all of
the project objectives.
The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2), requires the identification of the environmentally
superior alternative. Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the proposed project
based on the minimization of environmental impacts; specifically, development under Alternative
4 Refer to previously discussed trip generation rates as determined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip
Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008.
Summary
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-37 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
2 would result in a reduction of traffic, air and noise impacts. However, Alternative 2 would be
less focused on promoting economic activity within the City because residential development
would be emphasized. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the project
objectives.
Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-38 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE S-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Aesthetics Impact 3.1-1: The project’s development would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings from a State Scenic Highway. Mitigation: None required. Less than Significant Impact 3.1-2: The project’s development would not potentially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Mitigation: None required. Less than Significant Impact 3.1-3: Development of the proposed project could create a new source of light and glare, which may adversely affect nearby sensitive resources. Measure 3.1-3a: The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures shall contain “sharp cut-off” fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass lenses and internal and external shielding. Measure 3.1-3b: The applicant shall ensure that all fixtures shall be parallel with the finished grade of the project site; no fixtures shall be tilted above a 90-degree angle. Measure 3.1-3c: The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for open, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. Measure 3.1-3d: The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural massing, and off–site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. Measure 3.1-3e: The applicant shall submit a lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall include design features (such as those mentioned above) to minimize impacts of light and glare on the surrounding area. Measure 3.1-3f: The City shall complete a post-installation inspection to ensure that the site is not excessively illuminated (such that lighting is not creating excessive glare, unreasonably competing for the public’s attention or creating any roadway safety hazard) and that lighting sources are properly shielded. Measure 3.1-3g: In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory, all lighting plans shall be reviewed by the City to assure utilization of low pressure sodium vapor lamps; step-down lighting techniques; shielding to prevent upward and outward illumination; and compliance with the County Ordinance No. 655. Measure 3.1-3h: The proposed Specific Plan amendment shall prohibit the use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces. The exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non-mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre-cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces. Less than Significant
Summary TABLE S-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-39 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Air Quality Impact 3.2-1: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Mitigation: None required. Less than Significant Impact 3.2-2: Project construction could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during the short-term duration of construction. Measure 3.2-2a: The applicant shall ensure that a fugitive dust control program is implemented pursuant to the provision of SCAQMD Rule 403. Measure 3.2-2b: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the following: A. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, maintain equipment engines in proper tune. B. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation: 1. Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind. 2. Spread soil binders. 3. Implement street sweeping as necessary. C. During construction: 1. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site. 2. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. 3. Use low sulfur fuel (0.05 percent by weight) for construction equipment. D. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. Measure 3.2-2c: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the following. A. Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize daily emissions. B. Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. C. Treat unattended construction areas with water (disturbed lands which have been, or are expected to be, unused for four or more consecutive days). D. Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites. E. Install vehicle wheel-washers before the roadway entrance at construction sites. F. Wash off trucks leaving the site. G. Require all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose substances and building materials to be covered, or Significant and Unavoidable
Summary TABLE S-2 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-40 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation to maintain a minimum freeboard of two feet between the top of the load and the top of the truck bed sides. H. Use vegetative stabilization, whenever possible, to control soil erosion from stormwater, especially on super pads. I. Require enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage piles of sand, dirt, or other aggregate materials. J. Control off-road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads, consistent with City standards. K. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators. Measure 3.2-2d: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for the paving of all access aprons to the project site and the maintenance of the paving. Measure 3.2-2e: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall be responsible for assuring that construction vehicles are equipped with proper emission control equipment to substantially reduce emissions. Measure 3.2-2f: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall be responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction related traffic congestion into the project grading permit. Measures, subject to the approval and verification by the Public Works Department, shall include, as appropriate: A. Provision of rideshare incentives. B. Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel. C. Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference. D. Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. E. Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary. Measure 3.2-2g: Prior to the building/construction operations, applicant and individual contractors shall commit in writing to the following: A. Scheduling receipt of construction materials outside of the peak travel periods (i.e., 7:30 – 8:30 AM and 4:00 – 6:00 PM); B. Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity; and C. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods. Impact 3.2-3: Project operation could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during long-term operation. Measure 3.2-3a: Construct on-site or off-site bus turnouts, passenger benches, and shelters. Measure 3.2-3b: Provide shuttles to major rail transit centers of multi-modal stations. Measure 3.2-3c: Contribute to regional transit systems (e.g., right-of-way, capital improvements, etc.). Measure 3.2-3d: Synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by development. Measure 3.2-3e: Set up resident worker training programs to improve job/housing balance. Though mitigation measures would reduce operational emissions, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Summary TABLE S-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-41 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Impact 3.2-4: The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial amount of people. Mitigation: None required. Less than Significant Impact 3.2-5: Increased localized carbon monoxide would be generated from vehicular traffic during operation. Mitigation: None required. Less than Significant Impact 3.2-6: Air pollutant emissions associated with the project would result in an adverse cumulative impact to air quality. No additional mitigation measures are available. Significant and Unavoidable Global Warming/Climate Change Impact 3.3-1: The project could conflict with implementation of state goals for reducing GHG emissions and thereby have a negative effect on Global Climate Change. Measure 3.3-1: The applicant shall require implementation of all feasible energy efficiency and GHG reduction measures, including but not limited to the following: Energy Efficiency • Design buildings to be energy efficient. • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an integral part of lighting systems in buildings. • Use trees, landscaping and sun screens on west and south exterior building walls to reduce energy use. • Install light colored “cool” roofs, cool pavements. • Provide information on energy management services for large energy users. • Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control systems. • Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor lighting. • Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting. • Provide education on energy efficiency. Renewable Energy • Install solar and wind power systems, solar and tankless hot water heaters, and energy-efficient heating ventilation and air conditioning. Educate consumers about existing incentives. • Install solar panels on carports and over parking areas. • Use combined heat and power in appropriate applications. Water Conservation and Efficiency • Create water-efficient landscapes. Even with implementation of all measures that are feasible from Mitigation Measure 3.3-1, the project would be considered a major source of greenhouse gases and would exceed the SCAQMD GHG screening threshold. Consequently, the increase in greenhouse gases by the project places the project in conflict with the goal of the state to reduce up to 169 million metric tons CO2e/year. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Summary TABLE S-2 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-42 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation • Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls. • Use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation in new developments and on public property. Install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. • Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances. • Use graywater. (Graywater is untreated household waste water from bathtubs, showers, bathroom wash basins, and water from clothes washing machines.) For example, install dual plumbing in all new development allowing graywater to be used for landscape irrigation. • Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated surfaces) and control runoff. • Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles. • Implement low-impact development practices that maintain the existing hydrologic character of the site to manage storm water and protect the environment. (Retaining storm water runoff on-site can drastically reduce the need for energy-intensive imported water at the site.) • Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and location. The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above, plus other innovative measures that are appropriate to the specific project. • Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives. Solid Waste Measures • Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard). • Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in public areas. • Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services. Land Use Measures • Include mixed-use, infill, and higher density in development projects to support the reduction of vehicle trips, promote alternatives to individual vehicle travel, and promote efficient delivery of services and goods. • Educate the public about the benefits of well-designed, higher density development. • Incorporate public transit into project design. • Preserve and create open space and parks. Preserve existing trees, and plant replacement trees at a set ratio. • Develop “brownfields” and other underused or defunct properties near existing public transportation and jobs.
Summary TABLE S-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-43 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation • Include pedestrian and bicycle-only streets and plazas within developments. Create travel routes that ensure that destinations may be reached conveniently by public transportation, bicycling or walking. Transportation and Motor Vehicles • Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles. • Use low or zero-emission vehicles, including construction vehicles. (*The following goals, policies and/or suggestions are guiding principles that shall be required of the applicant as applicable.) *Transportation and Motor Vehicles • Promote ride sharing programs (e.g., by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides). • Create car sharing programs. Accommodations for such programs include providing parking spaces for the car share vehicles at convenient locations accessible by public transportation. • Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or zero-emission vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations). • Institute a low-carbon fuel vehicle incentive program. • Provide public transit incentives such as free or low-cost monthly transit passes. • Promote “least polluting” ways to connect people and goods to their destinations. • Incorporate bicycle lanes and routes into street systems, new subdivisions, and large developments. • Incorporate bicycle-friendly intersections into street design. • For commercial projects, provide adequate bicycle parking near building entrances to promote cyclist safety, security, and convenience. For large employers, provide facilities that encourage bicycle commuting, including, e.g., locked bicycle storage or covered or indoor bicycle parking. • Create bicycle lanes and walking paths directed to the location of schools, parks and other destination points. • Work with the school district to restore or expand school bus services. • Institute a telecommute and/or flexible work hours program. Provide information, training, and incentives to encourage participation. Provide incentives for equipment purchases to allow high-quality teleconferences. • Provide information on all options for individuals and businesses to reduce transportation-related emissions. Provide education and information about public transportation. *Off-site Mitigation • Fund off-site mitigation projects (e.g., alternative energy projects, or energy or water audits for existing
Summary TABLE S-2 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-44 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation projects) that will reduce carbon emissions, conduct an audit of its other existing operations and agree to retrofit, or purchase carbon “credits” from another entity that will undertake mitigation. Cultural Resources Impact 3.4-1: Ground-disturbing activities associatied with implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could result in the substantial adverse change of previously unknown archaeological resources as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: Consistent with the City of Temecula’s General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS-26 and OS-39, the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which requires that all areas slated for development or other ground-disturbing activities shall be subject to a Phase I survey (including records search and archaeological survey) for archaeological resources on a project-specific basis prior to the City’s approval of project plans. The survey shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with local Native American groups. If potentially significant archaeological resources are encountered during the survey, the City shall require that the resources are evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the National Register or California Register, and that recommendations are made for treatment of these resources if found to be significant, in consultation with the appropriate Native American groups. Any identified resources shall be avoided if feasible. Ground-disturbing activity in areas determined to be sensitive for cultural resources shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b: Consistent with the City of Temecula’s General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS-26 and OS-39, the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which states that during construction, should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist will be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, the City and the archaeologist will determine, in consultation with local Native American groups, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. All significant cultural materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist and in consultation with local Native American groups, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. Less than significant Impact 3.4-2: Implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could result in a substantial adverse change to historic resources as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5. Mitigation Measure 3.4-2a: Consistent with the City of Temecula’s General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS-2, the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which states that all areas slated for development or other ground-disturbing activities in the Specific Plan Area which contain structures 50 years old or older be surveyed and evaluated for their potential historic significance prior to the City’s approval of project plans. The survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural History. If potentially significant resources are encountered during the survey, demolition or substantial alteration of such resources identified shall be avoided. If avoidance of identified historic resources is deemed infeasible, the City shall prepare a treatment plan to include, but not limited to, photo-documentation and public interpretation of the resource. Less than significant Impact 3.4-3: Implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could cause a substantial adverse change to areas of traditional cultural significance to local Native American individuals and groups. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant
Summary TABLE S-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-45 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Impact 3.4-4: Ground-disturbing construction associated with implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could result in damage to previously unidentified human remains. Mitigation Measure 3.4-4a: Consistent with State law, CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Temecula’s General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS-26 and OS-39, the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which states that if human skeletal remains are uncovered during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and the Riverside County coroner will be contacted to evaluate the remains, following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American, he or she will contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The NAHC will then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American, who will then help determine what course of action should be taken in dealing with the remains. Per Public Resources Code 5097.98, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in this section (PRC 5097.98), with the most likely descendents regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. Less than significant Impact 3.4-5: Ground-disturbing construction activities associated with implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, or site, or unique geologic feature. Mitigation Measure 3.4-5a: The Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which states that in the event that paleontological resources are discovered, the project proponent will notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or fossil bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find will be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist (in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1995)). The paleontologist will notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist will prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. Less than significant Hydrology Impact 3.5-1: The proposed project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for individual projects, the project developer shall file a NOI with California to comply with the requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit (Municipal Code, Chapter Chapter 8.24). This would include the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating construction BMPs for control of erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff. Less than significant
Summary TABLE S-2 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-46 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Impact 3.5-2: The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (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). Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.5-3: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.5-4: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.5-5: The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.5-6: The project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant
Summary TABLE S-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-47 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Impact 3.5-7: The proposed project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.5-8: The proposed project would not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.5-9: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.5-10: The proposed project would not be inundated by a seich, tsunami, or mudflow. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Land Use and Planning Impact 3.6-1: Project implementation would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan, Specific Plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant
Summary TABLE S-2 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-48 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Noise Impact 3.7-1: Project construction could expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards. Measure 3.7-1a: The applicant shall ensure, as specified in City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-25, that no construction may occur within one-quarter (1/4) of a mile of any occupied residence during the following hours: A. 6:30 PM to 6:30 AM, Monday through Friday. B. Before 7:00 AM or after 6:30 PM, Saturday. C. At any time on Sunday or any nationally recognized holiday. Measure 3.7-1b: The applicant shall ensure that all construction equipment will have properly operating mufflers. Measure 3.7-1c: The applicant shall ensure that all construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. Measure 3.7-1d: The applicant shall ensure that signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include permitted construction days and hours, and a contact number for the job site. Although the above mitigation measures would reduce the noise impact from construction, construction sites are noisy locations with heavy equipment that could substantially affect noise levels at nearby residences. Such impacts could last a substantial time before the noise complaint system would be used to reduce the impact. Therefore, construction noise could at times be a short-term significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project. Impact 3.7-2: Construction activities associated with the project could result in exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive levels of ground-borne vibration. (Potentially Significant) Measure 3.7-2a: The construction contractor will conduct crack surveys before construction activities that could cause architectural damage to nearby structures. The survey will include any historic buildings or buildings in poor condition within 15 feet of construction. The surveys will be done by photographs, video tape, or visual inventory, and will include inside as well as outside locations. All existing cracks in walls, floors, and driveways should be documented with sufficient detail for comparison after construction to determine whether actual vibration damage occurred. A post-construction survey should be conducted to document the condition of the surrounding buildings after the construction is complete. The construction contractor would be liable for construction vibration damage to adjacent structures. Less than significant Impact 3.7-3: Operation of the project could expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plans or noise ordinances, or applicable standards of other agencies. Measure 3.7-3a: Building equipment (e.g., HVAC units) shall be located away from nearby residences, on building rooftops, and properly shielded by either the rooftop parapet or within an enclosure that effectively blocks the line of sight of the source from the nearest receptors. The resultant HVAC noise level shall not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest receptors. Measure 3.7-3b: In order to avoid noise-sensitive hours, commercial and retail shall prohibit loading and unloading activities between the nighttime hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Measure 3.7-3c: To further address the nuisance impact of loading dock/truck delivery noise, all loading areas for commercial and retail uses shall be located at the rear or sides of buildings within the commercial and mixed-use districts, where noise can be directed away from residential uses within the mixed use areas of the project. Less than significant
Summary TABLE S-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-49 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Impact 3.7-4: Traffic associated with operation of the project would result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels on nearby roadways. Measure 3.7-4: If necessary to comply with the interior noise requirements of the City of Temecula and achieve an acceptable interior noise level, noise reduction in the form of sound-rated assemblies (i.e., windows, exterior doors, and walls) shall be incorporated into project building design, based upon recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer. Final recommendations for sound-rated assemblies will depend on the specific building designs and layout of buildings on the site and shall be determined during the design phase. With implementation of the above mitigation measure, the interior noise impact from project traffic would be reduced. However, exterior noise levels along roadways 2, 5, 6, and 7 would be substantially greater with the project than existing and would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. Impact 3.7-5: The project, together with anticipated future development could result in long-term traffic increases that could cumulatively increase noise levels. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.7-4 as described above. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-4, the cumulative interior noise impacts of the project would be reduced. However, the project would result in cumulatively considerable exterior noise levels along roadways 1, 2, and 4 through 8, which would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. Utilities and Services Impact 3.8-1: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks and recreational facilities. Measure 3.8-1: The City shall continue to implement its local code that incorporates standards for parkland dedication and development. The City requires (1) the dedication of parkland or the payment of in-lieu fees and the development of recreation facilities for all new development; and (2) developers of residential projects greater than 200 units must dedicate land based on the park acre standard of five acres of usable parkland to 1,000 residents. Less than significant Impact 3.8-2: The project would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects Mitigation: None required. Less than significant
Summary TABLE S-2 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-50 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Impact 3.8-3: The project would not require or result in the construction of wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated). Measure 3.8-3a: Prior to construction in any undeveloped areas, EMWD shall review the plans for consistency with design criteria. Once approved by the EMWD engineer, the applicant shall pay the required connection fee to EMWD prior to construction of the sewer line. Measure 3.8-3b: Prior to construction, the project applicant and/or each subsequent project applicant will pay its fair share in mitigation fees to EMWD to upgrade the First Street and the Pujol Street sewer lines. Less than significant Impact 3.8-4: The project would not result in insufficient water supplies from existing entitlements or need new or expanded entitlements. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.8-5: The project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Mitigation: None required. (Please see discussion of Impact 3.8-3 above) Less than significant Impact 3.8-6: The project would not be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs Measure 3.8-6: All proposed development plans shall designate adequate and convenient space on the property to be used for collecting all recyclable materials generated on the premises. Less than significant Impact 3.8-7: The project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.8-8: The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new electrical and gas facilities or the expansion of existing facilities where the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant
Summary TABLE S-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-51 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Traffic and Transportation Impact 3.9-1: The proposed project would result in impacts to study intersections in Existing Plus Ambient Growth with Proposed Specific Plan conditions. Measure 3.9-1: The project applicant shall incorporate the following features into the design of the Specific Plan area: • At the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road provide a northbound through/right-turn lane combination with a right-turn overlap. • Provide subsequent Traffic Impact Analyses, as development occurs, to determine thresholds for implementation of Roundabouts at the intersections of Old Town Front Street and First Street/Santiago Road/Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street. • Provide pedestrian facilities from Old Town Front Street which connect the east and west neighborhood cores with the Old Town Core District. In order to maintain the unique “Main Street” character of the Old Town area, LOS E and F will be deemed acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North. Less than significant Impact 3.9-2: The proposed project would result in impacts to study area intersections in General Plan Plus Proposed Specific Plan conditions. Measure 3.9-2: The project applicant shall incorporate the following features into the design of the Specific Plan area: • At the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road provide a westbound right-turn overlap. • Provide subsequent Traffic Impact Analyses, as development occurs, to determine thresholds for implementation of Roundabouts at the intersections of Old Town Front Street and First Street/Santiago Road/Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street. • Provide pedestrian facilities from Old Town Front Street which connect the east and west neighborhood cores with the Old Town Core District. In order to maintain the unique “Main Street” character of the Old Town area, LOS E and F will be deemed acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North. Less than significant Impact 3.9-3: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in inadequate vehicular and emergency access. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.9-4: Project implementation would not result in inadequate parking capacity. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1-1 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
CHAPTER I
Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the Draft Program EIR
This Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft Program EIR) has been prepared by the
City of Temecula, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines in the Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. The City is the Lead Agency for this Draft Program
EIR, which examines potential physical impacts to the environment that could occur as a result of
the proposed amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP) and proposed annexation area
(project).
This Draft Program EIR is intended to inform the City, responsible agencies and the public of the
proposed project’s environmental effects. As the Lead Agency, the City has the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon
the environment (CEQA Section 21067). The Draft Program EIR is therefore intended to publicly
disclose those impacts that may be significant and adverse, identify measures that would mitigate
or eliminate such impacts, and describe a range of alternatives to the proposed project that have
the potential to avoid or substantially lessen impacts.
Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines outlines the parameters of a Program EIR as follows:
A Program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be
characterized as one large project and are related either:
1. Geographically,
2. A logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions,
3. In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria
to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or
4. As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or
regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which
can be mitigated in similar ways.
Use of a Program EIR can provide the following advantages:
1. Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and
alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action,
I. Introduction
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1-2 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
2. Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-
case analysis,
3. Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations,
4. Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide
mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to
deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts, and
5. Allow reduction in paperwork.
(c) Use with Later Activities. Subsequent activities in the program must be
examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine whether an
additional environmental document must be prepared.
The OTSP meets the requirements for a Program EIR. This document serves as a Program EIR
for the OTSP, which establishes development parameters but does not propose any specific
development, as the exact development proposals for future projects are not yet known at this
time. Future specific projects submitted for City review and approval within the Specific Plan
area will be required to prepare an Initial Study to determine the need for any additional required
CEQA compliance documentation.
1.2 Project Background
Temecula was incorporated on December 1, 1989. On November 9, 1993, Temecula adopted the
Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan. Since then, 13 Specific Plans have been adopted to
govern defined geographic regions of the City. The OTSP was prepared in 1992 and 1993 with
the assistance of Urban Design Studio and the council-appointed Old Town Steering Committee.
The Steering Committee members represented a wide range of local business and resident
interests. The OTSP was approved by the City Council on February 8, 1994. The original purpose
of the document was to provide a comprehensive plan for land use, development regulations,
design guidelines, vehicular circulation, parking, development incentives, and other related
actions aimed at implementing the goals and objectives set forth in the Specific Plan.
On March 25, 2007, City Council authorized staff to proceed with an amendment to the OTSP to
address the 10 goals and recommendations as noted in Section 2.1.2. The primary goal for the
amendment to the Specific Plan is to incorporate form-based code principles in order to more
clearly define development regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development
through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within the
Old Town area. The proposed project would also seek to revitalize the Old Town area for the
local community and outside visitors with enhanced specialty retail, restaurants, entertainment,
multi-family, and civic uses. As compared to the previous OTSP, this first major update, or
amendment, would result in a reduced intensity of development.
I. Introduction
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1-3 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
1.3 CEQA EIR Process
1.3.1 Notice of Preparation
On July 13, 2009, in accordance with Sections 15063 and 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the
City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Program EIR, and circulated it to
governmental agencies, organizations, and persons who may be interested in this project,
including nearby landowners, homeowners, and tenants. The NOP requested comments on the
scope of the Draft Program EIR, and asked that those agencies with regulatory authority over any
aspect of the project describe that authority. The comment period extended through August 11,
2009. The NOP provided a general description of the proposed action, a description of the
primary project goals, methods to achieve these goals, description of the proposed project area,
and a preliminary list of potential environmental impacts. The publicly-circulated July 13, 2009
NOP identified the addition of approximately 1,500 residential units within the Specific Plan area
and the annexation of approximately 8.5 acres into the Specific Plan area at a location south of
First Street, along the west side of Old Town Front Street. Since the public circulation of the July
13, 2009 NOP, the City continued to refine its end goals and build-out assumptions from what
was previously noted in the NOP; as such, it was determined that the addition of approximately
749 residential units into the Specific Plan area would result. Initially, the City had included part
of the Murrieta Creek channel as one of the properties being annexed into the OTSP area, totaling
8.5 acres. Once the City confirmed that Flood Control had purchased the flood channel portion of
the property, the City scaled back the annexation area to only include the portion of the property
out of the flood channel; this portion for the proposed annexation is now 2.4 acres. A copy of the
NOP and responses to the NOP are included in this Draft Program EIR as Appendices B and C.
On July 21, 2009, in accordance with CEQA Section 21083.9,1 the City sponsored a public
scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft Program
EIR. Public notices were placed in local newspapers and on the City’s website informing
agencies and the general public of the scoping meeting. A copy of the scoping meeting notice is
included in Appendix B. The purpose of the meeting was to present the proposed project to the
public through use of display maps, diagrams and a PowerPoint presentation describing the
project components and potential environmental impacts. City staff and members of the local
community attended the scoping meeting. A copy of the scoping meeting sign-in sheet is included
in Appendix C. Attendees were provided an opportunity to voice comments or concerns regarding
potential effects of the proposed project. The issues addressed by participants are summarized and
included in this Draft Program EIR as part of Appendices B and C.
1.3.2 Draft Program EIR
This Draft Program EIR provides a description of the proposed project, environmental setting,
project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant as well as an analysis
of project alternatives. Significance criteria have been developed for each environmental resource
1 CEQA Section 21083.9 requires that a lead agency call at least one scoping meeting for a project of statewide,
regional, or area-wide significance.
I. Introduction
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1-4 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
analyzed in this Draft Program EIR, and are defined for each impact analysis section. Impacts are
categorized as follows:
• Significant and unavoidable;
• Potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level;
• Less than significant (mitigation is not required under CEQA, but may be recommended); or
• No impact.
CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate ways of avoiding or minimizing identified environmental
effects where feasible through the application of mitigation measures or project alternatives.
1.3.3 Public Review
This document is being circulated and made available to local, state and federal agencies, and to
interested organizations and individuals who may wish to review and comment on the Draft
Program EIR. The original OTSP (originally adopted February 8, 1994) and City of Temecula
General Plan EIR are currently available for public review at the City Planning Department.
Publication of this Draft Program EIR marks the beginning of a 45-day public review period.
Written comments should be sent on or before April 14, 2010 by the close of business to:
Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Stuart.Fisk@cityoftemecula.org (e-mail)
951.506.5159 (phone)
951.694.6477 (fax)
1.3.4 Final Program EIR
Written and oral comments received in response to the Draft Program EIR will be addressed in a
Response to Comments document which, together with the Draft Program EIR, will constitute the
Final Program EIR. The City will then consider Program EIR certification (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15090). If the Program EIR is certified, the City may consider project approval. Prior to
approving the project, the City must make written findings with respect to each significant and
unavoidable environmental effect identified in the Program EIR in accordance with Section
15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.
1.3.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt a reporting and mitigation monitoring program for the
changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to
mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (CEQA Section 21081.6, CEQA
Guidelines Section 15097). The mitigation monitoring program will be available to the public at
the same time as the Final Program EIR.
I. Introduction
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1-5 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
1.4 Approach to this Draft Program EIR
This Draft Program EIR evaluates impacts resulting from the existing OTSP compared to what is
proposed under the Specific Plan Amendment. CEQA requires that before a decision can be made
to approve a project with potentially significant environmental effects, an EIR must be prepared
that fully describes the environmental effects of the project and identifies feasible mitigation for
significant impacts. The EIR is a public information document for use by governmental agencies
and the public to identify and evaluate potential environmental consequences of a proposed
project, to recommend mitigation measures to lessen or eliminate adverse impacts, and to
examine feasible alternatives to the project. The information contained in the EIR is reviewed and
considered by the governing agency prior to the ultimate decision to approve, disapprove, or
modify the proposed project.
CEQA requires that a lead agency shall neither approve nor implement a project as proposed
unless the significant environmental effects of that project have been reduced to a less-than-
significant level, essentially “eliminating, avoiding, or substantially lessening” the expected
impact. As with the underlying environmental documents, if the lead agency approves the project
despite residual significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant
level, the agency must state the reasons for its action in writing. This “Statement of Overriding
Considerations” must be included in the record of project approval. This Draft Program EIR
identifies the following impacts as significant and unavoidable:
• Construction air impacts.
• Project operation air impacts.
• Cumulative air impacts.
• State goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
• Construction noise impacts.
• Traffic noise impacts.
• Cumulative noise impacts.
Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the lead agency to adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations if the lead agency determines these impacts are significant and
approves the project. As required by Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations shall be adopted by a lead agency if the agency finds that the benefits
of a project outweigh several significant, unavoidable adverse impacts and decides to approve the
project even though these impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant.
1.5 Organization of this Draft Program EIR
This Draft Program EIR has been organized into the following sections:
S. Executive Summary. This chapter summarizes the contents of the Draft Program EIR.
I. Introduction
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1-6 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
1. Introduction. This chapter discusses the CEQA process and the purpose of the Draft
Program EIR.
2. Project Description and Site Characteristics. This chapter provides an overview of the
proposed project, describes the need for and objectives of the proposed project, and
provides details on the characteristics of the proposed project.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. This chapter describes the
environmental setting and identifies impacts of the proposed project for each of the
following environmental resource areas: aesthetics; air quality; global warming/climate
change; cultural resources; hydrology and water quality; land use planning; noise; public
services; and traffic and circulation. Measures to mitigate the impacts of the proposed
project are presented for each resource area.
4. Cumulative Impacts. This chapter describes the potential impacts of the proposed project
when considered together with other related projects in the project area.
5. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes and Growth-Inducing Impacts. This
chapter presents an overview of the impacts of the project in the sense that it may foster
economic or population growth, or additional housing, either indirectly or directly. This
chapter also analyzes the extent to which the project's primary and secondary effects would
commit resources to uses that future generations will probably be unable to reverse.
6. Alternatives Analysis. This chapter presents an overview of the alternatives development
process and describes the alternatives to the proposed project that were considered.
7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers.
1.6 Cumulative Development
1.6.1 CEQA Analysis Requirements
A cumulative impact is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in an EIR
together with other projects having the potential to cause related impacts. The CEQA Guidelines
require that EIRs discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is
“cumulatively considerable,” meaning that the project’s incremental effects are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects.2 According to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a) and (b), the purpose of this section is to provide a discussion of
significant cumulative impacts which reflects the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of
occurrence. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that the discussion of cumulative impacts should include:
• Either: (A), a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or
cumulative impacts; or (B), a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan
2 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130, 15065, as amended January 1, 2000.
I. Introduction
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1-7 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
or similar document, or in an adopted or certified environmental document, which
described or evaluated conditions contributing to a cumulative impact;
• A discussion of the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect;
• A summary of expected environmental effects to be produced by these projects; and,
• Reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to any
significant cumulative effects.
The analysis of cumulative effects in Chapter 4 focuses on the effects of the proposed project in
combination with other projects within the same vicinity and timeframe. These other projects that
have the potential to cause related impacts, and possibly cumulative impacts, have been identified
in a list of past, present, and probable future projects that vary based on geographic location and
project schedule. This list of other projects used in the analysis of cumulative effects is provided
in Table 4-1 and shown in Figure 4-1. The project consists of the existing OTSP and proposed
annexation area which are both surrounded to the east by Interstate 15, single-family residential,
vacant property, and a hotel; to the north by retail and office commercial uses; to the west by light
industrial uses, service commercial uses, and vacant property; and to the south by multi-family
residential, retail, and service commercial uses.
As compared to other potential service commercial projects allowed under the site’s zoning
designation, the project would produce a relatively fewer number of vehicle trips; as such, this
radius was determined to be sufficient for the purposes of the cumulative impact analysis. The
County of Riverside and Cities of Temecula and Murrieta were contacted for past, present, and
probable future projects in the area of the project site.
1.6.2 Geographic Scope
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment project area is located in the southwestern portion of the
City of Temecula (with 2.4 acres to be annexed into the OTSP area). Chapter 4, Cumulative
Impacts, considers the potential cumulative effects of the Specific Plan Amendment in
combination with other identified cumulative development projects. The potential for specific
project-generated impacts to contribute to a significant cumulative impact would occur if the
impacts are located within the same generalized geographic area. This geographic area varies
depending upon the resource area being evaluated (water quality, noise, etc.) and the geographic
extent of the potential impact. For example, the geographic area associated with construction
noise impacts would be limited to areas directly affected by construction noise associated with the
proposed project in conjunction with the identified cumulative projects. In contrast, the
geographic area that could be affected by the proposed project and cumulative construction-
related air emissions would include the entire air basin. Construction impacts associated with
increased noise, dust, erosion, and access limitations tend to be localized and could be
exacerbated if other development or improvement projects occur within proximal locations to the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment area.
The cumulative project area identified for traffic impacts was determined by the City of Temecula
Public Works Department as noted in Table 3.9-5 and Table 4-1. At the time the traffic impact
analysis was prepared, the SpringHill Suites hotel development (one of the projects included in
I. Introduction
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1-8 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
the cumulative scenario calculations) was under construction and not operational. However, since
completion of the traffic impact analysis and prior to circulation of the Draft Program EIR, the
SpringHill Suites hotel development has opened and is currently in operation. As determined by
the traffic impact analysis, the SpringHill Suites hotel was projected to have generated
1,160 daily trips at full occupancy. Therefore, the cumulative traffic impact calculations are based
on a worst-case scenario comparison of the proposed project at build-out to existing conditions.
The other cumulative projects identified in Figure 4-1 (Chapter 4), however, have not been
accounted for in the cumulative traffic impact calculations because it is undetermined what
specific traffic impacts each future development within the OTSP area will have at this time.
Additionally, the Pujol Apartments complex was an existing use at the time the traffic impact
analysis developed. The construction of any additional units from the Pujol Apartments would
already be accounted for by the additional cumulative traffic projections for the SpringHill Suites
hotel. These additional projects are included in the cumulative analysis for impacts air quality,
GHG, hydrology, and utilities and services.
1.6.3 Project Timing
Projects considered in this analysis include those that have recently been completed, are currently
under construction, or are in the planning stages. Schedule is particularly relevant to the
consideration of cumulative construction-related impacts, since construction impacts tend to be
relatively short-term. However, for future projects, construction schedules are often broadly
estimated and can be subject to change. Although the timing of the future projects is likely to
fluctuate due to schedule changes or other unknown factors, this analysis assumes these
individual projects would be developed for implementation through the course of the current
planning horizon, and could be implemented concurrently with construction of the proposed
project. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is anticipated to reach full build-out in
approximately 20 to 30 years.
1.6.4 Type of Projects Considered
As described in Chapter 3 of this Draft Program EIR, the majority of impacts associated with
implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment are short-term and related to
construction. Implementation and operation of the Specific Plan Amendment would not
contribute to project-specific or cumulative traffic impacts (when combined with the other
approved/pending projects considered in this analysis as listed in Table 4-1 in Chapter 4). As
discussed in Chapter 3 and in Section 3.3, Global Warming and Climate Change, project-specific
impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions would be significant on the cumulative level.
Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would contribute to cumulative effects when
considered in combination with impacts of other construction projects in the vicinity. Long-term
cumulative impacts of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in conjunction with the other
projects in the area are assessed as well.
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-1 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
CHAPTER 2
Project Description
This chapter describes the proposed amendment to the OTSP and proposed annexation area. This
chapter also includes a brief description of the existing physical setting of the project site;
required discretionary actions; and the objectives of this project, as identified by the City.
2.1 Background, Goals, and Objectives
2.1.1 Project Background
Old Town History
The approval of the Old Town Temecula Historic Preservation District by the Riverside Board of
Supervisors in October 1979, marked the first recognition of Old Town Temecula as a unique
place with a historic character worth preserving and enhancing. Since that initial recognition,
additional steps have been taken to help plan Old Town’s future and preserve its historic
buildings and character. The Temecula Community Plan Task Force (composed of members from
the Old Town Temecula Museum Historical Committee, Old Town Temecula Merchants
Association, Temecula Town Association, and Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce)
prepared and submitted a plan for Old Town’s revitalization in October 1988. This plan provided
a grassroots basis for existing concerns and future growth.
A renewed focus on the issues facing Old Town was established with the preparation of the City’s
General Plan in early 1992. The various elements of the General Plan (including Land Use,
Circulation, Open Space, and Community Design) identified the need to preserve and revitalize
Old Town. The primary policy recommendation that emerged from the General Plan program was
the need to prepare a Specific Plan for Old Town. Acting on this recommendation, the Temecula
City Council authorized preparation of the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan to provide a master
plan for the Old Town area.
Old Town Specific Plan
Temecula was incorporated on December 1, 1989. On November 9, 1993, Temecula adopted the
Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan. Since then, 13 Specific Plans have been adopted to
govern defined geographic regions of the City. The OTSP was prepared in 1992 and 1993 with
the assistance of Urban Design Studio and the council-appointed Old Town Steering Committee.
The Steering Committee members represented a wide range of local business and resident
interests. The OTSP was approved by the City Council on February 8, 1994. The original purpose
2. Project Description
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-2 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
of the document was to provide a comprehensive plan for land use, development regulations,
design guidelines, vehicular circulation, parking, development incentives, and other related
actions to implement the plan’s goals and objectives.
The project site has also been evaluated in previous planning documents including:
• Old Town Specific Plan, Originally Adopted February 8, 1994 (revised October 10, 2000;
August 24, 2004; and June 13, 2006); and
• City of Temecula General Plan EIR, prepared by The Planning Center, updated 2005.
2.1.2 Project Goals and Recommendations
Original Old Town Specific Plan Goals
The overall goal for the OTSP was developed by the Old Town Steering Committee in 1992,
supported by the Planning Commission, and approved by the City Council. The overall goal was
what the community wanted Old Town Temecula to become and this goal provided the overall
direction for this area. The overall goal for Old Town was:
To create a dynamic Old Town commercial and residential core that is attractive and of
high quality, respectful of its historic buildings and unifying design theme and providing an
economically viable setting for a mixture of local and tourist commercial uses,
administrative/professional and residential uses with safe, efficient circulation and access.
As stated in the original OTSP, protecting the cultural heritage and historical architectural
resources found in Old Town and elsewhere in Temecula was part of the overall goal for the
revitalization of Old Town and the protection of the community’s heritage. In addition, the
original OTSP stated that it gave owners of eligible historic properties relief from the
contemporary municipal codes, ordinances, taxes, and laws levied on newer contemporary
structures.
Revised Old Town Specific Plan Goals
On March 25, 2007, the Temecula City Council authorized staff to proceed with an amendment to
the OTSP to address the 10 goals and recommendations described below. The primary purpose
for the amendment to the Specific Plan is to incorporate form-based code principles in order to
more clearly define development regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development
through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within the
Old Town area. The proposed project would also seek to revitalize the Old Town area for the
local community and outside visitors with enhanced specialty retail, restaurants, entertainment,
multi-family, and civic uses.
Taken together, the following 10 goals and recommendations direct the City toward the creation
of a traditional downtown, containing mixed-use development and a pedestrian-friendly
environment.
2. Project Description
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-3 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
1) Historic Core
• Goal: Preserve and respect historic buildings.
• Recommendation: Protect and preserve existing designated historic buildings. Delineate a
historic core centered on the intersection of Front and Main Streets. New projects in this
area should be required to pay special attention to the height and massing of the historic
buildings.
2) Streets
• Goal: Enhance historic character and pedestrian-friendly nature of the streets. Protect the
historic grid of streets and alleys.
• Recommendation: Future development should (a) orient building activity to the street, (b)
create a clear street edge, and (c) preserve existing and reclaim vacated alleys where
possible.
3) Building Heights
• Goal: Permit up to four-story buildings. Allow taller structures with a Conditional Use
Permit.
• Recommendation: Amend Specific Plan to a “form-based” plan governing building
heights and their placement on lots. Include detailed performance standards that respect
the relationship with adjacent historic structures.
4) Architecture
• Goal: Future buildings should respect historic architectural styles and contribute to a
well-defined, lively and pedestrian-oriented streetscape.
• Recommendation: Amend Specific Plan guidelines for building form, architectural style,
street frontage design, materials, detailing and color to provide design flexibility while
ensuring high-quality and well designed buildings.
5) Murrieta Creek Walk
• Goal: Improve the visual and functional connection between Old Town and Murrieta
Creek.
• Recommendation: Orient buildings to proposed creek walk with entrances, courtyards
and balconies facing creek. Meet flood control objectives while creating pedestrian and
bicycle paths. Develop form-based guidelines for the massing and placement of buildings
facing creek walk.
6) Infrastructure
• Goal: Improve infrastructure for future development, including water, sewer, power,
communications, trash, and deliveries. Maximize alley use to locate services and utilities
off street.
• Recommendation: Prepare a detailed analysis of existing and future infrastructure needs.
Locate utilities in alleys to improve streetscape and building frontages.
2. Project Description
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-4 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
7) Residential Neighborhoods
• Goal: Encourage development of high-quality residential neighborhoods to support
commercial and office core of Old Town.
• Recommendation: Develop design guidelines and development standards to incorporate
housing into the Specific Plan. Allow for residential-only in addition to mixed-use
projects.
8) Parking
• Goal: Retain existing Specific Plan parking standards both near and long term.
• Recommendation: Resurvey Old Town parking to verify findings of February 2007
survey. Develop interim strategies to address special event parking needs. Develop a
comprehensive strategy to increase parking supply in the long term.
9) Economic Development
• Goal: Ensure that future growth in Old Town meets the needs of its businesses and
residents, and that growth is economically sustainable.
• Recommendation: Prepare economic development plan and marketing strategy to attract
desired growth in terms of new development and commercial businesses.
10) Area of Old Town North of the Arch
• Goal: Create greater visual and functional connection between Old Town core and area
north of the arch.
• Recommendation: Explore opportunities to extend street and alley grid to the north.
Extend the form-based code standards envisioned for the Old Town core into this area.
2.2 Project Objectives
The project objectives as defined by the City are as follows:
• Update the current OTSP to provide enhanced desired services within the plan area to both
City residents and visitors while being compatible with the nearby residential area;
• Incorporate form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, to
better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and
streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town;
• Respect the history of the OTSP area while fitting with current economics, accommodating
greater residential density, and encouraging a variety of architectural styles;
• Implement significant new investment in the Old Town area to help promote rapid growth
in Temecula Valley and develop a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use
development;
• Enhance the quality of life of Temecula residents by balancing economic development
objectives with protection of the environment and the health and safety of the community; and
2. Project Description
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-5 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
• Promote economic activity within the City to maintain a healthy economy, provide revenue
for high-quality municipal services and infrastructure maintenance and improvements, and
preserve the unique character of Temecula.
2.3 Project Location and Surrounding Area
2.3.1 Location
Temecula is located in southwestern Riverside County approximately 85 miles southeast of Los
Angeles, 60 miles northeast of San Diego, and 25 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean (shortest
linear distance). 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 (BLM) lands, and unincorporated portions of
San Diego County to the south. Interstate 15 (I-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 2-1 shows the regional location.
Specifically, the proposed project site is bounded to the north by Rancho California Road, to the
east by I-15, to the south by First Street, and to the west from approximately 225 feet west of Pujol
Street and an area outside of the existing Specific Plan boundary extending approximately 350 feet
south of First Street, between the eastern edge of the Murrieta Creek channel and Old Town Front
Street. Figure 2-2 shows the project location.
2.3.2 Surrounding Land Uses
The OTSP and proposed annexation area are surrounded to the east by I-15, single-family
residential, vacant property, and a hotel; to the north by retail and office commercial uses; to the
west by light-industrial uses, service commercial uses, and vacant property; and to the south by
multi-family residential, retail, and service commercial uses. Please refer to Section 3.6 for
further details regarding surrounding land uses.
2.4 Project Description
The project involves an amendment to the OTSP. This amendment represents the first major
update of the Specific Plan since it was originally drafted. In general, the update will enhance
design guidelines and encourage residential development within the Old Town area. This
document serves as a Program EIR for the OTSP that establishes development parameters but
does not propose any specific development, as the exact development proposals for future
projects are not yet known at this time. The primary purpose for the Specific Plan Amendment is
to incorporate form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, to
better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and
to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town. The Specific Plan Amendment is
Riverside County
San Diego County
Murrieta
Temecula
CLEVELAND
NATIONAL
FOREST
Lake Skinner
79
Figure 2-1
Regional Location Map
SOURCE: Street Map USA, 2007.
79
15
15
215
Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294
Project Location
02
Miles
R a n c h o C a lifo rn ia R d
Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294
Figure 2-2
Project Location
SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2008; City of Temecula, 2009.
M o re n o R d
S ixth S tFifth StFourth S tM ain S tO
l
d
T
o
w
n
F
r
o
n
t
S
t
P
u
j
o
l
s
S
t Third S tMore
n
o
R
d
Sixth
St
Fifth
St
Fourt
h
St
Main
StOl
d
T
ow
n
F
r
o
n
t
S
t
Pu
j
o
l
s
S
t
Thir
d
St
Ranc
h
o
C
ali
f
o
r
ni
a
R
d
Second S tSecond
St
First S tFirst
St
15
0500
Feet
2. Project Description
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-8 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
intended to achieve these goals through changes to site planning standards and guidelines,
streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards
and guidelines, parking lot guidelines, public art guidelines, paving material guidelines, outdoor
dining/sidewalk furniture guidelines, sign regulations and guidelines, alley guidelines, and
landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will also result in the annexation of approximately 2.4
acres into the Specific Plan at a location south of First Street, along the west side of Old Town
Front Street, and the removal of approximately 2.3 acres from the Specific Plan at a location west
of the intersection of Sixth Street and Pujol Street.
The mixed-use aspect of the Specific Plan Amendment is anticipated to result in a reduction in
commercial building floor space in Old Town of 1,405,285 square feet, and the addition of
approximately 749 residential units within the Specific Plan area. The reduction of building floor
space can be anticipated because residential uses require more open areas for parking, courtyards,
balconies, and other shared and private open spaces than commercial space. Commercial space in
Old Town is not required to provide parking, but residential uses are required to provide at least
one parking space per residential unit. Table 2-1 below compares what currently exists today
within the OTSP area, what has been approved under the existing OTSP, what is proposed under
the OTSP amendment, and the differences between the approved and proposed OTSP.
TABLE 2-1
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN COMPARISON TABLE
Currently Exists in
OTSP Approved OTSP
Proposed OTSP
Amendment
Difference of
Approved/Proposed
OTSP
Difference of
Existing/Proposed
OTSP
Commercial 537,632 sf 3,641,275 sf 2,235,990 sf -1,405,285 sf +1,698,358 sf
Residential 681,179 sf 1,575,892 sf 2,249,285 sf +673,393 sf +1,568,106 sf
538 du 1,659 du 2,408 du +749 du +1,870 du
1,184 residents 3,350 residents 5,298 residentsa +1,948 residents +4,114 residents
Civic 143,525 sf 159,809 sf 159,809 sf 0 sf +16,284 sf
Open
Space 19.7 acres 19.7 acres 25.4 acres +5.7 acres +5.7 acres
sf = square feet: du = dwelling units
a Multi-family dwelling unit assumption of 2.2 persons/du.
SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2010.
2.4.1 Land Use Districts
The OTSP area is composed of land use districts which establish permitted land uses and
development standards intended to implement the goals, policies and objectives of this Specific
Plan and the City’s General Plan. These land use regulations and development standards
constitute the primary zoning provisions for the OTSP area. The Specific Plan Amendment is
2. Project Description
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-9 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
intended to achieve the previously defined goals and objectives through changes to land use
district locations and titles within the Specific Plan. Please refer to Figure 2-3 for the locations of
the proposed land use districts described below.
Downtown Core District
The Downtown Core District, located along the east edge of the Open Space corridor, which
contains Murrieta Creek, is intended to provide for uses that will support pedestrian-oriented and
mixed-use development. This district is defined by multi-story urban buildings of up to four
stories that are intended to accommodate art galleries, museums, restaurants and small-scale
boutique retailers such as gift, specialty food, and antique shops, or similar retail uses. Service
and office uses are permitted within this district, but are restricted to the second floor and higher
for parcels along Old Town Front Street and Main Street. Residential uses are permitted in the
Downtown Core, but are also restricted to the second floor and higher for parcels along Old Town
Front Street and Main Street. All four-story buildings in the Downtown Core must contain at least
one floor restricted to residential use.
Downtown Core/Hotel Overlay
The Downtown Core/Hotel Overlay is intended to encourage the development of a hotel with
conference facilities, restaurant and other guest services. This area is located in the southeast
corner of the project area just west of the I-15 corridor. The Hotel Overlay permits a hotel with
conference facilities to be constructed at a greater building height (up to eight stories) than other
buildings in the underlying district. This will provide adequate visitor accommodations for Old
Town and the surrounding area.
Civic Districts
The three Civic Districts are located immediately north and south of the Residential/Limited
Mixed Use District (just west of the I-15 corridor) and on the west side of the Downtown Core
District along the open space corridor. These areas are intended to provide for public and quasi-
public uses such as parks, city offices, police/fire stations, senior citizen centers, community
centers and other community assembly uses, museums, and similar facilities.
Residential/Limited Mixed Uses
The Residential/Limited Mixed Uses Districts are intended to provide for attached residential or
mixed-use development of up to three stories. These districts accommodate a variety of housing
types with opportunities for ground floor retail, restaurants, and offices serving residents. These
uses are intended to provide convenience or services for the residents in the surrounding
neighborhood such as corner markets, takeout/delivery restaurants, dry cleaners, beauty shops,
florists, and similar uses. Appropriate building types include live/work, courtyard housing,
rowhouses, condominiums, and apartments. These districts are located between the Civic
Overlays just west of the I-15 corridor and at the northern boundary of the OTSP.
Legend
Civic (CV)
Downtown Core – Hotel Overlay (DTC/HO)
Downtown Core (DTC)
Residential / Limited Mixed Use (R/LMU)
Open Space (OS)
Neighborhood Residential (NR)
Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294
Figure 2-3
Proposed Land Use Districts
SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2008; City of Temecula, 2009.
M o re n o R d
S ixth S tFifth StFourth S tM ain StO
l
d
T
o
w
n
F
r
o
n
t
S
t
P
u
j
o
l
s
S
t Third S tMore
n
o
R
d
Sixth
St
Fifth
St
Fourt
h
St
Mai
n
StOl
d
T
ow
n
F
r
o
n
t
S
t
Pu
j
o
l
s
S
t
Thir
d
St
Second S tSecond
St
First S tFirst
St
15
0500
Feet
R a n c h o C a lifo rn ia R d
Ranc
h
o
C
ali
f
o
r
ni
a
R
d
2. Project Description
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-11 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Neighborhood Residential
The Neighborhood Residential District is intended to provide for attached and detached three-
story residential development at a density of up to 35 dwelling units per acre. Typical housing
types in this area may include single-family detached, duplexes, triplexes, townhouses,
condominiums, apartments, and live/work units. This land use district would be located along the
western side of the project area just west of the Open Space corridor, which contains Murrieta
Creek.
Open Space
The Open Space corridor, which traverses through the central portion of the project area, includes
both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek.
The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, and to
protect the public from flood hazards.
2.4.2 Annexation and Removal of Old Town Specific Plan
Areas
As previously described, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will result in the annexation of
approximately 2.4 acres into the Specific Plan at a location south of First Street, along the west
side of Old Town Front Street. The removal of approximately 2.3 acres from the Specific Plan, at
a location west of the intersection of Sixth Street and Pujol Street, is also proposed. Please refer
to the Proposed and Existing OTSP Boundary Map (Figure 2-4).
2.4.3 Implementation through Changes to Standards and
Guidelines
A form-based code regulates development projects by providing specific regulations for the
physical form of a building to foster predictable built results and an active public realm. Form-
based codes emphasize building form over land use and encourage mixed-use development in an
urban environment. Form-based codes also address the relationship between the building façade
and the public realm to achieve a pedestrian-friendly environment along the streets, sidewalks and
alleys.
Form-based code regulations are provided through what is known as a regulating plan. The
regulating plan provides specific development regulations and standards presented in both words
and diagrams to designate the appropriate building form, scale, massing and character of a
building relative to the zoning district or geographic location of a lot or property within the
Specific Plan area. More specifically, the regulating plan regulates the site planning for buildings
which in turn defines the streetscape to achieve the human scale and walkability desired for the
Old Town area.
Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294
Figure 2-4
Specific Plan Amendment
Boundary
SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2008; City of Temecula, 2009.
M o re n o R d
S ixth S tFifth StFourth S tM ain S tO
l
d
T
o
w
n
F
r
o
n
t
S
t
P
u
j
o
l
s
S
t Third S tMore
n
o
R
d
Sixth
St
Fifth
St
Fourt
h
St
Mai
n
St
Ol
d
T
ow
n
F
r
o
n
t
S
t
Pu
j
o
l
s
S
t
Thir
d
St
Second S tSecond
St
First S tFirst
St
15
Legend
Existing Specific Plan Boundary
Land to be removed from Specific Plan
Annexation Area
0500
Feet
R a n c h o C a lifo rn ia R d
Ranc
h
o
C
ali
f
o
r
ni
a
R
d
2. Project Description
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-13 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Site Planning
The area comprising the core of Old Town Temecula is typical of many small town/rural main
streets. The buildings are predominantly side by side, forming a fairly continuous street wall, and
are placed on a build-to-line 10 feet behind the right-of-way. The pedestrian-friendly quality of
this relationship is enhanced by arcades, mature trees, benches, and lack of emphasis on parking
lots and parked cars. It is the intent of the urban standards to intensify the pedestrian activity
which characterizes this area by requiring side parking, rear parking, or no on-site parking lots.
Pedestrian passages to parking areas adjoining mid-block alleys are encouraged to facilitate the
screening of parking lot areas.
Streetscape Standards
The purpose of streetscape improvements for Old Town is to promote a high-quality comfortable
pedestrian environment that enhances the visual experience of the area for tourists and residents
alike. The preservation of the pedestrian scale and the relationship of buildings to streets are
important criteria in the Old Town area. Streetscape improvements along Old Town Front Street
and Main Street will be modified as specified in the amended OTSP.
The focus of the project area will be to provide pedestrians a network of simple, well-defined and
well-proportioned outdoor spaces. In an effort to ensure a comfortable urban downtown
experience, streetscapes that are simple and uncluttered will be emphasized. In addition, street
trees will be a major component. Trees will be located closer to the streets to allow a more urban
feel.
Circulation Standards
In the Old Town area, the project proposes to use an intersection Level of Service F (LOS F) as an
acceptable LOS for intersections on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road
North. In the past few years, several cities in California have, by using a variety of methods, made
the decision to allow lower LOS for intersections located in core or downtown areas. These
decisions are all linked to efforts to create the increased densities needed for mixed-use
development that supports pedestrian and transit uses as well as a sustainable living and work
environments.1
Architectural Standards
Development standards and requirements for all projects within the OTSP area are intended to
ensure that proposed development within the Old Town area occurs in a manner that is consistent
with the community’s vision for building form, massing, architectural character, and the
building’s relationship to the street and public realm.
The most prevalent architectural style in Old Town relates most commonly to the Gold Rush
Style or Western Frontier Style. The architectural design guidelines for Old Town are organized
1 Case studies included the cities of Calistoga, Oakland, Roseville, San Diego, San Jose, and Walnut Creek. In
San Jose, downtown development is exempt from LOS requirements and mitigation measures.
2. Project Description
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-14 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
into four topics: building form, frontage type, architectural style, and materials. While
architectural principles are defined, variety and individual expression within this framework are
encouraged. The community desires a character of architecture and streetscape reflecting
Temecula Valley’s history, natural landscape, and climate. The amended OTSP will help to
provide a rich and varied character to the streetscapes in Old Town while acknowledging the
variety of Old Town’s historical buildings. The amended Specific Plan will encourage new
development to respect this old heritage, but still enable variety and individual expression through
building form, architectural style, and materials
Parking Lots
The public view of open parking lots can detract from the Old Town area. This is especially
important in retail areas.
In an effort to minimize the amount of land committed to parking lots within the Old Town area,
not all uses within the Specific Plan will be required to provide on-site parking. In most cases, the
determination of whether or not parking will be required will be based upon the land use district
and the type of business. When on-site parking is required, the standards contained in Chapter
17.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code will normally be used to determine the number of required
parking spaces. However, the Temecula Director of Planning may require assembly uses with high
parking demands to provide additional off-street parking. In making this determination, the
Temecula Director of Planning can consider the size and location of the proposed use, the hours of
operation, the availability of nearby off-street parking, and its proximity to other assembly and
restaurant uses. In the retail portions of the project area, locating parking lots between the front
property line and any building will be prohibited. As needed, several additional parking strategies
could be incorporated into the Old Town area in the long term. These additional parking strategies
could include time limits, informational programs, a Parking District, additional parking supply,
and parking charges as determined by the City. More specifically, the City could establish time
limits and parking charges once an area consistently surpasses 85 percent occupancy. The City
could also develop an informational program or Parking District at any time; however, with the
recent development of the Civic Center parking structure/lot, parking needs in the short-term have
been met. Additionally, near-term parking would be supplied through a parking structure located at
Second Street (behind the Stampede) and/or the City’s Sixth Street surface lot.
Public Art
The placement of public art within the project area will be encouraged on both private and public
property. Public art can be representative of the City’s culture and heritage in addition to promoting
social gathering places and interaction. Wall murals, lighting displays, sculptures, mosaics,
monuments and fountains will all be considered significant examples of artistic expression.
Proposals for public art will be subject to review pursuant to the public art ordinance.
2. Project Description
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-15 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Paving Material
Enhanced paving materials are strongly encouraged in the Specific Plan area wherever possible.
The textures of paving can guide activities and movement patterns; it can channel traffic or
prevent it from encroaching on specific areas; it can speed movement or slow it down. Smooth
surface materials encourage walking, while rough surfaces slow or inhibit walking. Paving
materials therefore influence usability and comfort as well as the perception of a historic time
period.
Outdoor Dining/Sidewalk Furniture
Outdoor patio furniture and umbrellas for private restaurants and other commercial uses within
the OTSP are considered an integral part of the street scene. Appropriate street-side furnishings
would be meant for private use and occur between the property line and the build-to-line, outside
of the right-of-way.
Sign Regulations and Guidelines
Signs in Old Town advertise a place of business or provide directions and information. The OTSP
directs signs to be architecturally attractive and should contribute to the retention or restoration of
the historic character of the area. The OTSP notes that signs should not compete with each other
or dominate the setting via inconsistent height, size, shape, number, color, lighting, or movement.
This revised Specific Plan has regulations to help control the size, location, and number of
storefront signs. In addition, the revised Specific Plan contains design criteria to encourage and
coordinate well-designed signs and provides guidelines intended to assure the local merchant that
all other Old Town commercial establishments are similarly regulated.
Alley Guidelines
The primary purposes of the remaining alleys are either for vehicular access or pedestrian access.
The primary goal of the vehicular access alleys is to provide service and rear area parking access
to adjacent properties. The majority of these alleys are located between Old Town Front Street
and Mercedes Street. The primary purpose of the pedestrian access alleys is to enhance the
pedestrian connections between Old Town Front Street and Murrieta Creek.
The following alleys between Old Town Front and Mercedes Streets will retain a primarily
vehicular function:
• Between First and Second Streets
• Between Third and Main Streets
• Between Fourth and Fifth Streets
• Between Fifth and Sixth Streets
The following alleys between Old Town Front Street and Murrieta Creek will retain a primary
pedestrian function:
2. Project Description
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-16 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
• Between Fourth and Fifth Streets
Landscape Guidelines
Landscaping in the OTSP area is focused on achieving three main objectives:
1) To unify and establish a uniform urban streetscape in Old Town;
2) To soften mixed-use, commercial, civic, and residential development within Old Town’s
urban context; and
3) To establish an environment in Old Town that is pleasant and comfortable for pedestrians,
residents, and visitors.
These three areas of focus will be accomplished by a highly recognizable use of repeated planting
treatments. Consistency and continuity within the street right-of-way and building setback areas
will also be extremely important for development.
Murrieta Creek
Old Town has historically turned its back to Murrieta Creek, using land along the creek for
backyards, storage and parking. The proposed flood control improvements provide the
opportunity for Old Town to create a positive relationship with the creek. The concept of the
Murrieta Creek Walk includes the creation of a pedestrian walkway along both sides of the water
course with buildings fronting portions of the creek. The improvements to the Murrieta Creek
corridor will be aesthetically compatible with the vision for Old Town while also capitalizing on
the improvements to add desirable pedestrian/equestrian trails along the creek’s edge.
Improvement plans to the corridor area will be coordinated with other master plans adopted by
the City.
2.5 Timeline
Implementing the Specific Plan Amendment will occur through a series of future development
projects as well as redevelopment of currently developed or underutilized sites. As such,
implementation of the proposed project will be driven by development. A 20- to 30-year absorption
rate is thus projected for build-out of the work associated with the amendment to the OTSP.
2.6 Review and Approvals
The project is anticipated to require the following review and approvals shown in Table 2-2:
2. Project Description
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-17 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 2-2
ANTICIPATED REVIEW AND APPROVALS FOR OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
Agency Action
Regional Water Quality Control Board • Possible review and approval of stormwater permits
City of Temecula Planning Commission • Consider a recommend that City of Temecula City Council certify the
Final Environmental Impact Report and MMRP
• Approval of a Development Plan Review
• All City of Temecula Planning Commission actions are appealable to
the City of Temecula City Council
City of Temecula City Council • Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and MMRP
• Adopt Specific Plan Amendment
• Adopt General Plan Amendment
Rancho California Water District • Possible review and approval of water service permits
Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
• Possible review and approval of permits
Riverside County Health Department • Possible review and approval of permits
SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2010.
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-1 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
CHAPTER 3
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and
Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
3.1.1 Introduction
This section analyzes the potential aesthetics impacts that could occur with implementation of the
project. This analysis identifies and evaluates key visual resources in the project area and
determines the degree of visual impacts that could occur from proposed project implementation.
The analysis also describes the potential aesthetic effects of the project on the existing landscape
and built environment, focusing on the compatibility of the project conditions and the project’s
effects on scenic resources. The environmental baseline in this chapter uses the current physical
conditions of the OTSP area as they exist at the time the NOP was published as compared to
build-out of the OTSP amendment.
3.1.2 Environmental Setting
Physical Setting
Regional Visual Characteristics
Regional views within the City of Temecula are characterized by flat or gently rolling terrain with
residential communities, industrial/commercial development and agricultural land. The western
escarpment, located at the southern end of the Santa Ana Mountains, provides a prominent visual
backdrop immediately west of the City. Distant views of Palomar Mountain and the Cleveland
National Forest exist to the south. While the City itself contains large residential areas,
surrounding areas are more rural and agricultural in nature. The many golf courses and wineries
in the region contribute to the atmosphere of a resort community.
Much of Temecula is composed 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 apartments and townhouses are located near the center of the City. The Nicolas Valley and
residential areas east of I-15 and south of Santiago Road consist of lower density residences on
large lots.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-2 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Project Site
The existing 145.2-acre OTSP area is designated Low Medium/Medium/ High Residential,
Community Commercial, Public Institutional Facility, and Open Space within the Temecula
General Plan. In the 1880s, the railroad arrived and the post office moved to the present town’s
location. Although new development surrounds the historic town site and many historical
structures have been torn down or moved, others still remain.
The site is bounded to the north by Rancho California Road, to the east by I-15, to the south by
First Street, and to the west from approximately 225 feet west of Pujol Street and an area outside
of the existing Specific Plan boundary extending approximately 350 feet south of First Street,
between the eastern edge of the Murrieta Creek channel and Old Town Front Street.
With a drainage area in excess of 220 square miles, Murrieta Creek traverses Temecula and
Murrieta in the densely populated southwest region of Riverside County. Confluencing with
Temecula Creek, it forms the Santa Margarita River, which flows through Camp Pendleton
Marine Base and on to the Pacific Ocean. Specifically, the creek traverses Temecula through an
open space corridor that divides the western Neighborhood Residential area from the eastern
Downtown Core area. The slopes aligning the creek bed are covered with low trees, grasses and
shrubs. The sandy creek bed is usually dry outside of the rainy season.
The ecological resources of Murrieta Creek and its surroundings have been identified as a
resource of high concern. Several resource agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), have stipulated that Murrieta
Creek is one of the last high-quality, minimally disturbed riverine environments in Southern
California.
As a result of repeated flood events, culminating with the catastrophic flood in 1993, the Army
Corps of Engineers initiated a study on a 7.5-mile section of the creek, which led to the 2000
Congressional recognition of the four-phase Murrieta Creek Flood Control, Environmental
Restoration and Recreation Project. The Restoration and Recreation Project will be constructed
along Murrieta Creek in Murrieta and Temecula. This effort will improve flood control and
stormwater retention in the creek; enhance water conservation and supply; and provide
recreation-related opportunities along the Santa Margarita River and its tributaries.
Surrounding Area
The project site is bounded to the north by Rancho California Road, to the east by I-15, to the south
by First Street, and to the west from approximately 225 feet west of Pujol Street and an area
outside of the existing Specific Plan boundary extending approximately 350 feet south of First
Street, between the eastern edge of the Murrieta Creek channel and Old Town Front Street. Please
refer to photos of the existing setting as shown on the figures found in Section 3.6. The following
further describes each land use surrounding the site:
• North – Rancho California Road, an east/west four-lane road, traverses the northern
perimeter of the project site. North of the project site is an area that is in transition from
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-3 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
residential to tourist service development that includes overnight accommodations. Views
north of Rancho California Road include the 99-room Hampton Inn & Suites, the Murrieta
Creek corridor, undeveloped lots, and business parks.
• South – The project site is bordered on the south by First Street, a four-lane street. Views
south of First Street predominantly consist of local businesses, undeveloped dirt parking
lots and the Murrieta Creek corridor.
• East – The project site is bordered on the east by the I-15 freeway corridor. I-15 is a major
north-south freeway servicing the Temecula/Murrieta area, linking it to Riverside and the
Los Angeles metropolitan area (via Corona) and to San Diego (via Escondido). The eastern
perimeter, bordering the I-15 freeway, consists of an approximately 60-foot strip of land
covered with grass, bare soil, low-lying shrubs, and trees. At this point, the I-15 corridor
sits at an elevation above that of the Old Town area. Further to the east are views of trees
and slopes aligning the I-15 corridor, separating residential communities and commercial
properties on the opposite side of the freeway.
• West – The project site is bordered on the west by Pujol Street, a two-lane street. The areas
west of Pujol Street predominantly consist of residences: single-family homes, multi-family
residential buildings, undeveloped residential lots and apartment complexes. Foothills to
the western escarpment are west of the properties fronting Pujol Street. The Temecula
Valley is located below the eastern slope of the western escarpment. The western
escarpment is located approximately 3,500 feet west of the project site. The western
escarpment is a southeastern extension of the Santa Ana Mountains, and is bounded by the
fast-growing Inland Empire cities of Murrieta to the northeast and Temecula to the
southeast.
Light and Glare
The site is partially developed and produces light within the local project vicinity. The nighttime
lighting environment surrounding the site mainly consists of passing vehicle headlights, scattered
street lighting, lighting of the I-15 corridor, as well as lighting from surrounding commercial,
recreational, and residential uses.
Old Town Architecture
The early buildings of Old Town reflect the architectural melting pot of American traditions and
European ideas that were adapted to the conditions in southern California; pioneer origins include
Swiss/German, Portuguese/Spanish, and French. The structures built in Old Town by 1930,
established an important historical foundation of building forms, frontage types, architectural
styles, and materials. Spanish Colonial, Mission and Monterey styles were introduced in Southern
California first. Early settlers also introduced architectural traditions from the eastern U.S. and
Europe such as American Mercantile, Neo-classical, and Victorian. By 1927, even modernist
influences are evident. During 1884 through 1927, Temecula built a diverse mix of architectural
styles that were common in towns across the West. In the design of future buildings in Old Town,
these traditions are the most authentic and appropriate to use as references for architectural style.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-4 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Regulatory Setting
State Scenic Highway Program
The State Scenic Highway Program, created by the California Legislature in 1963, was
established to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish the
aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. A highway is designated under this program when
a local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for scenic highway approval, and receives notification
from Caltrans that the highway has been designated as a Scenic Highway. When a city or county
nominates an eligible scenic highway for official designation, it defines the scenic corridor, which
is land generally adjacent to and visible to a motorist on the highway. Based on the Riverside
County Comprehensive General Plan and City of Temecula General Plan, State Highway 79
North (Winchester Road) is listed as a State Eligible Scenic Highway and is located
approximately two miles north of the project site. Based on a site visit performed by ESA on July
8, 2009, the project site is not visible from State Highway 79 North. The proposed project is
located adjacent to I-15, which is designated as an Eligible State Scenic Highway; however, it is
not officially designated as a State Scenic Highway by the Caltrans. It should be noted that the
design guidelines of the OTSP are intended to provide development that would enhance the visual
character and improve the aesthetics of the Old Town area.
City of Temecula General Plan
According to the City’s General Plan Community Design Element, preserving the remaining
hillsides and ridgelines in the City and surrounding areas is important to many residents and
results in a more enjoyable and satisfying urban environment. There is a need for hillside
development standards to encourage innovative site and building design and to enhance the visual
quality of development.
Goal 1: Enhancement of the City’s image related to its regional and natural setting and its
tourist orientation.
Policy 1.2 Apply requirements of the OTSP 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 I-15.
Policy 1.5 Maintain and incorporate natural amenities such as: rock outcroppings,
indigenous vegetation, streams and watercourses within proposed development
projects.
In accordance with the General Plan, commercial and residential areas need strong design
coordination, improved circulation links, open space links, outdoor pedestrian spaces and a
greater emphasis on quality architecture and landscape design.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-5 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Goal 2: Design excellence in site planning, architecture, landscape architecture and
signs.
Policy 2.5 Limit light and glare pollution through design standards for outdoor lighting, the
use of low intensity lights, and lighting that supports the continued use of the Mt.
Palomar Observatory.
Policy 2.6 Enhance the visual identity of commercial districts.
The following General Plan policies for visual resources and aesthetics, which are found within
the Open Space and Conservation Element, are relevant to the proposed project:
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 Retain critical escarpment and major hillside areas to preserve open space areas on
the west and south edges of the City.
Based on site visits performed by ESA, the project site is located in an area that could alter views
of the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, and slopes in the
City’s Sphere of Influence (area that is subject to the influence of the City’s planning because it is
destined to become annexed). However, the General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas
within the project site, nor does the site contain any outstanding scenic vistas or resources that
warrant preservation.
Building Scale, Design and Height
City-wide community design concepts relating to building scale, design and height are disclosed
in the City’s General Plan Community Design Element. According to the Community Design
Element, multi-story structures beyond two stories may be appropriate. By increasing the scale
and height of buildings, the ground floor area is then made available for open space, plazas and
increased pedestrian uses. These increases would allow for more innovation in architectural and
landscape design. Furthermore, increasing the height of buildings in the mixed-use overlay areas
will allow for a potential increase in both commercial and residential development. The allowable
height increases in the mixed-use areas should be designed to avoid adversely impacting
surrounding low-density residential areas. If mixed use abuts a single-family area, new
development should be stepped back and reduced in height to remain sensitive to the scale of the
adjacent residential neighborhood.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-6 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Palomar Observatory Light Pollution Ordinance
The City of Temecula is located close to the Palomar Observatory. Limited 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. To prevent “skyglow” and adverse impacts to the use of the telescope at the observatory,
the observatory requires unique nighttime lighting restrictions. Generally, observatory sites need
to be 30 to 40 miles from large lighted areas so that the nighttime sky will not be brightened.
Temecula adheres to Riverside County’s Light Pollution Ordinance (No. 655), which restricts
nighttime lighting for areas within a 15-mile radius (Zone A) and a 45-mile radius (Zone B) of
Palomar Observatory. Zone A means the circular area 15 miles in radius centered on Palomar
Observatory; Zone B means the circular ring area defined by two circles, one forty-five (45) miles
in radius centered on Palomar Observatory, and the other the perimeter of Zone A.
The project site is located within Zone B, a 45-mile radius of the observatory (45-mile Radius
Lighting Impact Zone), and is required to comply with Ordinance No. 655. The requirements for
lamp source and shielding of light emissions for outdoor light fixtures are less stringent under
Zone B as compared to Zone A. For example, parking lot, walkway and security lamps above
4,050 lumens are allowed under Zone B if they are fully shielded. Also, low pressure sodium
decorative lamps and other lamps 4,050 lumens and below are allowed under Zone B. It should
be noted that when lighting is “allowed” by this ordinance, it must be fully shielded if feasible
and partially shielded in all other cases, and must be focused to minimize spill light into the night
sky and onto adjacent properties.
In conformance with Riverside County’s Light Pollution Ordinance, Ordinance No. 655, all
artificial outdoor light fixtures must be installed in conformance with the provisions of the
ordinance, the Building Code, the Electrical Code, and lighting requirements specified in the
Zoning Ordinance of the County of Riverside, along with any other related state and federal
regulations such as California Title 24. Section 59.105 of Ordinance No. 655 sets forth specific
requirements for lamp source and shielding of light emissions for outdoor light fixtures. Lighting
for on-premises advertising displays must be shielded and focused to minimize light spill into the
night sky or adjacent properties.
3.1.3 Impact Analysis
Methodology and Assumptions
The significance determination for the visual analysis is based on consideration of: (1) the extent
of change related to project visibility from key public vantage points; (2) the degree of visual
contrast and compatibility in scale and character between project elements and the existing
surroundings; and (3) project conformance with public policies regarding visual and urban design
quality.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-7 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Characterizing aesthetics can be highly subjective; therefore, the evaluation of aesthetic resources
in the landscape requires the application of a process that objectively identifies the visual features
of the landscape and their importance, and the sensitivity of people who view them. Viewers of
the project site are first identified and the relative importance of these views is determined. The
project-related changes to the aesthetic character of the site and surrounding area are qualitatively
evaluated based on the extent of proposed modification of the physical conditions and the
estimated viewer sensitivity to this modification. A policy analysis will determine the project’s
consistency with relevant planning regulations and General Plan goals, objectives, and policies.
Viewer sensitivity is based, in part, on the visibility of resources in the landscape, the proximity
of viewers to the visual resources, the vertical elevation of viewers relative to the visual
resources, the frequency and duration of views, the number of viewers, and the types and
expectations of the individuals and viewer groups. Generally, visual sensitivity increases with an
increase in total number of viewers, the frequency of viewing, and the duration of views.
However, visual sensitivity is generally higher for views seen by people who are driving for
pleasure, engaging in recreational activities, or who are homeowners.
Light and glare impacts are determined through a comparison of the existing light sources with
anticipated light levels consistent with the proposed lighting plan. If the project has the potential
to generate lighting that is dispersed onto adjacent properties occupied by sensitive viewers, or to
produce glare at sensitive view sites in the vicinity, mitigation measures will be identified, as
necessary, to reduce potential impacts.
Significance Criteria
The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G provides guidance for assessing the significance of potential
environmental impacts. Relative to aesthetic resources, a project would normally have a
significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings from a State Scenic Highway;
• Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings; or
• Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
In addition, the project would have adverse impacts if it was in conflict with the goals and
policies set forth in the City’s General Plan as previously detailed.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.1-1: The project’s development would not have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista or substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings from a State Scenic Highway.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-8 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
The proposed amendment to the OTSP would not significantly impact a scenic vista, damage a
scenic resource and/or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site. The project site
is located in a mixed-use area that includes residential and commercial land uses. The project site
is predominantly flat, and it has been previously graded and developed.
State Highway 79 North (Winchester Road), part of the California Freeway and Expressway
System, is located approximately two miles north of the project site and is eligible for the State
Scenic Highway System. Due to road topography, however, the project site is not visible from
Winchester Road. The proposed project is located adjacent to I-15, which is designated as an
Eligible State Scenic Highway; however, it is not officially designated as a State Scenic Highway
by Caltrans. The aesthetics of Old Town are anticipated to improve with the implementation of
the OTSP standards and design guidelines; therefore, the proposed project would not adversely
impact or decrease the potential for I-15 to be designated as a State Scenic Highway. No eligible
or officially designated scenic highways would be affected by the proposed project.
The Community Design Element of the City of Temecula’s General Plan identifies important
scenic viewsheds to ensure that new public and private development projects will not obstruct the
public views of scenic resources. According to the General Plan Community Design Plan (Exhibit
on page CD-5), the project site has not been identified as a viewshed, nor is it located in the
sightline of a nearby viewshed.
Tall structures in the proposed Hotel Overlay zone have the potential to block views of the
western escarpment when viewing west from I-15. However, the I-15 freeway is approximately
40 feet higher in elevation than the proposed location for the Hotel Overlay zone. Therefore, only
about 60 feet of a 100-foot, eight-story building would be visible above grade when viewing from
I-15. In addition, the western escarpment is approximately 1,000 feet higher than the proposed
location for the Hotel Overlay zone. Since the escarpment spans several miles along the horizon,
eight-story buildings constructed in the Hotel Overlay zone would not be capable of substantially
blocking views of the escarpment. Therefore, no viewsheds or scenic vistas are anticipated to be
affected by the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan, and a less-than-significant impact is
expected.
Mitigation: None required.
_________________________
Impact 3.1-2: The project’s development would not potentially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
The proposed amendment to the OTSP is intended to address community concerns related to
building height, building massing, and parking. The application of different architectural styles,
building heights, building massing, and building placement within Old Town has resulted in
inconsistent development patterns. The existing Specific Plan lacks some of the language that
could produce more predictable development patterns. The proposed amendments incorporate
form-based code principles into the Specific Plan to more clearly define development regulations,
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-9 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and streetscapes,
and to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town. These changes are expected to
enhance the visual characteristics of the Old Town area.
Hotel Overlay Analysis
As described previously in this document, the Downtown Core/Hotel Overlay is intended to
encourage the development of a hotel with conference facilities, a restaurant and other guest
services. This area is located in the southeast corner of the project area just west of the I-15
corridor. The Hotel Overlay permits a hotel with conference facilities to be constructed at a
greater building height (up to eight stories) than other buildings in the underlying district. This
will provide adequate visitor accommodations for Old Town and the surrounding area. Though
hotels would be required to architecturally integrate with the Old Town area, the potential
building height and mass could degrade the existing visual character and quality of the Old Town
area and its surroundings. As stated in the Community Design Element of the Temecula General
Plan, “Effective community design and planning combines important spatial considerations of
land use and circulation patterns to achieve community beautification, community pride, and
quality of life.” Therefore, the siting of the Hotel Overlay zone may adversely affect the visual
quality of the area should the surrounding land uses be incompatible with large-scale hotel land
uses. An example of an incompatible land use in this case would include low-density residential
uses. Therefore, to determine if an eight-story building permitted in the proposed Hotel Overlay
zone would degrade the visual character of the site and its surroundings, the following discussion
analyzes the land uses surrounding the Hotel Overlay zone for aesthetic compatibility.
The proposed Hotel Overlay would be sited in an area that currently contains multi-story hotels,
such as the Rodeway Inn; conference facilities, and other mixed and commercial uses such as the
four-story Truax Building and the Civic Center parking structure. Thus, the site proposed for the
Hotel Overlay zone already contains many of the uses that would be permitted in this zone under
the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan.
To the north of the Hotel Overlay zone, dense mixed-use/commercial and public institutional land
uses exist. Examples of such uses include hotels, antique shops, restaurants and offices (Figure
3.4-2 in Section 3.4, Land Use, shows photographs of the existing facilities). Land uses to the
south of the Hotel Overlay zone consist of service commercial uses, such as a U-Haul rental
facility and a liquor store. To the west of the Hotel Overlay area is the I-15 freeway, and to the
east is the Murrieta Creek—an open space corridor. There are currently no low-density residential
land uses surrounding the proposed Hotel Overlay zone. Thus, the presence of larger scale hotels
in this area would not degrade the aesthetic quality of the environment and would not affect
people living in residential neighborhoods.
Eight-story structures would be permitted in the Hotel Overlay zone to provide adequate visitor
accommodations for Old Town and the surrounding area. Visitors who stay at the hotels
constructed in this area would benefit from convenient pedestrian access to nearby restaurants,
retail and public institutional land uses. Businesses surrounding the Hotel Overlay zone would
benefit from the revenues associated with increased quasi-residency at the hotels. Thus, the
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-10 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
construction of large hotels in this area would be compatible with the uses surrounding the Hotel
Overlay zone. In addition, the area north of the proposed Hotel Overlay zone currently contains
four-story, mixed-use structures, which would lessen the visual prominence of an eight-story
hotel potentially constructed to the south. Therefore, notwithstanding architectural design, the
visual character of the existing environment in this area would not differ substantially should
larger hotel facilities be constructed.
The OTSP Design Guidelines and supplemental standards establish architectural provisions for
private development that would be applicable to the eight-story structures permitted in the
proposed Hotel Overlay zone. The Design Guidelines and supplemental standards would ensure
that the permitted large-scale hotels would be designed to architecturally integrate with the
surrounding area. Therefore, allowing an eight-story hotel (twice as tall as other nearby buildings)
within the proposed Hotel Overlay zone would not be out of character or substantially degrade
the existing visual quality of the site and its surroundings.
Other Land Use Districts
Additional uses in the Downtown Core/Hotel Overlay would include conference facilities,
restaurants and other services to guests in this area of the OTSP. These uses would be compatible
with the immediate OTSP surrounding area because the Downtown Core is intended to
accommodate a variety of residential and mixed-use land uses that will create a vibrant public
realm. The proposed project would establish six new land use districts within the OTSP area. The
Residential/Limited Mixed-Uses Districts would accommodate a variety of housing types and
resident-serving ground floor retail, restaurants, and office spaces. The mixed-uses areas could
also contain corner markets, takeout/delivery restaurants, dry cleaners, beauty shops, florist, and
similar uses. As previously described, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would implement
form-based code principles in order to establish a set of detailed design guidelines with which
future development within the Specific Plan area must comply. These guidelines would aim to:
preserve the historic buildings and architecture currently established in the project area; enhance
the pedestrian-friendly nature of the streets; regulate building heights, especially in proximity to
historic buildings and residential structures; and create new architecture that respects the area’s
existing historic architecture and contributes to a well-defined, lively and pedestrian-oriented
streetscape. The proposed project would require all new development in the OTSP area to
conform to the design guidelines and permitted land uses for the area, as established in the
amendment to the Specific Plan. The design guidelines contained in the OTSP amendment are
intended to provide clear recommendations for the design and aesthetic quality of all
development within all land use districts in the OTSP area. These design guidelines highlight Old
Town’s unique character and provide an implementation tool to protect and preserve Old Town’s
historic core and improve the existing visual character of the project area.
The overall result of project implementation is anticipated to bring forth an improvement to the
existing aesthetics of the OTSP area. As such, the proposed project would not degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
Mitigation: None required.
_________________________
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-11 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Impact 3.1-3: Development of the proposed project could create a new source of light and
glare, which may adversely affect nearby sensitive resources.
The amendment to the OTSP could result in taller buildings and additional lighting needs beyond
those associated with the existing Specific Plan. The City of Temecula requires that all new
developments comply with the Palomar Lighting Ordinance (Ordinance 655), which requires that
all lighting sources be shielded and directed downward to avoid glare on adjacent properties and
to ensure low levels of glare in the sky. However, development of significantly taller hotel
buildings that would be allowed at the south end of the project site by the proposed amendment
could result in a new source of substantial light or glare, which could adversely affect daytime or
nighttime views of the area. This is because the use of exterior lighting for security and aesthetic
illumination may contribute substantially to ambient nighttime lighting conditions.
Reflective light (glare) would be caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished
surfaces such as window glass, or other reflective materials. The reflectivity of glass can vary
widely. Generally, darker or mirrored glass would have a higher visible light reflectance factor
than clear glass. Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun reflects
at a low angle commonly cause adverse glare. The proposed amendment to the specific plan does
not explicitly prohibit the use of reflective surfaces for the Hotel Overlay zone. Therefore, tall
buildings permitted in the proposed Hotel Overlay zone may substantially contribute to new
sources of glare in the area. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.1-3a
through 3.1-3h (below), potential light and glare impacts associated with the proposed project
would be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Mount Palomar Observatory
Low-intensity lighting standards would avoid impacts to Mount Palomar Observatory operations.
The City of Temecula requires all new development to comply with the Riverside County Mount
Palomar Ordinance No. 655. This ordinance requires lighting to be shielded, directed down to
avoid glare onto adjacent properties and emit low levels of glare into the sky.
The City’s Municipal Code does not contain any specific lighting guidelines. However, generally
accepted standards have been established by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America (IESNA), a collection of engineers, architects, scientists and other professionals who
aim to disseminate information for the improvement of the lighted environment.1 With
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.1-3a through 3.1-3h (below), potential light and glare
impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. These generally
accepted measures would be enforced by the City.
Mitigation Measures
Measure 3.1-3a: The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures shall contain “sharp
cut-off” fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass lenses and internal and external
shielding.
1 Illuminating Engineering Society of North America http://www.iesna.org/about/what_is_iesna.cfm, accessed online
October 2, 2009.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Aesthetics
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-12 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Measure 3.1-3b: The applicant shall ensure that all fixtures shall be parallel with the
finished grade of the project site; no fixtures shall be tilted above a 90-degree angle.
Measure 3.1-3c: The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into
control zones to allow for open, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All
control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock,
photocell, and low voltage relays.
Measure 3.1-3d: The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take
advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural massing, and off-site architectural massing
to block light sources and reflection from cars.
Measure 3.1-3e: The applicant shall submit a lighting plan and photometric plan to be
reviewed by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall include design features (such as
those mentioned above) to minimize impacts of light and glare on the surrounding area.
Measure 3.1-3f: The City shall complete a post-installation inspection to ensure that the
site is not excessively illuminated (such that lighting is not creating excessive glare,
unreasonably competing for the public’s attention or creating any roadway safety hazard)
and that lighting sources are properly shielded.
Measure 3.1-3g: In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory,
all lighting plans shall be reviewed by the City to assure utilization of low pressure sodium
vapor lamps; step-down lighting techniques; shielding to prevent upward and outward
illumination; and compliance with the County Ordinance No. 655.
Measure 3.1-3h: The proposed Specific Plan amendment shall prohibit the use of highly
reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces. The exterior of permitted
buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non-mirrored
glass, painted metal panels and pre-cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
_________________________
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-1 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
3.2 Air Quality
This section provides an overview of the existing air quality at the project site and surrounding
region, the regulatory framework, an analysis of potential impacts to air quality that would result
from implementation of the proposed project, and identification of mitigation measures. This is a
Program EIR for a specific plan amendment that establishes development parameters but does not
propose any specific development. As the exact development proposals are not yet known at this
time, this analysis compares the amended OTSP at build-out to existing conditions as they exist at
the time the NOP was published. Although operational emissions and some construction
emissions would be lower than the existing specific plan, the proposed project would remain
significant and unavoidable with regards to impacts to air quality.
3.2.1 Setting
Regional Climate
The climate around the project site, as with all of Southern California, is controlled largely by the
strength and position of the subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. The climate is
characterized by moderate temperatures and comfortable humidity. The Pacific high pressure
zone dominates the local weather patterns and creates a repetitive pattern of frequent early
morning cloudiness, hazy afternoon sunshine, daytime onshore breezes, and little temperature
change throughout the year. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently
by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds.
The Temecula area is an interior valley of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Clouds and fog
that form along the coast infrequently extend as far inland as the Temecula Valley, and usually
burn off quickly after sunrise. The most important weather pattern is associated with the warm
season airflow across the populated area of the Los Angeles Basin, which brings polluted air into
western Riverside County late in the afternoon. This creates unhealthful air quality when the
fringes of this polluted air flow into western Riverside County late in the afternoon, and when the
fringes of this polluted air mass extend into the Temecula area during the summer months.
Precipitation is limited to a few storms during the wet winter season. Temperatures are normally
mild with occasional extremes above 100 degrees Fahrenheit or below freezing. The annual mean
temperature of 62 degrees Fahrenheit has little seasonal variation.
In addition, winds control the rate and direction of pollution dispersal. Southern California is
notorious for strong temperature inversions that limit the vertical mixing of pollution. These
inversions are characterized by seasonal differences. In summer, coastal areas are characterized
by a sharp discontinuity between the cool marine air at the surface and the warm, sinking air aloft
within the high pressure cell over the ocean to the west. This marine/subsidence inversion allows
for good local mixing, but acts as a giant lid over the basin. Air starting onshore at the beach is
relatively clean, but becomes progressively more polluted as sources continue to add pollution
from below without any dilution from above. A second type of inversion forms on cold early
winter mornings. These inversions are ground based inversions, sometimes referred to as
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-2 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
radiation inversions. Under conditions of a ground based inversion, very little mixing or
turbulence occurs and pollutants concentrate near their sources (i.e., roadways). Most of the air
pollutants are confined to the air volume below the base of any inversion, or in a very shallow
layer near the ground in the case of a surface inversion.
Existing Air Quality in the Project Vicinity
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) maintains monitoring stations
within district boundaries that monitor air quality and compliance with associated ambient
standards. The closest station to the project site is Perris Monitoring Station. The following
pollutants are monitored at this station: ozone (O3), and particulate matter less than 10 microns
(PM10). Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) is measured at the Riverside Rubidoux
Station. The most recent published data for these monitoring stations are presented in Table 3.2-1.
In addition, air pollutants of interest to the regulatory agencies for their potential adverse impacts on
sensitive receptors are described below.
Criteria Air Pollutants
Ozone
Short-term exposure to ozone can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. Besides
causing shortness of breath, ozone can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma,
bronchitis, and emphysema.
Ozone, the main component of photochemical smog, is primarily a summer and fall pollution
problem. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is formed through a complex series of
chemical reactions involving other compounds that are directly emitted. These directly emitted
pollutants (also known as ozone precursors) include reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen
oxides (NOx). The time period required for ozone formation allows the reacting compounds to
spread over a large area, producing a regional pollution problem. Ozone problems are the
cumulative result of regional development patterns rather than a few significant emission sources.
Once formed, ozone remains in the atmosphere for one or two days. Ozone is then eliminated through
reaction with chemicals on the leaves of plants, attachment to water droplets as they fall to earth
(“rainout”) and absorption by water molecules in clouds that later fall to earth with rain (“washout”).
Carbon Monoxide
Ambient carbon monoxide concentrations typically correspond closely to local vehicular traffic
patterns. Wind speed and atmospheric mixing also influence carbon monoxide concentrations.
Under inversion conditions, carbon monoxide concentrations may be distributed more uniformly
over an area that may extend some distance from vehicular sources.
When inhaled at high concentrations, carbon monoxide combines with hemoglobin in the blood
and reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. This results in reduced oxygen reaching
the brain, heart, and other body tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with
cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease, or anemia, as well as for fetuses.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-3 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.2-1
AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY (2004–2006)
Pollutant
Monitoring Data by Year
Standarda 2006 2007 2008
Ozone – Perris
Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm)b 0.09 0.169 0.138 0.142
Days over State Standard 77 66 65
Highest 8 Hour Average (ppm)b 0.08 0.122 0.116 0.114
Days over National Standard 83 73 77
Particulate Matter (PM10) – Perris
Highest 24 Hour Average (μg/m3)b 50 119 1155 87
Est. Days over State Standardc 18 25 8
Highest 24 Hour Average (μg/m3)b –
National Measurement
150 125 1212 85
Est. Days over National Standardc 0 2 0
State Annual Average (μg/m3)b 20 NA NA NA
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – Riverside Rubidoux
Highest 24 Hour Average (μg/m3)b 35 68.4 75.6 53.3
Days over National Standardd 32 33 7
State Annual Average (μg/m3)b 12 NA 19.8 NA
a Generally, state standards and national standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year.
b ppm = parts per million; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
c PM10 is not measured every day of the year. Number of estimated days over the standard is based on 365 days per year.
d Days over National Standard for PM2.5 are based on the previous standard of 65 μg/m3 rather than the current standard of 35 μg/m3.
NOTES: Values in bold are in excess of at least one applicable standard. NA = Not Available.
SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, 2009a. Summaries of Air Quality Data, 2006, 2007, 2008; http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam
Carbon monoxide concentrations have declined dramatically in California due to existing controls
and programs. Carbon monoxide concentrations are expected to continue declining due to the
ongoing retirement of older, more polluting vehicles from the mix of vehicles on the road
network.
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
PM10 and PM2.5 consist of particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter and
2.5 microns or less in diameter, respectively. A micron is one-millionth of a meter, or less than
one-25,000th of an inch. For comparison, human hair is 50 microns or larger in diameter. PM10
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-4 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
and PM2.5 are small enough to be inhaled into the air passages and the lungs and can cause
adverse health effects. Particulate matter in the atmosphere results from many kinds of aerosol-
producing industrial and agricultural operations, fuel combustion, and atmospheric photochemical
reactions. Some sources of particulate matter, such as demolition and construction activities, are
more local in nature, while others, such as vehicular traffic, have a more regional effect. Very
small particles (PM2.5) of certain substances (e.g., sulfates and nitrates) can cause lung damage
directly, or can contain absorbed gases (e.g., chlorides or ammonium) that may be injurious to
health. Particulates can also damage materials and reduce visibility. Large dust particles (diameter
greater than 10 microns) settle out rapidly and are easily filtered by human breathing passages.
This large dust is of more concern as a soiling nuisance rather than a health hazard. The
remaining fraction, PM10 and PM2.5, is a health concern particularly at levels above the federal
and state ambient air quality standards. PM2.5 (including diesel exhaust particles) is thought to
have greater effects on health because these particles are so small and able to penetrate to the
deepest parts of the lungs.
Scientific studies have suggested links between fine particulate matter and numerous health
problems including asthma, bronchitis, acute and chronic respiratory symptoms such as shortness
of breath, and painful breathing. Recent studies have shown an association between morbidity
and mortality and daily concentrations of particulate matter in the air. Children are more
susceptible to the health risks of PM10 and PM2.5 because their immune and respiratory systems
are still developing.
Mortality studies since the 1990s have shown a statistically significant direct association between
mortality (premature deaths) and daily concentrations of particulate matter in the air. Despite
important gaps in scientific knowledge and continued reasons for some skepticism, a
comprehensive evaluation of the research findings provides persuasive evidence that exposure to
fine particulate air pollution has adverse effects on cardiopulmonary health (Dockery and Pope,
2006). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has estimated that achieving the ambient air
quality standards for PM10 could reduce premature mortality rates by 6,500 cases per year
(CARB, 2002).
Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a reddish brown gas that is a by-product of combustion processes.
Automobiles and industrial operations are the main sources of NO2. Aside from its contribution to
ozone formation, nitrogen dioxide can increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease
and reduce visibility. NO2 may be visible as a coloring component of a brown cloud on high
pollution days, especially in conjunction with high ozone levels.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
TACs are airborne substances that are capable of causing short-term (acute) and/or long-term
(chronic or carcinogenic, i.e., cancer causing) adverse human health effects (injury or illness).
TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from a
variety of common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-5 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes approximately
200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines.
Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is the most complex of diesel emissions. Diesel particulates, as
defined by most emission standards, are sampled from diluted and cooled exhaust gases. This
definition includes both solids and liquid material that condenses during the dilution process. The
basic fractions of DPM are elemental carbon, heavy hydrocarbons derived from the fuel and
lubricating oil, and hydrated sulfuric acid derived from the fuel sulfur. DPM contains a large
portion of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) found in diesel exhaust. Diesel particulates
include small nuclei mode particles of diameters below 0.04 micrograms (µm) and their
agglomerates of diameters up to 1µm. Ambient exposures to diesel particulates in California are
significant fractions of total TAC levels in the State.
Odorous Emissions
Though offensive odors from stationary sources rarely cause any physical harm, they still remain
unpleasant and can lead to public distress, generating citizen complaints to local governments. The
occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency, and intensity of the
source, wind speed and direction, and the sensitivity of receptors.
3.2.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulations
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requires the USEPA to identify National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS or national standards) to protect public health and welfare. National standards
have been established for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, PM10, PM2.5,
and lead. Table 3.2-2 shows current national and state ambient air quality standards and provides a
brief discussion of the related health effects and principal sources for each pollutant.
Pursuant to the 1990 FCAA Amendments, the USEPA classifies air basins (or portions thereof) as
“attainment” or “nonattainment” for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the NAAQS
had been achieved. Table 3.2-3 shows the current attainment status of the project area.
The FCAA requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The FCAA Amendments added requirements for states containing
areas that violate the NAAQS to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to
reduce air pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories,
planning documents, and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with
jurisdiction over them. The USEPA has responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine if they
conform to the mandates of the FCAA Amendments and will achieve air quality goals when
implemented. If the USEPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, it may prepare a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for the nonattainment area and may impose additional control
measures. Failure to submit an approvable SIP or to implement the plan within mandated
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-6 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.2-2
STATE AND NATIONAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT STANDARDS, EFFECTS, AND SOURCES
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
State
Standard
National
Standard
Pollutant Health and
Atmospheric Effects Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone
1 hour 0.09 ppm --- High concentrations can directly
affect lungs, causing irritation.
Long-term exposure may cause
damage to lung tissue.
Formed when reactive organic gases
(ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)
react in the presence of sunlight.
Major sources include on-road motor
vehicles, solvent evaporation, and
commercial / industrial mobile
equipment.
8 hours 0.07 ppma 0.075 ppm
Carbon
Monoxide
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Classified as a chemical
asphyxiant, carbon monoxide
interferes with the transfer of
fresh oxygen to the blood and
deprives sensitive tissues of
oxygen.
Internal combustion engines, primarily
gasoline-powered motor vehicles.
8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen
Dioxide
1 hour 0.18 ppm --- Irritating to eyes and respiratory
tract. Colors atmosphere reddish-
brown.
Motor vehicles, petroleum refining
operations, industrial sources, aircraft,
ships, and railroads. Annual Avg. 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
Sulfur
Dioxide
1 hour 0.25 ppm --- Irritates upper respiratory tract;
injurious to lung tissue. Can
yellow the leaves of plants,
destructive to marble, iron, and
steel. Limits visibility and reduces
sunlight.
Fuel combustion, chemical plants,
sulfur recovery plants, and metal
processing. 3 hours --- 0.5 ppm
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
Annual Avg. --- 0.03 ppm
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 May irritate eyes and respiratory
tract, decreases in lung capacity,
cancer and increased mortality.
Produces haze and limits
visibility.
Dust and fume-producing industrial
and agricultural operations,
combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and natural
activities (e.g., wind-raised dust and
ocean sprays).
Annual Avg. 20 µg/m3 ---
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
24 hours --- 35 µg/m3 Increases respiratory disease,
lung damage, cancer, and
premature death. Reduces
visibility and results in surface
soiling.
Fuel combustion in motor vehicles,
equipment, and industrial sources;
residential and agricultural burning;
Also, formed from photochemical
reactions of other pollutants, including
NOx, sulfur oxides, and organics.
Annual Avg. 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3
Lead
Monthly Ave. 1.5 µg/m3 --- Disturbs gastrointestinal system,
and causes anemia, kidney
disease, and neuromuscular and
neurological dysfunction.
Present source: lead smelters, battery
manufacturing and recycling facilities.
Past source: combustion of leaded
gasoline. Quarterly --- 1.5 µg/m3
Hydrogen
Sulfide
1 hour 0.03 ppm No National
Standard
Geothermal Power Plants,
Petroleum Production and refining
Nuisance odor (rotten egg smell),
headache and breathing difficulties
(higher concentrations).
Sulfates 24 hour 25 µg/m3 No National
Standard
Produced by the reaction in the
air of SO2.
Breathing difficulties, aggravates
asthma, reduced visibility.
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 hour Extinction of
0.23/km;
visibility of
10 miles or
more
No National
Standard
Reduces visibility, reduced airport
safety, lower real estate value,
and discourages tourism.
See PM2.5.
NOTE: ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
a This concentration was approved by the CARB on April 28, 2005, and became effective May 17, 2006.
SOURCES: California Air Resources Board, 2007b. Ambient Air Quality Standards, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/aaqs2.pdf,
February 22, 2007; California Air Resources Board, 2001. ARB Fact Sheet: Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Control,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/fs2/fs2.htm, page last updated December 2005.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-7 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.2-3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant
Designation/Classification
Federal Standards State Standards
Ozone – one hour No Federal Standarda Nonattainment
Ozone – eight hour Serious Nonattainment Unclassified
PM10 Serious Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide Unclassified/Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Lead No Designation Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility-Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified
a Federal One Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard was revoked on June 15, 2005.
SOURCES: California Air Resources Board, 2007c. Area Designation Maps, http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm, page updated
June 28, 2007; 8 Hour Ozone: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gncs.html#CALIFORNIA; PM10: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/
greenbk/pncs.html#CALIFORNIA
timeframes can result in sanctions being applied to transportation funding and stationary air
pollution sources in the air basin.
State Regulations
The CARB manages air quality, regulates mobile emissions sources, and oversees the activities of
county Air Pollution Control Districts and regional Air Quality Management Districts. CARB
establishes state ambient air quality standards and vehicle emissions standards.
California has adopted ambient standards that are more stringent than the federal standards for the
criteria air pollutants. These are shown in Table 3.2-2. Under the California Clean Air Act
(CCAA), patterned after the FCAA, areas have been designated as attainment or nonattainment
with respect to the state standards. Table 3.2-3 summarizes the attainment status with California
standards in the project area.
California State law defines TACs as air pollutants having carcinogenic effects. The Air Toxics
“Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588) seeks to identify and evaluate
risk from air toxics sources but AB 2588 does not regulate air toxics emissions. Toxic air
contaminant emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized. Depending on the
risk levels, emitting facilities are required to implement varying levels of risk reduction measures.
The proposed project does not include developing facilities that may be categorized as
“High-priority,” which are required to perform a health risk assessment.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-8 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
In August 1998, CARB identified particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines
(diesel particulate matter, or DPM) as TACs. CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce
Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles (CARB, 2000). The
document represents a proposal to reduce diesel particulate emissions and the associated health risk
by 75 percent in 2010 and by 85 percent in 2020. The program aims to require the use of state-of-
the-art catalyzed diesel particulate filters and ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel on diesel-fueled engines.
CARB recently published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health
Perspective (CARB, 2005). The primary goal in developing the handbook was to provide
information that will help keep California’s children and other vulnerable populations safe from
nearby sources of air pollution. The handbook highlights recent studies that have shown that
public exposure to air pollution can be substantially elevated near freeways and certain other
facilities. However, the health risk is greatly reduced with distance. For that reason, CARB
provided some general recommendations aimed at keeping appropriate distances between sources
of air pollution and sensitive land uses, such as residences.
Regional
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the regional planning agency for
Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties. SCAG
addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development, and
the environment. SCAG is the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for
the majority of Southern California and is the largest MPO in the nation.
As the designated MPO, SCAG is mandated by the federal government to develop and implement
regional plans that address transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management,
and air quality issues. With respect to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional
Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) for the Riverside County region. The RCPG includes
Growth Management and Regional Mobility chapters that form the basis for the land use and
transportation components of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and are utilized in the
preparation of air quality forecasts and the consistency analysis included in the AQMP.
SCAQMD
The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an area of approximately 10,743 square miles. This area
includes all of Orange County, all of Los Angeles County except for the Antelope Valley, the
nondesert portion of western San Bernardino County, and the western and Coachella Valley
portions of Riverside County. The SCAB (or Basin) is a subregion of the SCAQMD jurisdiction.
While air quality in this area has improved, the Basin requires continued diligence to meet air
quality standards.
The SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to meet the CAAQS and NAAQS. These plans
require control technology for existing sources, control programs for area sources and indirect
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-9 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
sources, a SCAQMD permitting system designed to allow no net increase in emissions from any
new or modified permitted emission sources, and transportation control measures.
The SCAQMD adopted a comprehensive AQMP update, the 2007 AQMP for the Basin, on
June 1, 2007. The 2007 AQMP outlines the air pollution control measures needed to meet federal
health-based standards for ozone (8-hour standard) by 2024, and PM2.5 by 2015. This revision to
the AQMP also addresses several state and federal planning requirements and incorporates
significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient
measurements, new meteorological episodes and new air quality modeling tools. The 2007
AQMP is consistent with and builds upon the approaches taken in the 2003 AQMP for the
attainment of the federal ozone air quality standard, but highlights the significant amount of
reductions needed and the urgent need to identify additional strategies, especially in the area of
mobile sources, to meet all federal criteria pollutant standards within the timeframes allowed
under FCAA (SCAQMD, 2007).
The SCAQMD adopts rules and regulations to implement portions of the AQMP. Several of these
rules would apply to construction or operation of the proposed project. For example, SCAQMD
Rule 403 requires the implementation of best available fugitive dust control measures during
active operations capable of generating fugitive dust emissions from on-site earth-moving
activities, construction/demolition activities, and construction equipment travel on paved and
unpaved roads. As another example, SCAQMD Regulation XIII ensures that the operation of new
facilities does not interfere with progress in attainment of the NAAQS.
The SCAQMD has published a CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993) that is intended
to provide local governments with guidance for analyzing and mitigating project-specific air
quality impacts. This handbook provides standards, methodologies and procedures for conducting
air quality analyses and was used in the preparation of this analysis.
Local
City of Temecula Municipal Code
The following portion of the City of Temecula municipal code is relevant to the proposed project:
18.06.100 Dust prevention and control plan. Dust prevention and control procedures shall
be employed while construction activity occurs to minimize wind borne particles. At
minimum, all grading operations, land clearing, loading, stockpiling, landscaping, vehicular
track-out and haul routes shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District
(AQMD) Rule 403 (fugitive dust emissions) and the provisions of Subarticle 3.8 of the
grading manual. (Ord. 04-04 § 4 (part))
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-10 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
3.2.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Sensitive Receptors
Land uses such as schools, children’s daycare centers, hospitals, and convalescent homes are
considered to be more sensitive than the general public to poor air quality because the population
groups associated with these uses have increased susceptibility to respiratory distress. Persons
engaged in strenuous work or exercise also have increased sensitivity to poor air quality.
Residential areas are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions than commercial and
industrial areas, because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residences,
resulting in greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions. Sensitive receptors are spread
throughout the project site.
Significance Criteria
According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, the project would have a significant effect on air
quality if it would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation;
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment pollutant
(including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
The City of Temecula has not developed specific air quality thresholds for air quality impacts.
However, because of the SCAQMD’s regulatory role in the Basin, the significance thresholds and
analysis methodologies in SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating
project impacts.
Construction
The proposed project would result in a significant construction air quality impact if emissions
from the proposed project exceed the significance thresholds set forth in Table 3.2-4.
Operations
The proposed project would result in a significant operational air quality impact if either of the
following occur:
• Emissions exceed the significance thresholds set forth in Table 3.2-4.
• The proposed project would not be compatible with SCAQMD air quality goals and
policies.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-11 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.2-4
AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Construction Operation
NOx 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
VOC (ROG) 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
SOURCE: SCAQMD, 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 1993.
Toxic Air Contaminants
The proposed project would result in a significant operational air quality impact if any of the
following occur:
• On-site stationary sources emit carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants that individually or
cumulatively exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in one million or an acute
or chronic hazard index of 1.0. (SCAQMD, 2005a).
• Hazardous materials associated with on-site stationary sources result in an accidental
release of air toxic emissions or acutely hazardous materials posing a threat to public health
and safety.
Methodology
Construction Impacts
Daily construction emissions were forecast by using default values from the air quality emissions
model URBEMIS 2007 version 9.7. URBEMIS 2007 output sheets are provided in Appendix AQ
of this document.
Operational Impacts
URBEMIS 2007 was also used to estimate the operational emissions of the proposed project. The
proposed project does not include any substantial stationary or area sources of TAC emissions.
Impact 3.2-1: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan.
The SCAQMD has designated two key indicators of consistency with air quality policies. The
first criterion requires that the proposed project not result in an increase in the frequency or
severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the
timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the
AQMP. The second criterion requires that the proposed project not exceed the growth
assumptions made in preparing the AQMP.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-12 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis
include forecasts of proposed project emissions in a regional context during construction and
operation. As described below in Impact 3.2-3, operation of the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment would result in less-than-significant emissions associated with vehicle traffic. As
described below in Impact 3.2-2, with mitigation measures the proposed project would result in
less-than-significant construction emissions. The AQMP identifies construction activities as
contributing factors to the overall emissions sources and provides source control measures to
reduce this contribution, but does not conclude that individual projects would delay the
attainment of air quality standards for the basin. Compliance with the rules established by the
SCAQMD to reduce construction emissions, including fugitive dust control measures and vehicle
maintenance measures, would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with the current
AQMP.
The second consistency criterion requires that the project not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP.
A project is consistent with the AQMP if it is consistent with the population, housing and
employment assumptions which were used in the development of the AQMP. The 2007 AQMP,
the most recent AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, incorporates, in part, SCAG’s 2004 RTP
socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population and employment growth. The 2004
RTP is based on growth assumptions through 2030 developed by each of the cities and counties
in the SCAG region. The proposed project is consistent with growth assumptions included in the
AQMP because it is consistent with the City General Plan and SCAG goals, which are consistent
with the RTP. As such, the impact would be less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation: None required.
__________________________
Impact 3.2-2: Project construction could violate air quality standards or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during the short-term duration
of construction.
Criteria Air Pollutants
Construction-related emissions would occur intermittently for approximately 30 years. Project
construction activities would include site preparation, earthmoving, and general construction. Site
preparation includes activities such as general land clearing and grubbing. Earthmoving activities
include cut-and-fill operations, trenching, soil compaction, and grading. General construction
includes adding improvements such as roadway surfaces, structures, and facilities. The emissions
generated from these construction activities include:
• Dust (including PM10 and PM2.5) primarily from “fugitive” sources (i.e., emissions
released through means other than through a stack or tailpipe) such as soil disturbance;
• Combustion emissions of criteria air pollutants (ROG, NOx, carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide, PM10, and PM2.5) primarily from operation of heavy off-road construction
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-13 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
equipment (primarily diesel-operated), portable auxiliary equipment, and construction
worker automobile trips (primarily gasoline-operated); and
• Evaporative emissions (ROG) from asphalt paving and architectural coatings.
Construction-related fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level
and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. In the absence of mitigation,
construction activities may result in significant quantities of dust, and as a result, local visibility
and PM10 concentrations may be adversely affected on a temporary and intermittent basis during
construction. In addition, the fugitive dust generated by construction would include not only
PM10, but also larger particles, which would fall out of the atmosphere within several hundred
feet of the site and could result in nuisance-type impacts.
It is mandatory for all construction projects in the Basin to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for
fugitive dust (SCAQMD, 2005b). Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not
limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes,
applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible,
utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages
before vehicles exit the proposed project site, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas.
NOx, ROG, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and CO2 construction emissions were estimated with each phase
of construction occurring concurrently for 30 years. Urbemis 2007 default amounts were used for
crews, truck trips, and equipment numbers, see Appendix D for more details. Emissions are
based on criteria pollutant emission factors from URBEMIS 2007. The results of this analysis are
summarized in Table 3.2-5 through Table 3.2-7. As shown in Table 3.2-5, construction
emissions of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 with construction under the Specific Plan Amendment
would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and would therefore be significant.
The approved existing Specific Plan is shown in Table 3.2-6 to produce NOx, CO, PM10, and
PM2.5 over the SCAQMD thresholds as well. Table 3.2-7 shows the difference in emissions
levels from the proposed Specific Plan Amendment minus the existing Specific Plan. As shown
in Table 3.2-7, emissions of ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 are lower in the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment versus the existing Specific Plan. However, impacts under the proposed Specific
Plan Amendment would remain significant and unavoidable.
Toxic Air Contaminants
The greatest potential for TAC emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions
associated with heavy equipment operations during grading and excavation. According to
SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in
terms of individual cancer risk. “Individual cancer risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to
concentrations of TACs over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer based on the use of standard
risk-assessment methodology. The proposed project would not result in a long-term
(i.e., 70 years) substantial source of TAC emissions. In addition, there would be no residual
emissions after construction and corresponding individual cancer risk. As such, project-related
toxic emission impacts during construction would be less than significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-14 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.2-5
MITIGATED EMISSIONS FROM PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT CONSTRUCTION
(pounds per day)a
Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5b CO2
2010 63 391 565 418 102 83,799
2015 47 251 409 412 96 83,773
2020 35 166 309 407 91 83,762
2025 33 154 253 407 91 83,762
2030 32 150 223 406 91 83,765
2035 31 147 205 407 91 83,768
2040 31 147 194 407 91 83,770
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75 100 550 150 55 NA
Significant (Yes or No)? No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
a Project construction emissions estimates for off-road equipment were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for
more details. b PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression,
which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries.
NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available
SOURCE: ESA, 2010.
TABLE 3.2-6
MITIGATED EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN CONSTRUCTION
(pounds per day)a
Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5b CO2
2010 66 386 599 517 122 87,170
2015 50 258 434 510 166 87,141
2020 39 164 326 505 112 87,128
2025 36 153 266 505 111 87,127
2030 35 149 233 505 111 87,130
2035 34 147 213 505 111 87,134
2040 34 156 201 505 111 87,136
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75 100 550 150 55 NA
Significant (Yes or No)? No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
a Project construction emissions estimates for off-road equipment were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for
more details. b PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression,
which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries.
NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available
SOURCE: ESA, 2010.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-15 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.2-7
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MINUS EXISTING CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)a
Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5b CO2
2010 -3 5 -34 -99 -20 -3371
2015 -3 -7 -25 -98 -20 -3368
2020 -4 2 -17 -98 -21 -3366
2025 -3 1 -13 -98 -20 -3365
2030 -3 1 -10 -99 -20 -3365
2035 -3 0 -8 -98 -20 -3366
2040 -3 -9 -7 -98 -20 -3366
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75 100 550 150 55 NA
Significant (Yes or No)? No No No No No NA
a Project construction emissions estimates for off-road equipment were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for
more details. b PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression,
which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries.
NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available
SOURCE: ESA, 2010.
Mitigation Measures
Measure 3.2-2a: The applicant shall ensure that a fugitive dust control program is implemented
pursuant to the provision of SCAQMD Rule 403.
Measure 3.2-2b: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for
compliance with the following:
A. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, maintain equipment engines in
proper tune.
B. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation:
1. Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated
soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind.
2. Spread soil binders.
3. Implement street sweeping as necessary.
C. During construction:
1. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp
enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site.
2. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-16 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
3. Use low sulfur fuel (0.05 percent by weight) for construction equipment.
D. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts.
Measure 3.2-2c: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for
compliance with the following.
A. Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize daily emissions.
B. Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the
end of work periods.
C. Treat unattended construction areas with water (disturbed lands which have been, or are
expected to be, unused for four or more consecutive days).
D. Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites.
E. Install vehicle wheel-washers before the roadway entrance at construction sites.
F. Wash off trucks leaving the site.
G. Require all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose substances and building materials
to be covered, or to maintain a minimum freeboard of two feet between the top of the
load and the top of the truck bed sides.
H. Use vegetative stabilization, whenever possible, to control soil erosion from stormwater,
especially on super pads.
I. Require enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage piles of sand, dirt, or other
aggregate materials.
J. Control off-road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads, consistent
with City standards.
K. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power
generators.
Measure 3.2-2d: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for the
paving of all access aprons to the project site and the maintenance of the paving.
Measure 3.2-2e: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall be responsible for
assuring that construction vehicles are equipped with proper emission control equipment to
substantially reduce emissions.
Measure 3.2-2f: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall be responsible for the
incorporation of measures to reduce construction-related traffic congestion into the project
grading permit. Measures, subject to the approval and verification by the Public Works
Department, shall include, as appropriate:
A. Provision of rideshare incentives.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-17 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
B. Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel.
C. Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference.
D. Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes.
E. Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary.
Measure 3.2-2g: Prior to the building/construction operations, applicant and individual
contractors shall commit in writing to the following:
A. Scheduling receipt of construction materials outside of the peak travel period hours (i.e.,
7:30 – 8:30 AM and 4:00 – 6:00 PM);
B. Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity; and
C. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
__________________________
Impact 3.2-3: Project operation could violate air quality standards or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during long-term operation.
Operational emissions for the proposed project would be generated primarily from on-road
vehicular traffic, area sources (such as landscaping equipment), and indirectly by the energy
consumption of the buildings proposed under the Specific Plan Amendment. Because power is
provided to the City of Temecula over an integrated electricity grid, indirect emissions from the
use of electricity could occur at any of the fossil-fueled power plants in California or neighboring
states, or from hydroelectric or nuclear plants or renewable energy sources. For all power plants,
it can be assumed that the emissions are reviewed as part of the permitting process before the
power plant is built or expanded.
Operational emissions for mobile and area sources are based on criteria pollutant emission factors
from URBEMIS 2007. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3.2-8 through
Table 3.2-10. As shown in Table 3.2-8, build-out of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment
would exceed all SCAQMD thresholds of significance and would, therefore, be significant.
As shown in Table 3.2-9, the operational emissions with build-out of the existing Specific Plan
would also exceed all SCAQMD thresholds. When the proposed project is compared to the build-
out of the existing Specific Plan, as shown in Table 3.2-10, a major reduction of all emissions
occurs. However, operational emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-18 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.2-8
PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN BUILD-OUT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)a
Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2
Area Sources 145 46 34 <1 <1 57,363
Mobile Sources 763 1,106 9,825 1,802 351 1,072,376
Total 908 1,152 9,869 1,802 351 1,129,739
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55 NA
Significant (Yes or No)? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
Difference between Existing and Proposed 319 535 4642 860 167 517,784
Significant (Yes or No)? No No No No No No
a Project emissions estimates were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details.
NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available
SOURCE: ESA, 2010.
TABLE 3.2-9
EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN BUILD-OUT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)a
Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2
Area Sources 114 53 42 <1 <1 64,290
Mobile Sources 1,113 1,634 14,489 2,662 518 1,583,234
Total 1,227 1,687 14,511 2,662 518 1,647,523
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55 NA
Significant (Yes or No)? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
a Project emissions estimates were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details.
NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available
SOURCE: ESA, 2010.
TABLE 3.2-10
PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN BUILD-OUT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MINUS EXISTING SPECIFIC
PLAN BUILD-OUT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)a
Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2
Difference between Total Existing SP Build-out
Emissions and Proposed SP Build-out
Emissions
-319 -535 -4642 -860 -167 -517,784
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55 NA
Significant (Yes or No)? No No No No No No
a Project emissions estimates were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details.
NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available
SOURCE: ESA, 2010.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-19 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Mitigation Measures
Measure 3.2-3a: Construct on-site or off-site bus turnouts, passenger benches, and shelters.
Measure 3.2-3b: Provide shuttles to major rail transit centers of multi-modal stations.
Measure 3.2-3c: Contribute to regional transit systems (e.g., right-of-way, capital improvements,
etc.).
Measure 3.2-3d: Synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by development.
Measure 3.2-3e: Set up resident worker training programs to improve job/housing balance.
Significance after Mitigation: Though mitigation measures would reduce operational
emissions, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
__________________________
Impact 3.2-4: The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
amount of people.
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor
complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing
plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The
proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with
odors.
During the short-term impact from construction, exhaust from equipment and paint could be
odiferous, but would not affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, potential odor impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation: None required.
__________________________
Impact 3.2-5: Increased localized carbon monoxide would be generated from vehicular
traffic during operation.
Traffic generated by the project would result in CO emissions based on the total volume of traffic
and congestion along streets and intersections. CO emissions in future years are expected to
decline due to reductions in the predicted CO emission factors resulting from a cleaner future mix
of vehicles. However, as shown in Table 3.2-8, increases in CO emissions would exceed
SCAQMD thresholds.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-20 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
The traffic study has found that the existing Specific Plan is projected to produce approximately
11,165 net vehicles during the PM peak hour. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is
projected to generate approximately 7,357 net vehicles during the PM peak hour. Therefore, the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment would generate considerably fewer trips and thus less CO
emissions from traffic operations than the currently approved Specific Plan. As shown in Table
3.2-10, the estimated project-related CO operational emissions would be reduced in comparison
to the approved existing Specific Plan at build-out. However, with development of the project,
automobile and truck trips would still result in significant increases in localized CO
concentrations.
Traffic generated by the project was analyzed to determine its potential to affect CO
concentrations in the project area. The modeling method included background CO concentration
levels obtained from the Perris Monitoring Station, and traffic projections prepared for the project
at the most affected intersection (Old Town Front Street and Main Street).
Residents on the intersections detailed below would be the most affected by project-related
traffic. It was assumed that if CO concentrations on these roadway segments would not exceed
the ambient air quality standards, the project’s contribution to impacts at other intersections
affected by project traffic to a lesser extent would be less substantial.
As shown in Table 3.2-11, the analysis demonstrated that no exceedances of the CO one-hour or
eight-hour standard would occur. Furthermore, future years would have even lower background
concentrations and vehicle emission factors. Thus, project-related traffic would have a less-than-
significant impact on local CO concentrations.
TABLE 3.2-11
ESTIMATED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
Concentrations (ppm)a
Receptor location Averaging Time (hrs.) State Standard Existing Existing plus project
35 feet 1 20 0.3 0.5
NW of intersection 8 9 0.18 0.3
35 feet 1 20 0.1 0.2
NE of intersection 8 9 0.06 0.12
35 feet 1 20 0.3 0.5
SW of intersection 8 9 0.18 0.3
35 feet 1 20 0.1 0.2
SE of intersection 8 9 0.06 0.12
a The carbon monoxide analysis focuses on the average daily traffic. Carbon monoxide estimates shown above include background
concentrations of 0.142.
NOTE: More information can be found in the Appendix AQ.
SOURCE: ESA, 2009.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-21 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation: None required.
__________________________
Impact 3.2-6: Air pollutant emissions associated with the project would result in an adverse
cumulative impact to air quality.
A cumulative impact arises when two or more individual effects which, when considered
together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant impacts,
meaning that the project’s incremental effects must be viewed in connection with the effects of
past, current, and probable future projects.
Construction
Construction activity associated with other projects in the Basin (see Chapter 4) would generally
involve the use of similar equipment and may overlap with the construction schedule of the
project. Though the project creates a significant and unavoidable impact, it is assumed that other
project construction activity would comply with the SCAQMD required mitigation measures,
which would reduce air quality impacts but not eliminate air pollutant emissions completely. This
would be a significant cumulative impact.
Operation
The SCAQMD’s approach for assessing cumulative operational impacts is based on the
SCAQMD’s AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with
the requirements of the FCAA and CCAA. This forecast also takes into account SCAG’s
forecasted future regional growth. As such, the analysis of cumulative impacts (see Chapter 4)
focuses on determining whether the project is consistent with forecasted future regional growth.
As presented in Impact 3.2-1, the project would be consistent with AQMP forecasts and would
result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact.
As discussed in Impact 3.2-2, project TAC emissions would not substantially have a significant
impact on community health. However, cumulative sources from projects throughout the Basin
would emit substantial amounts of TACS. The estimated carcinogenic risk in the Basin is
currently about 1,400 per million people (SCAQMD, 2005a). The impact of TACS to community
health within the Basin is a regional concern that has been addressed by the SCAQMD. The
SCAQMD has published an Air Toxics Control Plan designed to limit TAC emissions in an
equitable and cost-effective manner (SCAQMD, 2000b). In addition, the SCAQMD addressed
health risk in the Basin and TAC emissions reduction measures in the 2007 AQMP.
While the total TAC emissions from all projects in the region would be significant, the TAC
emissions from the project are minimal for both construction and operations and would not be a
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.2 Air Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-22 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
cumulatively considerable contribution to the overall cumulative impact. Therefore, the project
would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact with regard to TACs.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation measures are available.
Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
__________________________
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-1 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
3.3 Global Warming/Climate Change
This section provides an overview of global warming and climate change, the regulatory
framework, an analysis of potential impacts from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would
result from implementation of the proposed project, and identification of mitigation measures. The
environmental baseline in this chapter is comparing full build-out of the OTSP amendment with
the following factors:
• Potential conflicts with the CARB’s thirty-nine (39) recommended actions in California’s
AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan;
• The relative size of the project. The project’s GHG emissions will be compared to the size
of major facilities that are required to report GHG emissions (25,000 metric tons/year of
CO2e)1 to the state. The project size will also be compared to the SCAQMD GHG threshold,
as well as the California GHG emissions limit of 427 million metric tons per year of CO2e
emissions by 2020. In reaching its goals the CARB will focus upon the largest emitters
of GHG emissions;
• Basic energy efficiency parameters of a project to determine whether its design is
inherently energy efficient; and
• Any potential conflicts with applicable City of Temecula plans, policies, or regulations
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
3.3.1 Setting
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). The major concern is
that increases in GHGs are causing Global Climate Change. Global Climate Change is a change in
the average weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation and
temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the speed of global warming and the extent of
the impacts attributable to human activities, most agree that there is a direct link between the
increased emission of so-called GHGs and long-term global temperature. What GHGs have in
common is that they allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere, but trap a portion of the outward-
bound infrared radiation and warm up the air. The process is similar to the effect greenhouses have
in raising the internal temperature, hence the name greenhouse gases. Both natural processes and
human activities emit GHGs. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s
temperature; however, emissions from human activities such as electricity production and motor
vehicles have elevated the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. This accumulation of GHGs
has contributed to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and contributed to
Global Climate Change. The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous
oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and
water vapor (H2O). Carbon dioxide is the reference gas for climate change because it gets the most
1 As noted above the 25,000 metric ton annual limit identifies the large stationary point sources in California that
make up approximately 94 percent of the stationary emissions. If the project’s total emissions are below this limit,
its total emissions are equivalent in size to the smaller projects in California that as a group only make up 6 percent
of all stationary emissions. It is assumed that the activities of these smaller projects generally would not conflict
with State’s ability to reach AB 32 overall goals.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Global Warming / Climate Change
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-2 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
attention and is considered the most important GHG. To account for the warming potential of
GHGs, emissions are often quantified and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e). Large emission
sources are reported in million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e).
3.3.2 Regulatory Framework
In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor
Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05, which sets forth a series of target dates by which
statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)
In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill
No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32),
which requires the CARB to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other
measures, such that statewide GHG emissions will be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.
In December 2007, CARB approved the 2020 emission limit of 427 million metric tons of CO2
equivalents of GHGs. The 2020 target of 427 million metric tons of CO2e requires the reduction
of 169 million metric tons of CO2e, or approximately 30 percent, from the state’s projected 2020
emissions of 596 million metric tons of CO2e (business-as-usual).
Also in December 2007, CARB adopted mandatory reporting and verification regulations
pursuant to AB 32. The regulations became effective January 1, 2009, with the first reports
completed by June 1, 2009. The mandatory reporting regulations require reporting for certain
types of facilities that make up the bulk of the stationary source emissions in California.
Currently, the draft regulation language identifies major facilities as those that generate more than
25,000 metric tons/year of CO2e. Cement plants, oil refineries, electric-generating facilities/providers,
cogeneration facilities, and hydrogen plants and other stationary combustion sources that emit more
than 25,000 metric tons/year CO2e, make up 94 percent of the point source CO2e emissions in
California.
In June, 2008, CARB published its Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan (CARB, 2008a). The
Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan reported that CARB met the first milestones set by AB 32 in
2007: developing a list of early actions to begin sharply reducing greenhouse gas emissions;
assembling an inventory of historic emissions; and establishing the 2020 emissions limit. After
consideration of public comment and further analysis, CARB released the Climate Change
Proposed Scoping Plan in October, 2008 (CARB, 2008b). The Proposed Scoping Plan proposes a
set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon emissions in California. Key elements of the
Proposed Scoping Plan include:
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Global Warming / Climate Change
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-3 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
• Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and
appliance standards;
• Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent;
• Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate
Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system;
• Establishing targets for transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions for regions
throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets;
• Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing state laws and policies,
including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon
Fuel Standard; and
• Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global
warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the state’s long-term
commitment to AB 32 implementation (CARB, 2008b).
The Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan notes that “[a]fter Board approval of this plan, the
measures in it will be developed and adopted through the normal rulemaking process, with public
input” (CARB, 2008b).
The Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan states that local governments are “essential
partners” in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that they have “broad influence
and, in some cases, exclusive jurisdiction” over activities that contribute to greenhouse gas
emissions. The plan acknowledges that local governments have broad influence and, in some
cases, exclusive authority over activities that contribute to significant direct and indirect
greenhouse gas emissions through their planning and permitting processes, local ordinances,
outreach and education efforts, and municipal operations. Many of the proposed measures to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions rely on local government actions. The plan encourages local
governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 15 percent from current levels
by 2020 (CARB, 2008b).
The Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan also included recommended measures that were
developed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from key sources and activities while improving
public health, promoting a cleaner environment, preserving our natural resources, and ensuring
that the impacts of the reductions are equitable and do not disproportionately impact low-income
and minority communities. These measures, shown below in Table 3.3-1 by sector, also put the
state on a path to meet the long-term 2050 goal of reducing California’s greenhouse gas
emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. These measures were presented to and approved by
the CARB on December 11, 2008. The measures in the Scoping Plan approved by the Board will
be developed over the next two years and be in place by 2012.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Global Warming / Climate Change
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-4 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.3-1
LIST OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS BY SECTOR
Measure
No. Measure Description
GHG Reductions
(Million Metric Tons
per year of CO2e)
Transportation
T-1 Pavley I and II – Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards 31.7
T-2 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Discrete Early Action) 15
T-3a Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets 5
T-4 Vehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5
T-5 Ship Electrification at Ports (Discrete Early Action) 0.2
T-6 Goods Movement Efficiency Measures.
• Ship Electrification at Ports
• System-Wide Efficiency Improvements
3.5
T-7 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Measure –
Aerodynamic Efficiency (Discrete Early Action)
0.93
T-8 Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Hybridization 0.5
T-9 High Speed Rail 1
Electricity and Natural Gas
E-1 Energy Efficiency (32,000 GWh of Reduced Demand)
• Increased Utility Energy Efficiency Programs
• More Stringent Building & Appliance Standards
Additional Efficiency and Conservation Programs
15.2
E-2 Increase Combined Heat and Power Use by 30,000 GWh (Net reductions include
avoided transmission line loss)
6.7
E-3 Renewables Portfolio Standard (33% by 2020) 21.3
E-4 Million Solar Roofs (including California Solar Initiative, New Solar Homes
Partnership and solar programs of publicly owned utilities)
• Target of 3000 MW Total Installation by 2020
2.1
CR-1 Energy Efficiency (800 Million Therms Reduced Consumptions)
• Utility Energy Efficiency Programs
• Building and Appliance Standards
• Additional Efficiency and Conservation Programs
4.3
CR-2 Solar Water Heating (AB 1470 goal) 0.1
Green Buildings
GB-1 Green Buildings 26
Water
W-1 Water Use Efficiency 1.4b
W-2 Water Recycling 0.3b
W-3 Water System Energy Efficiency 2.0b
W-4 Reuse Urban Runoff 0.2b
W-5 Increase Renewable Energy Production 0.9b
W-6 Public Goods Charge (Water) TBDb
Industry
I-1 Energy Efficiency and Co-Benefits Audits for Large Industrial Sources TBD
I-2 Oil and Gas Extraction GHG Emission Reduction 0.2
I-3 GHG Leak Reduction from Oil and Gas Transmission 0.9
I-4 Refinery Flare Recovery Process Improvements 0.3
I-5 Removal of Methane Exemption from Existing Refinery Regulations 0.01
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Global Warming / Climate Change
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-5 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.3-1
LIST OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS BY SECTOR
Measure
No. Measure Description
GHG Reductions
(Million Metric Tons
per year of CO2e)
Recycling and Water Management
RW-1 Landfill Methane Control (Discrete Early Action) 1
RW-2 Additional Reductions in Landfill Methane
• Increase the Efficiency of Landfill Methane Capture
TBDb
RW-3 High Recycling/Zero Water
• Commercial Recycling
• Increase Production and Markets for Compost
• Anaerobic Digestion
• Extended Producer Responsibility
• Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
9b
Forests
F-1 Sustainable Forest Target 5
High Global Warming Potential (GWP) Gases
H-1 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems: Reduction of Refrigerant Emissions from
Non-Professional Servicing (Discrete Early Action)
0.26
H-2 SF6 Limits in Non-Utility and Non-Semiconductor Applications (Discrete Early
Action)
0.3
H-3 Reduction of Perfuorocarbons in Semiconductor Manufacturing (Discrete Early
Action)
0.15
H-4 Limit High GWP Use in Consumer Products Discrete Early Action (Adopted June
2008)
0.25
H-5 High GWP Reductions from Mobile Sources
• Low GWP Refrigerants for New Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems
• Air Conditioner Refrigerant Leak Test During Vehicle Smog Check
• Refrigerant Recovery from Decommissioned Refrigerated Shipping Containers
• Enforcement of Federal Ban on Refrigerant Release during Servicing or
Dismantling of Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems
3.3
H-6 High GWP Reductions from Stationary Sources
• High GWP Stationary Equipment Refrigerant Management Program:
o Refrigerant Tracking/Reporting/Repair Deposit Program
o Specifications for Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Systems
• Foam Recovery and Destruction Program
• SF6 Leak Reduction and Recycling in Electrical Applications
• Alternative Suppressants in Fire Protection Systems
• Residential Refrigeration Early Retirement Program
10.9
H-7 Mitigation Fee on High GWP Gases 5
Agriculture
A-1 Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1.0b
a This is not the SB 375 regional target. CARB will establish regional targets for each MPO region following the input of the regional
targets advisory committee and a consultation process with MPOs and other stakeholders per SB 375.
b GHG emission reduction estimates are not included in calculating the total reductions needed to meet the 2020 target.
SOURCE: CARB, 2008b.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Global Warming / Climate Change
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-6 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Senate Bill 97
The provisions of Senate Bill 97, enacted in August 2007 as part of the State Budget negotiations,
direct the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to propose CEQA guidelines “for the mitigation
of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.” SB 97 directs OPR to
develop such guidelines by July 2009, and directs the State Resources Agency, the agency
charged with adopting the CEQA Guidelines, to certify and adopt such guidelines by January
2010.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
On June 19, 2008, OPR published a technical advisory on CEQA and climate change. The
advisory provides OPR’s perspective on the emerging role of CEQA in addressing climate
change and greenhouse gas emissions, while recognizing that approaches and methodologies for
calculating greenhouse gas emissions and addressing environmental impacts through CEQA
review are rapidly evolving. The advisory recognizes that OPR will develop, and the Resources
Agency will adopt, amendments to the CEQA Guidelines pursuant to SB 97. In the interim, the
technical advisory “offers informal guidance regarding the steps lead agencies should take to
address climate change in their CEQA documents” (OPR, 2008).
The technical advisory points out that neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines prescribe
thresholds of significance or particular methodologies for performing an impact analysis. “This is
left to lead agency judgment and discretion, based upon factual data and guidance from
regulatory agencies and other sources where available and applicable” (OPR, 2008). OPR
recommends that “the global nature of climate change warrants investigation of a statewide
threshold of significance for GHG emissions” (OPR, 2008). Until such a standard is established,
OPR advises that each lead agency should develop its own approach to performing an analysis for
projects that generate greenhouse gas emissions (OPR, 2008).
Agencies should then assess whether the emissions are “cumulatively considerable” even though
a project’s greenhouse gas emissions may be individually limited. OPR states: “Although climate
change is ultimately a cumulative impact, not every individual project that emits GHGs must
necessarily be found to contribute to a significant cumulative impact on the environment” (OPR,
2008). Individual lead agencies may undertake a project-by-project analysis, consistent with
available guidance and current CEQA practice (OPR, 2008).
Finally, if the lead agency determines emissions are a cumulatively considerable contribution to a
significant cumulative impact, the lead agency must investigate and implement ways to mitigate
the emissions (OPR, 2008). OPR states: “Mitigation measures will vary with the type of project
being contemplated, but may include alternative project designs or locations that conserve energy
and water, measures that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by fossil-fueled vehicles, measures
that contribute to established regional or programmatic mitigation strategies, and measures that
sequester carbon to offset the emissions from the project” (OPR, 2008). OPR concludes that,
“A lead agency is not responsible for wholly eliminating all GHG emissions from a project; the
CEQA standard is to mitigate to a level that is “less than significant” (OPR, 2008). The technical
advisory includes a list of mitigation measures that can be applied on a project-by-project basis.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Global Warming / Climate Change
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-7 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
OPR Proposed Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines
On April 13, 2009, OPR submitted to the Secretary for Natural Resources its proposed
amendments to the state CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions, as required by Public Resources
Code section 21083.05 (Senate Bill 97) (OPR, 2009). These proposed CEQA Guideline
amendments would provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of
the effects of GHG emissions in draft CEQA documents. The Natural Resources Agency adopted
the CEQA Guidelines Amendments with minor, non-substantial changes on December 31, 2009,
and transmitted the Adopted Amendments and the entire rulemaking file to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL). OAL has 30 working days to review the Adopted Amendments and
the Natural Resources Agency's rulemaking file. The Adopted Amendments will become
effective 30 days after OAL completes its review and submits them to the Secretary of State for
inclusion in the California Code of Regulations.
The proposed amendments suggest relatively modest changes to various portions of the existing
CEQA Guidelines. Modifications address those issues where analysis of GHG emissions may
differ in some respects from more traditional CEQA analysis.
Proposed amendments include a new section (15064.4) to assist lead agencies in determining the
significance of the GHG impacts. This section urges lead agencies to quantify, where possible,
the GHG emissions of projects. In addition to quantification, this section recommends
consideration of several other qualitative factors that may be used in determination of
significance including: (1) the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions
as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) whether the GHG emissions exceed a
threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; and (3) the extent
to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide,
regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.
The proposed amendments include a new subdivision 15064.7(c) to clarify that in developing
thresholds of significance, a lead agency may appropriately review thresholds developed by other
public agencies, including the CARB’s recommended CEQA Thresholds, or suggested by other
experts, such as the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), so long as
any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence.
The proposed amendments also include a new subdivision 15130(f) to emphasize that the effects
of GHG emissions are cumulative, and should be analyzed when the incremental contribution of
those emission may be cumulatively considerable.
In addition, the proposed amendments add a new set of environmental checklist questions (VII.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions) to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The new set includes the
following two questions (would the project):
a) Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of GHG?
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Global Warming / Climate Change
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-8 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)
In January 2008, the CAPCOA issued a “white paper” on evaluating and addressing GHGs under
CEQA (CAPCOA, 2008). This resource guide was prepared to support local governments as they
develop their programs and policies around climate change issues. The paper is not a guidance
document. It is not intended to dictate or direct how any agency chooses to address GHG
emissions. Rather, it is intended to provide a common platform of information about key elements
of CEQA as they pertain to GHG, including an analysis of different approaches to setting
significance thresholds.
The paper notes that for a variety of reasons local agencies may decide not to have a CEQA
threshold. Local agencies may also decide to assess projects on a case-by-case basis when the
projects come forward. The paper also discussed a range of GHG emission thresholds that could
be used. The range of thresholds discussed includes a GHG threshold of zero and several non-
zero thresholds. Non-zero thresholds include percentage reductions for new projects that would
allow the state to meet its goals for GHG emissions reductions by 2020 and perhaps 2050. These
would be determined by a comparison of new emissions versus business as usual emissions and
the reductions required would be approximately 30 percent to achieve 2020 goals and 90 percent
(effectively immediately) to achieve the more aggressive 2050 goals. These goals could be varied
to apply differently to new projects, by economic sector, or by region in the State.
Other non-zero thresholds discussed in the paper include:
• 900 metric tons/year CO2e (a market capture approach);
• 10,000 metric tons/year CO2e (potential CARB mandatory reporting level with Cap and
Trade);
• 25,000 metric tons/year CO2e (the CARB mandatory reporting level for the statewide
emissions inventory);
• 40,000 to 50,000 metric tons/year CO2e (regulated emissions inventory capture – using
percentages equivalent to those used in air districts for criteria air pollutants),
• Projects of statewide importance (9,000 metric tons/year CO2e for residential,
13,000 metric tons/year CO2e for office project, and 41,000 metric tons/year CO2e for retail
projects), and
• Unit-based thresholds and efficiency-based thresholds that were not quantified in the report.
CARB Draft GHG Significance Thresholds
On October 24, 2008, CARB released its Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal on Recommended
Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the
California Environmental Quality Act for review and public comment (CARB, 2008c). The
Proposal identifies benchmarks or standards that assist lead agencies in the significance
determination for industrial, residential, and commercial projects. The Proposal currently focuses
on two sectors for which local agencies are typically the CEQA lead agency: industrial projects;
and residential and commercial projects. Future proposals will focus on transportation projects,
large dairies and power plant projects.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Global Warming / Climate Change
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-9 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
In summary, the Proposal recommends:
• In general, categorical exemptions will continue to apply.
• If GHGs are adequately addressed at the programmatic level (i.e., consistent with regional
GHG budgets), the impact of certain individual projects can be found to be insignificant.
• Industrial projects below the operational emissions level (7,000 metric tons/year CO2e) that
also meet performance standards for construction can be found to be less than significant.
• Residential and commercial projects below the operational emissions level (unspecified as
of December 2008) that also meet performance standards for construction, energy, water,
waste and transportation can be found to be less than significant.
• If a project cannot meet the above requirements, it should be presumed to have significant
impacts related to climate change and all feasible GHG mitigation measures (i.e., carbon
offsets) should be implemented.
For residential and commercial projects, CARB staff's objective is to develop a threshold of
performance standards that will substantially reduce the GHG emissions from new projects and
streamline the permitting of carbon-efficient projects. Performance standards will address the five
major emission sub-sources for the sector: energy use, transportation, water use, waste, and
construction. Projects may alternatively incorporate mitigation equivalent to these performance
standards, such as measures from green building rating systems.
SCAQMD Draft GHG Significance Threshold
On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the staff proposal for an interim
GHG significance threshold for projects where the SCAQMD is lead agency. The interim
threshold consists of five tiers of standards that could result in a finding of less than significant
impact. The tiers include CEQA exemptions, consistency with regional GHG budgets, less than
significant screening levels for industrial projects (10,000 metric tons/year CO2e) and
commercial/residential projects (3,000 metric tons/year CO2e), performance standards (i.e.,
30 percent less than Business As Usual [BAU]), and carbon offsets (SCAQMD, 2008).
3.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Criteria
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on
global climate change if it would:
• Conflict with the state goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990
levels by 2020, as set forth by the timetable established in AB 32, California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006. A project could conflict with the state reduction goal if it
would:
– Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment.
– Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Global Warming / Climate Change
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-10 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
By adopting Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (2006) and Senate Bill (SB) 97 (2007), the State of
California has established GHG reduction targets and has determined that GHG emissions, as
they relate to global climate change, are a source of adverse environmental impacts in California
that should be addressed under CEQA. CEQA requires that lead agencies consider the reasonably
foreseeable adverse environmental effects of projects they are considering for approval. GHGs
have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such emissions contribute, on a
cumulative basis, to global climate change. In turn, global climate change has the potential to
result in rising sea levels, which can inundate low-lying areas; to reduce snowpack, leading to
less overall water storage in the Sierra Nevada; to affect rainfall, leading to changes in water
supply, increased frequency and severity of droughts, and increased wildfire risk; and to affect
habitat and agricultural land, leading to adverse affects on biological and agricultural resources.
Cumulative impacts are the collective impacts of one or more past, present, and future projects
that, when combined, result in adverse changes to the environment. When the adverse change is
substantial and the project’s contribution to the impact is considerable, the cumulative impact
would be significant. The cumulative project list for this issue (global climate change) comprises
anthropogenic (i.e., human-made) GHG emission sources across the entire planet. No project
alone would contribute to a noticeable incremental change to the global climate. However,
legislation and executive orders on the subject of climate change in California have established a
statewide context for GHG emissions, and an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions.
Given the nature of environmental consequences from GHGs and global climate change, CEQA
requires that the cumulative impacts of GHGs, even additions that are relatively small on a global
basis, need to be considered. Because of the cumulative nature of the climate change problem,
even relatively small contributions may be potentially considerable and, therefore, significant.
At this time no statewide government has adopted anything beyond a case-by-case significance
criterion for evaluating a project’s contribution to climate change. The OPR has asked the CARB to
“recommend a method for setting thresholds of significance to encourage consistency and
uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions” throughout the state because OPR has
recognized that “the global nature of climate change warrants investigation of a statewide threshold
for GHG emissions” (OPR, 2008). CARB began the public process of addressing significance
thresholds in October 2008, but many decisions need to be made before the criteria are final (CARB,
2008c).
The informal guidelines in OPR’s technical advisory and CARB’s proposed thresholds provide a
general basis for determining a proposed project’s contribution of greenhouse gas emissions and
the project’s contribution to global climate change. In the absence of adopted statewide thresholds,
OPR recommends the following approach for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions:
1. Identify and quantify the project’s greenhouse gas emissions;
2. Assess the significance of the impact on climate change; and
3. If the impact is found to be significant, identify alternatives and/ or mitigation measures
that would reduce the impact to less-than-significant levels.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Global Warming / Climate Change
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-11 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
OPR’s technical advisory states that “the most common GHG’s that results from human activity
is carbon dioxide, followed by methane and nitrous oxide.” The calculation presented below
includes annual CO2e GHG emissions from off-road equipment, vehicular traffic, and energy
consumption.
As discussed above, at this time there are no adopted statewide guidelines for greenhouse gas
emission impacts, but this is being be addressed through the provisions of Senate Bill 97 (SB 97).
Proposed amendments and additions to the CEQA Guidelines were forwarded by OPR in April
2009; and the State Resources Agency has until January 1, 2010, to certify and adopt the
regulations. In the interim local agencies must analyze the impact of GHGs. For the Specific Plan
Amendment, the project would be considered to have a significant impact if the project would be
in conflict with the AB 32 State goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We assume that
AB 32 will be successful in reducing GHG emissions and reducing the cumulative GHG
emissions statewide by 2020. It is important that the State has taken these measures, because no
project individually could have a major impact (either positively or negatively) on the global
concentration of GHG. The project will be reviewed to make sure it does not conflict with the
goals of AB 32.
Impact 3.3-1: The project could conflict with implementation of state goals for reducing
GHG emissions and thereby have a negative effect on Global Climate Change.
The proposed project would contribute to global climate change as a result of emissions of GHGs,
primarily CO2, emitted by construction and operational activities. GHG impacts are considered to
be exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative greenhouse gas emission impacts
from a climate change perspective (CAPCOA, 2008). Thus, the Specific Plan Amendment
analysis of GHG emissions is to determine whether the proposed project impact is cumulatively
considerable.
Four types of analyses are used to determine whether the project could be cumulatively
considerable and potentially conflict with the state goals for reducing GHG emissions. The
analyses are as follows:
A. Any potential conflicts with the CARB’s thirty-nine (39) recommended actions in
California’s AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan.
B. The relative size of the project. The project’s GHG emissions will be compared to the size of
major facilities that are required to report GHG emissions (25,000 metric tons/year of CO2e)2 to
the state. The project size will also be compared to the SCAQMD GHG threshold, as well as the
California GHG emissions limit of 427 million metric tons per year of CO2e emissions by 2020.
In reaching its goals the CARB will focus upon the largest emitters of GHG emissions.
2 As noted above, the 25,000 metric ton annual limit identifies the large stationary point sources in California that
make up approximately 94 percent of the stationary emissions. If the project’s total emissions are below this limit,
its total emissions are equivalent in size to the smaller projects in California that as a group only make up 6 percent
of all stationary emissions. It is assumed that the activities of these smaller projects would generally not conflict
with State’s ability to reach AB 32 overall goals.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Global Warming / Climate Change
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-12 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
C. The basic energy efficiency parameters of a project to determine whether its design is
inherently energy efficient.
D. Any potential conflicts with applicable City of Temecula plans, policies, or regulations
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
With regard to Item A, the proposed project does not pose any apparent conflict with the most
recent list of the CARB early action strategies (see Table 3.3-1 above).
With regard to Item B, proposed project construction GHG emissions would be approximately
9,955 metric tons of CO2e/yr. The existing Specific Plan construction greenhouse gas emissions
would be approximately 10,317 metric tons of CO2E/yr. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment would have a 4 percent reduction of construction emissions compared to the existing
Specific Plan.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment build-out operational GHG emissions from vehicle trips
and space heating would be approximately 181,717 metric tons of CO2e/yr, and indirect operation
emissions from electricity generation would be approximately 10,939 metric tons of CO2e/yr,
totaling 192,657 metric tons of CO2e/yr. The proposed project would be classified as a major
source of greenhouse gas emissions (total emissions would exceed the lower reporting limit,
which is 25,000 metric tons of CO2e/yr). Existing Specific Plan build-out operational emissions
from vehicle trips and space heating account for 264,680 metric tons of CO2e/yr, and indirect
operational emissions of approximately14,472 metric tons of CO2e/yr totaling approximately
279,152 metric tons of CO2e/yr. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment emissions
would have a 32 percent reduction compared to the existing Specific Plan build-out emissions.
The impact is focused on whether emissions would be below thresholds; the existing specific plan
build-out has been given to show additional information.
When compared to the overall State emissions limit of approximately 427 million metric tons
CO2e/yr, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment build-out (192,657 metric tons CO2e/yr) would
be 0.06 percent of the State goal. However, since the project would result in GHG emissions that
would exceed the major source threshold (25,000 metric tons CO2e/yr) and the SCAQMD GHG
screening threshold (3,000 metric tons CO2e/yr), the project would potentially conflict with the
state’s ability to meet the AB 32 goals. For GHG calculations see Appendix D.
With regard to Item C, the project would introduce high-density residential uses, thus creating a
mixed-use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment
opportunities, which would reduce the community’s reliance on automobiles.
With regard to Item D, the City of Temecula does not have any plans, policies, or regulations
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, therefore the project would not pose
a conflict.
The review of Items A, B, C, and D indicate that the project would potentially conflict with the
State goals in AB 32 and, therefore, this impact would be significant without mitigation.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Global Warming / Climate Change
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-13 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
The State of California Attorney General’s office has compiled a list of GHG reduction measures
that could be applied to a diverse range of projects (State of California Department of Justice,
2008), many of which are included in Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 below.
Mitigation Measures:
Measure 3.3-1: The applicant shall require implementation of all feasible energy efficiency
and GHG reduction measures, including but not limited to the following:
Energy Efficiency
• Design buildings to be energy efficient.
• Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an integral part
of lighting systems in buildings.
• Use trees, landscaping and sun screens on west and south exterior building walls to
reduce energy use.
• Install light colored “cool” roofs, cool pavements.
• Provide information on energy management services for large energy users.
• Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and
control systems.
• Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor lighting.
• Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting.
• Provide education on energy efficiency.
Renewable Energy
• Install solar and wind power systems, solar and tankless hot water heaters, and
energy-efficient heating ventilation and air conditioning. Educate consumers about
existing incentives.
• Install solar panels on carports and over parking areas.
• Use combined heat and power in appropriate applications.
Water Conservation and Efficiency
• Create water-efficient landscapes.
• Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based
irrigation controls.
• Use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation in new developments and on public
property. Install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water.
• Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances.
• Use graywater. (Graywater is untreated household waste water from bathtubs,
showers, bathroom wash basins, and water from clothes washing machines.) For
example, install dual plumbing in all new development allowing graywater to be used
for landscape irrigation.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Global Warming / Climate Change
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-14 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
• Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated
surfaces) and control runoff.
• Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles.
• Implement low-impact development practices that maintain the existing hydrologic
character of the site to manage storm water and protect the environment. (Retaining
storm water runoff on-site can drastically reduce the need for energy-intensive
imported water at the site.)
• Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and
location. The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above, plus other
innovative measures that are appropriate to the specific project.
• Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives.
Solid Waste Measures
• Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to,
soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard).
• Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and
adequate recycling containers located in public areas.
• Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling
services.
Land Use Measures
• Include mixed-use, infill, and higher density in development projects to support the
reduction of vehicle trips, promote alternatives to individual vehicle travel, and
promote efficient delivery of services and goods.
• Educate the public about the benefits of well-designed, higher density development.
• Incorporate public transit into project design.
• Preserve and create open space and parks. Preserve existing trees, and plant
replacement trees at a set ratio.
• Develop “brownfields” and other underused or defunct properties near existing
public transportation and jobs.
• Include pedestrian and bicycle-only streets and plazas within developments. Create
travel routes that ensure that destinations may be reached conveniently by public
transportation, bicycling or walking.
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
• Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction
vehicles.
• Use low or zero-emission vehicles, including construction vehicles.
(*The following goals, policies and/or suggestions are guiding principles that shall be
required of the applicant as applicable.)
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.3 Global Warming / Climate Change
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-15 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
*Transportation and Motor Vehicles
• Promote ride sharing programs (e.g., by designating a certain percentage of parking
spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and
unloading and waiting areas for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or
message board for coordinating rides).
• Create car sharing programs. Accommodations for such programs include providing
parking spaces for the car share vehicles at convenient locations accessible by public
transportation.
• Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or
zero-emission vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently
located alternative fueling stations).
• Institute a low-carbon fuel vehicle incentive program.
• Provide public transit incentives such as free or low-cost monthly transit passes.
• Promote “least polluting” ways to connect people and goods to their destinations.
• Incorporate bicycle lanes and routes into street systems, new subdivisions, and large
developments.
• Incorporate bicycle-friendly intersections into street design.
• For commercial projects, provide adequate bicycle parking near building entrances to
promote cyclist safety, security, and convenience. For large employers, provide
facilities that encourage bicycle commuting, including, e.g., locked bicycle storage or
covered or indoor bicycle parking.
• Create bicycle lanes and walking paths directed to the location of schools, parks and
other destination points.
• Work with the school district to restore or expand school bus services.
• Institute a telecommute and/or flexible work hours program. Provide information,
training, and incentives to encourage participation. Provide incentives for equipment
purchases to allow high-quality teleconferences.
• Provide information on all options for individuals and businesses to reduce
transportation-related emissions. Provide education and information about public
transportation.
*Off-site Mitigation
• Fund off-site mitigation projects (e.g., alternative energy projects, or energy or water
audits for existing projects) that will reduce carbon emissions, conduct an audit of its
other existing operations and agree to retrofit, or purchase carbon “credits” from
another entity that will undertake mitigation.
Significance after Mitigation: Even with implementation of all measures that are feasible from
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1, the project would be considered a major source of greenhouse gases
and would exceed the SCAQMD GHG screening threshold. Consequently, the increase in
greenhouse gases by the project places the project in conflict with the goal of the state to reduce
up to 169 million metric tons CO2e/year. This impact would remain significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-1 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
3.4 Cultural Resources
3.4.1 Introduction
This section describes the cultural resources present or potentially present in the City of Temecula
OTSP area. Cultural resources are defined as prehistoric and historic sites, structures, and
districts, or any other physical evidence associated with human activity considered important to a
culture, a subculture, or a community for scientific, traditional, religious or any other reason. For
analysis purposes, cultural resources may be categorized into four groups: archaeological
resources, historic resources, contemporary Native American resources, and paleontological
resources.
Archaeological resources are places where human activity has measurably altered the earth or left
deposits of physical remains. Archaeological resources may be either prehistoric-era (before the
introduction of writing in a particular area) or historic-era (after the introduction of writing). The
majority of such places in California are associated with either Native American or Euro-
American occupation of the area. The most frequently encountered prehistoric or historic Native
American archaeological sites are village settlements with residential areas and sometimes
cemeteries; temporary camps where food and raw materials were collected; smaller, briefly
occupied sites where tools were manufactured or repaired; and special-use areas like caves, rock
shelters, and sites of rock art. Historic-era archeological sites may include foundations or features
such as privies, corrals, and trash dumps.
Historic resources are standing structures of historic or aesthetic significance that are generally
50 years of age or older (i.e., anything built in the year 1959 or before). In California, historic
resources considered for protection tend to focus on architectural sites dating from the Spanish
Period (1529-1822) through the early years of the Depression (1929-1930), although there has
been recent attention paid to WWII and Cold War-era facilities. Earlier historic resources are
often associated with archaeological deposits of the same age.
Contemporary Native American resources, also called ethnographic resources, can include
archaeological resources, rock art, and the prominent topographical areas, features, habitats,
plants, animals, and minerals that contemporary Native Americans value and consider essential
for the preservation of their traditional values. These locations are sometimes hard to define and
traditional culture often prohibits Native Americans from sharing these locations with the public.
Paleontology is a branch of geology that studies the life forms of the past, especially prehistoric
life forms, through the study of plant and animal fossils. Paleontological resources represent a
limited, non-renewable, and impact-sensitive scientific and educational resource. As defined in
this section, paleontological resources are the fossilized remains or traces of multi-cellular
invertebrate and vertebrate animals and multi-cellular plants, including their imprints, from a
previous geologic period. Fossil remains such as bones, teeth, shells, and leaves are found in the
geologic deposits (rock formations) where they were originally buried. Paleontological resources
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-2 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
include not only the actual fossil remains, but also the collecting localities, and the geologic
formations containing those localities.
3.4.2 Setting
Prehistoric Setting
The following prehistoric chronology is derived from Horne and McDougall’s (2003) chronology
for western Riverside County, which was based on Warren’s (1984) and Wallace’s (1955)
regional syntheses.
While it is not certain when humans first came to California, their presence in Southern California
by about 11,000 Before Present (B.P.) has been well-documented. At Daisy Cove, on San Miguel
Island, cultural remains have been radiocarbon dated to between 11,100 and 10,950 years B.P.
(Byrd and Raab, 2007). On the mainland, radiocarbon evidence confirms occupation of the
Orange County and San Diego County coast by about 10,000 B.P. During the Paleo-Indian and
Early Archaic periods (11,000–7000 B.P.) the climate of Southern California became warmer and
more arid and the human population, residing mainly in coastal or inland desert areas, began
exploiting a wider range of plant and animal resources (Horne and McDougall, 2003).
Major Archaic Period complexes in coastal Southern California include the San Dieguito and
La Jolla Complexes, and the inland Pauma Complex. The people of the Early Archaic San
Dieguito (10,000–8000 B.P.) Complex inhabited the chaparral zones of southwestern California,
exploiting the plant and animal resources of these ecological zones (Moratto, 1984). The Middle
Archaic La Jolla (8000–4000 B.P.) Complex is essentially a continuation of the San Dieguito
Complex. La Jolla groups lived in chaparral zones or along the coast, often migrating between the
two. Coastal settlement focused around the bays and estuaries of coastal Orange and San Diego
Counties. La Jolla peoples produced large, coarse stone tools, but also produced well-made
projectile points, and milling slabs. The La Jolla Complex represents a period of population
growth and increasing social complexity, and it was also during this time period that the first
evidence of the exploitation of marine resources and the grinding of seeds for flour, as indicated
by the abundance of millingstones in the archaeological record, appears (Horne and McDougall,
2003).
Contemporary with the La Jolla Complex, the Pauma Complex is found at inland sites in
San Diego and Riverside Counties. The Pauma Complex is similar in technology to the La Jolla
Complex; however, evidence of coastal subsistence is absent from Pauma Complex sites (Mason,
1999). The Pauma and La Jolla Complexes may either be indicative of separate inland and coastal
groups with similar subsistence and technological adaptations, or, alternatively, may represent
inland and coastal phases of one group’s seasonal rounds. The latter hypothesis is supported by
the lack of hidden and deeply buried artifacts at Pauma sites, indicating that these sites may have
been temporary camps for resource gathering and processing (Mason, 1999).
During the Late Period, there is evidence for the processing of acorns for food and for the increased
importance of hunting (Horne and McDougall, 2003). Around 1,000 B.P., an episode of sustained
drought, known as the Medieval Warm Period, occurred. While this climatic event did not appear to
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-3 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
reduce the human population, it did lead to a change in subsistence strategies in order to deal with
the substantial stress on resources. The processing of plant foods, particularly acorns, increased, a
wider variety of animals were hunted, and trade with neighboring regions intensified (Horn and
McDougall, 2003). Major technological changes appeared as well, particularly with the advent of
the bow and arrow, which largely replaced the use of the dart and atlatl.
At the time of the first Spanish presence in California, native populations of Southern California
were becoming less mobile and small sedentary villages formed. Although the intensity of trade
had already been increasing, it now reached its zenith, with asphaltum (tar), seashells and steatite
being traded from Southern California to the Great Basin.
The San Luis Rey culture (divided into San Luis Rey I [AD 1400 to 1750] and San Luis Rey II
[AD 1750 to 1850]) represented the Late Period in southwestern Riverside County and northern
San Diego County. San Luis Rey I village sites contain manos, metates, bedrock mortars, shell
artifacts, and triangular arrow points (Mason, 1999). In addition to these features, San Luis Rey II
sites are characterized by the presence of pottery, pictographs, and the cremation of the dead.
San Luis Rey settlement patterns in the upper San Luis Rey River drainage are typified by
lowland villages in proximity to water sources and highland villages occupied in the late summer
and fall for acorn collection (Mason, 1999). However, settlement patterns within southwestern
Riverside County are less well known. The available information, stemming primarily from
survey data, indicates that four primary site types existed within the region during the Late
Period: field camps, resource procurement locations, residential bases, and villages. Resource
procurement locations and field camps, the most common site types, contain a limited assemblage
of artifacts and subsistence remains, primarily lithic debitage, some tools, fire affected rock, and
small amounts of animal bones and charred seeds and nuts. This indicates that these types of sites
were used primarily for focused activities and short-term occupancy.
Villages and residential bases, on the other hand, provide evidence of long-term occupation by
large groups of people. Villages were occupied year-round, while residential bases were occupied
seasonally. Artifacts and features found at both village and residential bases, including large
amounts of faunal and botanical remains, numerous high-quality tools, fire-affected rock, and
anthrosols, indicate a wide range of activities (Mason, 1999). Bedrock mortars point to the
processing of seeds and acorns, and ceremonial activities are evidenced by the presence of
pictographs, petroglyphs, and cupules within village sites.
The area immediately surrounding Old Town Temecula has a significant recorded prehistoric
presence. The Murrieta Creek Archaeological District, which is listed on the National Register, is
located less than a mile south of Old Town, at the confluence of Temecula Creek and Murrieta
Creek. The district consists of a trio of residential sites, which perhaps once comprised a single
large village, that were continuously occupied from prehistory to the 19th century. This was
probably one of the major village sites of the Temecula Valley. Evidence of seed-processing,
grinding, cooking, and other activities associated with sedentary village life is present, with
bedrock mortars, middens, residences, and burials (King, 1972).
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-4 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Ethnographic Background
Native Americans living in the project area at the time of Spanish contact are now known as the
Luiseño, after the Mission San Luis Rey to which many of them were relocated. The language of
the Luiseño people has been identified as part of the larger Uto-Aztecan language family (Bean
and Shipek, 1978). Luiseño territory comprised approximately 1,500 square miles along the coast
of Southern California, bordered by Agua Hedionda Creek on the south and Aliso Creek on the
northwest, and encompassing most of the drainage of the San Luis Rey River and the Santa
Margarita River (Bean and Shipek, 1978) and extending east to include Palomar Mountain.
Today this area is located within northern San Diego, southern Orange, and Riverside Counties.
The Luiseño subsided on small game, coastal marine resources, and plant foods such as grass
seeds and acorns. Luiseño houses were conical thatched reed, brush, or bark structures. Little is
known of the Luiseño political structure, but it appears that villages were centered on clans, and
that each village was headed by a chief (Bean and Shipek, 1978).
Due to the presence of reliable water sources and a fertile valley floor, the Temecula area has
always been a desirable place to live. The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians (Pechanga Tribe)
has called the Temecula Valley home for more than 10,000 years. Pursuant to Pechanga Tribe
tradition, life on earth began in the Temecula Valley, which they call ‘éxva Teméeku (the place
of the union of Sky-Father and Earth-Mother). The word “Temecula” comes from the Luiseño
word “Temecunga”, meaning “place of the sun”. One of the principal Luiseno villages in the area,
known as Temeku, was located just south of the current Old Town Temecula.
Historical Context
The Riverside County area received its first European visitors during the early and mid-1770s,
shortly after the beginning of Spanish colonization of Alta California in 1769. The first known
European to set foot in this area was a Franciscan padre, Father Juan Norberto de Santiago, who
traveled into the Temecula Valley in October 1797. Santiago was on an expedition out of Mission
San Juan Capistrano seeking a site for a new mission. With his party of seven soldiers, he came
upon what is now Lake Elsinore, and then traveled southward through the Temecula Valley and
on to the Pacific Ocean. In 1798, he founded the Mission of San Luis Rey de Francia, forever
altering Luiseño tribal life.
The Temecula Valley became the principal grain producer for Mission San Luis Rey. Nearer to
the project area, the smaller Mission San Antonio de Pala, about 10 miles southeast of Temecula,
was founded in 1816. In 1831; a party of American trappers, including Ewing Young, Isaac
Galbraith, and John Turner, wandered into the valley. Following the conclusion of the Mexican-
American War (1846-1848), the process of making land grants available to individuals began.
Rancho Temecula, which included the project area, was granted to Felix Valdez.
A series of prehistoric trails had criss-crossed the Temecula area, and were later used by Spanish
and American-period travelers. The major trail through Temecula was the Southern Immigrant
Trail, whch ran roughly along the route of present-day I-15 directly through what later became
known as Old Town Temecula. The Southern Immigrant Trail was used by the Mormon Battalion
in 1847, and later the Butterfield Overland Mail from 1858-1861 (Miller, 2009).
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-5 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
In 1848, gold was discovered in California, leading to a huge influx of people from other parts of
North America, and in 1850, California became part of the United States of America. The
opening of the Butterfield Overland Stage route in 1858, and later the California Southern
Railroad line in 1882, greatly increased the number of people coming to Southern California
(City of Temecula, 2009). As more and more settlers arrived, the United States government began
to establish reservations for the displaced Indians. In 1875, the Temecula Indians (primarily
composed of Luiseño Indians) were evicted from their traditional lands near Old Town Temecula
and moved to the Pechanga Indian Reservation, five miles to the southeast.
In 1893, following a period of conflict and discontent between the Cities of Riverside and San
Bernardino, portions of the Temecula and San Jacinto Valleys, which were then in San Diego
County, joined with the City of Riverside in the formation of the new Riverside County (Horne
and McDougall, 2003). By the turn of the 20th century, Temecula had become an important
shipping hub for grain and cattle. Until the 1960s, the Temecula Valley was part of the Vail
Ranch and was used primarily for cattle ranching and agriculture.
The last years of the 1960s and early 1970s witnessed the beginnings of dramatic change in the
Temecula Valley as the area began to experience its growth as an urban area. This urban growth
continued through the area’s incorporation as the City in December 1989 into the present time.
Wine production in Temecula began in the late 20th century as well. The first vineyards were
planted in the late 1960s and today several dozen wineries can be found throughout the area.
The approval of the Old Town Temecula Historic Preservation District by the Riverside Board of
Supervisors in October 1979 marked the first recognition of Old Town Temecula as a unique
place with a historic character worth preserving and enhancing. The City adopted the OTSP in
1994 to protect the remaining historic structures and maintain the area’s historic character.
The early buildings of Old Town reflect the architectural melting pot of American traditions and
European ideas that were adapted to the conditions in Southern California. The structures built in
Old Town by 1930 established an important historical foundation of building forms, frontage
types, architectural styles, and materials. Spanish Colonial, Mission and Monterey styles were
introduced in Southern California first. Early settlers also introduced architectural traditions from
the eastern U.S. and Europe such as American Mercantile, Neo-classical, and Victorian. By 1927,
even modernist influences are evident. During 1884 through 1927, Temecula built a diverse mix
of architectural styles that were common in towns across the West. This range of styles include
American Mercantile, Craftsman/Bungalow, Modernism, Monterey, Neo-Classical, Spanish and
Mediterranean, Victorian / Queen Anne, and Western Frontier (City of Temecula, 2009).
Paleontological Setting
The Specific Plan area is within the southern portion of the Perris Block structural unit of the
Peninsular Range, which is described as “a relatively stable area located between the Elsinore and
San Jacinto Fault zones” (Morton et al., 2003). This area, called the Elsinore Trough, has been
filled with Pliocene and early Pleistocene sediments, which in turn have been covered by late
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-6 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Pleistocene sediments. Within the Temecula Valley region, several paleontologically sensitive
rock units are present.
Younger Quaternary alluvium occurs along Murrieta Creek. Recent alluvium does not have the
potential to contain paleontologic resources; however, it often covers older Pleistocene sediments
of paleontologic significance.
Older Quarternary alluvium occurs in a large portion of the Specific Plan area. Previous resource
assessments conducted near the city indicate a wide range of vertebrate fauna from the
Rancholabrean North American Land Mammal Age, including horse, bison, and mammoth
(Reynolds, 2007).
The Pauba Formation, which dates from the early to late Pleistocene, or 300,000 years before
present, is present along the outer eastern and western edges of the Specific Plan area. The Pauba
Formation, a Pleistocene-age sedimentary unit, is known to contain vertebrate fossils of late
Irvingtonian and early Rancholabrean ages. Early- to Mid-Pleistocene age vertebrate fossil
specimens such as fish, amphibians, rodents, camel, horse, deer, and mastodon have been
recovered from the Pauba Formation in excavations near Temecula and Murrieta (Reynolds et al,
1991).
The Pauba Formation and older Quaternary Alluvium have a high paleontological sensitivity, as
they have a high potential to contain significant non-renewable paleontologic resources. These
formations occur throughout a large percentage of the Specific Plan area. In addition, the
Riverside County Planning Department’s Land Information System lists the paleontological
sensitivity for most of the area as “High”.
3.4.3 Methodology
Archival Record Search
A cultural resources records search was performed by the Eastern Information Center (EIC)
located at the University of California, Riverside, on August 12, 2009 (EIC File No. RIV-ST-
523). Sources referenced by this record search include site records, previous cultural resource
assessment reports, historical maps, as well as the National Register of Historic Places, the
California Register of Historical Resources, and the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility and Directory of Properties in the Historic Property
Data file. Among maps consulted for this study were the U.S. General Land Office (GLO) land
survey maps and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps.
Native American Consultation
Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) requires local agencies to consult with tribes prior to making certain
planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process,
thereby providing tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early
planning stage. Pursuant to the provisions of SB 18, in July 2009, the City invited local tribes
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-7 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
from a list provided by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to
participate in consultation regarding the proposed project.
3.4.4 Results
Archival Record Search Results
Cultural Resources near the Specific Plan Area
The records search indicated that 63 cultural resource studies have been conducted within a one-
mile radius of the project area. The EIC determined that five of these studies covered
approximately 30 percent of the Specific Plan area, primarily around Murrieta Creek. The
remaining approximately 70 percent of the Specific Plan area has not been the subject of cultural
resource studies.
Twelve archaeological resources and 29 historic-architectural resources have been recorded
within one mile of the Specific Plan area. The 29 historic-architectural resources are located
within the Specific Plan area. One property, archaeological site CA-RIV-270, is listed on the
National Register and California Register as part of the Murrieta Creek Archaeological District.
No archaeological sites have been recorded within the Specific Plan area; however, a historic-era
trail, the Southern Immigrant Trail, is known to have run through the Specific Plan area
(Figure 3.4-1). This resource has not been formally recorded at the EIC, however. A listing of
recorded archaeological resources is provided below, followed by a listing of recorded historic-
architectural resources.
Archaeological Resources
Types of archaeological sites common within the area surrounding Temecula are bedrock milling
sites, lithic scatters, and prehistoric village sites with midden and many types of artifacts.
Historic-period sites can date back to the early 19th century and include ranches, trails, stage
coach stops, and trash dumps (City of Temecula, 2004). Occasionally, archaeological sites will
contain artifacts from multiple time periods. Table 3.4-1 details the archaeological resources that
have been recorded within one mile of the Specific Plan area. These include the Murrieta Creek
Archaeological District, five prehistoric sites, two historic sites, one historic trail, three
prehistoric isolates, and one site of undetermined age.
Historic-Architectural Resources
Of the 29 historic buildings within the project area, 26 have been evaluated for eligibility for
listing in both the California Register of Historic Resources and the National Register of Historic
Places, including those evaluated in 1994 as part of a survey of Old Town Temecula (City of
Temecula Old Town Specific Plan, 1994). All 26 were determined to possess National Register of
Historic Places survey ratings of 1 through 5, which indicates that they would be considered
historic resources for CEQA purposes.1 These resources are described in Table 3.4-2 and shown
on Figure 3.4-1.
1 1 = listed in the National Register, 5 = determined eligible for local listing only through a survey evaluation.
P RO J E C T
S I T E
Old Town Front StPROJECT
SITE
Old Town Front St15
Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294
Figure 3.4-1
Southern Emigrant Trail
SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2008; City of Temecula, 2009.
Legend
Approximate Location of the
Southern Emigrant Trail
0800
Feet
R a n ch o C a lifo rn ia R d
Ran
c
h
o
C
alif
or
ni
a
R
d
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-9 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.4-1
CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
Primary
Number
(P-33-)
Trinomial
(CA-RIV-) Description
National
Register/California
Register status
Relative
Location
11443 - Murrieta Creek Archaeological District. Comprised of
3 prehistoric sites (CA-RIV-523, -270, and -365)
Listed on National
Register (NR
#73000424)
Less than 1
mile from
SPA2
000270 270 Prehistoric Occupation site with bedrock mortars,
groundstone artifacts
Listed on National
Register as part of
Murrieta Creek
Archaeological
District
Less than 1
mile from
SPA
000644 644 Large prehistoric occupation site with ground stone,
lithic artifacts, pottery, and possible burials.
Not evaluated Less than 1
mile from
SPA
001382 1382 Historic gravesite Not evaluated Less than 1
mile from
SPA
001384 1384 Prehistoric bedrock milling site Not evaluated Less than 1
mile from
SPA
002134 2134 Prehistoric lithic scatter Not evaluated Less than ¼
mile from
SPA
004949 4949H Historic remains of a slaughterhouse Not evaluated Less than 1
mile from
SPA
011222 - Prehistoric rock art Not evaluated Less than 1
mile from
SPA
013511 - Prehistoric isolate: mano (grinding stone) Not evaluated Less than 1
mile from
SPA
013686 - Prehistoric isolate: chert lithic tool Not Evaluated Less than 1
mile from
SPA
013712 - Prehistoric isolate: mano and hammerstone Not evaluated Immediately
adjacent to
SPA
013726 - Circle of large rocks, date unknown Not Evaluated Less than 1
mile from
SPA
n/a n/a Southern Immigrant Trail Not Evaluated Within SPA
SOURCE: Eastern Information Center – Cultural Resources Records Search, August, 2009
2 Specific Plan Area
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-10 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.4-2
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA WITH
NRHP RATINGS BETWEEN 1 AND 5
EIC
Primary
Number Address Historic Name
Construction
Date NRHP Rating
33-7769 28673 Pujol St (formerly at
41915 4th Street)
Arviso House 1920 5S2
33-7770 2871 Santiago Rd
(formerly at 41935 4th
Street)
Pujol School 1872 3S
33-7771 41970 4th Street Pete Maureen House 1890 5S2
33-7772 28450 6th Street French House 5S2
33-7773 42251 6th Street Escallier House 1928 3S
33-7774 42291 6th Street Bill Friedman House 1922 3S
33-7737 28522 Front Street Palomar Hotel 1915 3S
33-7741 28545 Front Street Knott’s Garage 1910 5S2
33-7738 28645 Front Street First National Bank of Temecula 1914 3S
33-7739 28656 Front Street Machado Store 1910 3S
33-7740 28676 Front Street Clogstone Restaurant 1932 5S2
33-7751 28922 Pujol St (formerly at
41852 Main Street)
Alec Escallier House 1927 3S
33-7752 42050 Main Street Friedman Meat Market 1901 5S2
33-7750 42100 Main Street Welty Hotel 1891 3S
33-7754 42120 Main Street Immigrant Office 1891 3S
33-7755 28443 Mercedes Street Saint Catherine’s Church 1920 3S
33-7765 28535 Pujol Street Harry Walters House 1930 5S2
33-7756 28565 Pujol Street Al Burnham House 5S2
33-7757 28575 Pujol Street 1936 5S2
33-7758 28585 Pujol Street McConville House 1890 3S
33-7759 28649 Pujol Street Albert Nienke House 1920 3S
33-7760 28653 Pujol Street GA Burnham House 1883 3S
33-7761 28717 Pujol Street Al Otto House 1882 5S2
33-7762 28725 Pujol Street Fred Ramirez House 1920 5S2
33-7763 28731 Pujol Street Angel Ramirez House 1926 5S2
33-7764 28735 Pujol Street 1910 5S2
SOURCE: OHP 2009
3S = appears eligible for NR as an individual property through a survey evaluation. 5S2 = Individual property that is eligible for local listing
or designation.
There are no historic-architectural resources listed in either the California or National Registers
within one mile of the project area. The closest California Historic Landmark to the Specific Plan
area is the Santa Rosa Rancho (CHL 1005), considered a prime example of various historical
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-11 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
phases of cattle ranching in Southern California. Located at 22115 Tenaja Road in Murrieta, the
site is approximately 6.5 miles northwest from the project area.
The closest site to the Specific Plan area listed on the National Register of Historic Places is the
Garbani Homestead, located at 33555 Holland Road in the town of Winchester, approximately
12.3 miles northeast.
Field Survey Results
A reconnaissance level pedestrian field survey was conducted by ESA historian Kathy Anderson
on August 26, 2009; to locate previously recorded historic architectural resources within the
project area. Of the 26 previously recorded historic buildings that had been determined eligible
for the NRHP, CRHR, or local listing, 12 were re-identified during the field survey (see
Table 3.4-3).
TABLE 3.4-3
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN PROJECT AREA
Primary Number Address Historic Name NRS Rating
33-7737 28522 Front Street Palomar Hotel 3S
33-7757 28575 Pujol Street - 5S2
33-7758 28585 Pujol Street McConville House 3S
33-7738 28645 Front Street First National Bank of
Temecula
3S
33-7759 28649 Pujol Street Albert Nienke House 3S
33-7760 28653 Pujol Street GA Burnham House 3S
33-7739 28656 Front Street Machado Store 3S
33-7740 28676 Front Street Clogstone Restaurant 5S2
33-7761 28717 Pujol Street Al Otto House 5S2
33-7752 42050 Main Street Friedman Meat Market 5S2
33-7750 42100 Main Street Welty Hotel 3S
33-7773 42251 6th Street Escallier House 3S
SOURCE: Old Town Specific Area Plan; ESA 2009
3S = appears eligible for NR as an individual property through a survey evaluation. 5S2 = Individual property that is eligible for local listing
or designation.
The remaining 14 buildings that were not reidentified have either been relocated to another site,
demolished since their original evaluation, or could not be reidentified in the field survey and
may no longer exist. These buildings are identified and described below in Table 3.4-4.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-12 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.4-4
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED HISTORIC RESOURCES WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NOT
REIDENTIFIED IN FIELD SURVEY
Primary
Number
Address Historic Name Relocated / Demolished / Unable to Re-
identify
33-7769 28673 Pujol St
(formerly at 41915 4th
Street)
Arviso House Unable to re-identify. Relocated in 2007.
33-7770 2871 Santiago Rd
(formerly at 41935 4th
Street)
Pujol School Relocated in 2006
33-7771 41970 4th Street Pete Maureen House Unable to re-identify. May no longer exist
33-7772 28450 6th Street French House Unable to re-identify. May no longer exist
33-7774 42291 6th Street Bill Friedman House Relocated on the same site in 2003
33-7741 28545 Front Street Knott’s Garage Demolished 2000
33-7751 28922 Pujol St
(formerly at 41852
Main Street)
Alec Escallier House Unable to re-identify. Relocated in 2008.t
33-7754 42120 Main Street Immigrant Office Unable to re-identify. May no longer exist
33-7755 28443 Mercedes
Street
Saint Catherine’s Church Relocated to Sam Hicks Monument Park in 1992
33-7765 28535 Pujol Street Harry Walters House Demolished 1996
33-7756 28565 Pujol Street Al Burnham House Unable to re-identify. May no longer exist
33-7762 28725 Pujol Street Fred Ramirez House Demolished 2002
33-7763 28731 Pujol Street Angel Ramirez House Demolished 2002
33-7764 28735 Pujol Street - Demolished 1999
SOURCE: ESA 2009
The most prevalent architectural style in Old Town relates most commonly to the Gold Rush
Style or Western Frontier Style. A number of other buildings which are located outside of the Old
Town area but within the Specific Plan area which appear to be 50 years old or older were
observed during the field survey. As these structures have not been comprehensively surveyed
and evaluated, it is possible that they may be eligible as historic resources if other criteria apply,
such as significant associations with important events, people, or high architectural merit.
Native American Consultation Results
The Pala Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Pechanga Band of
Luiseño Indians responded to the City’s letter of invitation to consultation. The Soboba and
Pechanga formally requested consultation under SB 18, stating that the project area was within
their traditional territories. The Pechanga stated that tribal cultural traditions, including oral
histories, songs, and creation accounts, directly refer to the Specific Plan area and its immediate
surroundings. The Soboba also stated that the project area is in close proximity to known village
locations and was within an area used for trade between the Luiseño and Cahuilla Tribes, and is
therefore, considered to be a culturally sensitive area.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-13 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
3.4.5 Regulatory Framework
Cultural Resources
Numerous laws and regulations require federal, state, and local agencies to consider the effects a
project may have on cultural resources. These laws and regulations stipulate a process for
compliance, define the responsibilities of the various agencies proposing the action, and prescribe
the relationship among other involved agencies (e.g., State Historic Preservation Office and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of
1966, as amended; the California Register of Historical Resources, Public Resources Code (PRC)
5024; and CEQA are the primary federal and state laws governing and affecting preservation of
cultural resources of national, state, regional, and local significance. The applicable regulations
are discussed below.
Federal Level
Section 106 of the NHPA
Archaeological resources are protected through the NHPA of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470f),
and its implementing regulation, Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800), the
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, and the Archaeological Resources
Protection Act of 1979. Prior to implementing an “undertaking” (e.g., issuing a federal permit),
Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of the undertaking on
historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State
Historic Preservation Officer a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that would
adversely affect properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. As
indicated in Section 101(d)(6)(A) of the NHPA, properties of traditional religious and cultural
importance to a tribe are eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Under the NHPA, a find
is considered significant if it meets the National Register listing criteria at 36 CFR 60.4. The
National Register criteria are explained in further detail below.
National Register of Historic Places
First authorized by the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the National Register of Historic Places
(National Register) was established by the NHPA of 1966, as “an authoritative guide to be used
by federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s
historic resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from
destruction or impairment” (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 36 Section 60.2). The National
Register recognizes both historical-period and prehistoric archaeological properties that are
significant at the national, state, and local levels.
To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a resource must be significant in American
history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures,
and objects of potential significance must meet one or more of the following four established
criteria:
A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history;
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-14 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Unless the property possesses exceptional significance, it must be at least 50 years old to be
eligible for National Register listing (U.S. Department of the Interior 1995).
In addition to meeting the criteria of significance, a property must have integrity. Integrity is
defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance” (U.S. Department of the Interior
1995). The National Register recognizes seven qualities that, in various combinations, define
integrity. To retain historic integrity a property must possess several, and usually most, of these
seven aspects. Thus, the retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property
to convey its significance. The seven factors that define integrity are location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is a federal law passed
in 1990 that provides a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native
American cultural items, such as human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of
cultural patrimony, to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Indian tribes.
State Level
California Public Resources Code 5097.9.-5097.998 provides protection to Native American
historical and cultural resources and sacred sites, prohibits interfering with Native American
religion, and identifies the powers and duties of the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC). It makes the destruction, looting, or vandalizing of archaeological sites on public land a
misdemeanor. It also requires notification of discoveries of Native American human remains to
the NAHC and provides for treatment and disposition of human remains and associated grave
goods.
The state implements the NHPA through its statewide comprehensive cultural resources surveys
and preservation programs. The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), as an office of
the California Department of Parks and Recreation, implements the policies of the NHPA on a
statewide level. The OHP also maintains the California Historic Resources Inventory. The State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is an appointed official who implements historic
preservation programs within the state’s jurisdictions.
California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is “an authoritative listing
and guide to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the
existing historical resources of the State and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected,
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-15 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (California Public Resources
Code § 5024.1[a]). The criteria for eligibility for the California Register are based upon National
Register criteria (California Public Resources Code § 5024.1[b]). Certain resources are
determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, including
California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register of
Historic Places.
To be eligible for the California Register, a prehistoric or historical-period property must be
significant at the local, state, and/or federal level under one or more of the following criteria:
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage;
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction,
or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
A resource eligible for the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance
described above, and retain enough of its historic character or appearance (integrity) to be
recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reason for its significance. It is possible
that a historic resource may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the
National Register, but it may still be eligible for listing in the California Register.
Additionally, the California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those
that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California
Register automatically includes the following:
• California properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places and those formally
Determined Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
• California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward.
• Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the OHP and
have been recommended to the State Historical Commission for inclusion on the California
Register.
Other resources that may be nominated to the California Register include:
• Historical resources with a significance rating of Category 3 through 5 (those properties
identified as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California
Register of Historical Resources, and/or a local jurisdiction register).
• Individual historical resources.
• Historical resources contributing to historic districts.
• Historical resources designated or listed as local landmarks, or designated under any local
ordinance, such as an historic preservation overlay zone.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-16 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is the principal statute governing environmental review of projects in the state. CEQA
requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect on
archaeological resources. CEQA is codified at Public Resources Code sec 21000 et seq. As
defined in Section 21083.2 of CEQA, a “unique” archaeological resource is an archaeological
artifact, object, or site, about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to
the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following
criteria:
• Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is
a demonstrable public interest in that information.
• Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available
example of its type.
• Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event
or person.
In addition, the State CEQA Guidelines recognize that certain historical resources may also have
significance. The CEQA Guidelines recognize that a historical resource includes: (1) a resource
in the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) a resource included in a local register of
historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a
historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); and (3) any
object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines
to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic,
agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California by the lead
agency, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of
the whole record.
If a lead agency determines that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of
Section 21084.1 of CEQA and Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines apply. If an
archaeological site does not meet the criteria for a historical resource contained in the State
CEQA Guidelines, then the site is to be treated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA
Section 21083, which is a unique archaeological resource. The State CEQA Guidelines note that
if an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor a historical resource, the
effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the
environment (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)).
Senate Bill 18
Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), which went into effect January 1, 2005, requires local governments (city
and county) to consult with Native American tribes before making certain planning decisions and
to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process. The intent is to “provide
California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an
early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places”
(Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2005).
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-17 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
The purpose of involving tribes at these early planning stages is to allow consideration of cultural
places in the context of broad local land use policy, before individual site-specific, project-level,
land use designations are made by a local government. The consultation requirements of SB 18
apply to General Plan or Specific Plan processes proposed on or after March 1, 2005.
According to the Tribal Consultation Guidelines: Supplement to General Plan Guidelines (2005),
the following are the contact and notification responsibilities of local governments:
• Prior to the adoption or any amendment of a General Plan or Specific Plan, a local
government must notify the appropriate tribes (on the contact list maintained by the
NAHC) of the opportunity to conduct consultations for the purpose of preserving, or
mitigating impacts to, cultural places located on land within the local government’s
jurisdiction that is affected by the proposed plan adoption or amendment. Tribes have 90
days from the date on which they receive notification to request consultation, unless a
shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe (Government Code §65352.3).
• Prior to the adoption or substantial amendment of a General Plan or Specific Plan, a local
government must refer the proposed action to those tribes that are on the NAHC contact list
and have traditional lands located within the city or county’s jurisdiction. The referral must
allow a 45-day comment period (Government Code §65352). Notice must be sent
regardless of whether prior consultation has taken place. Such notice does not initiate a new
consultation process.
• Local government must send a notice of a public hearing, at least 10 days prior to the
hearing, to tribes who have filed a written request for such notice (Government Code
§65092).
Local Level
Temecula General Plan
The Open Space Element of the City of Temecula’s General Plan contains the following relevant
goals and policies concerning cultural resources:
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 OTSP.
Policy 6.4: Assist property owners in seeking State and/or federal registration and appropriate
zoning for historic sites and assets.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-18 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
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.
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.
Policy 6.10: Work with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians to identify and appropriately
address cultural resources and tribal sacred sites through the development review process.
Policy 6.11: Encourage voluntary landowner efforts to protect cultural resource and tribal sacred
sites consistent with State requirements.
Implemetation Procedures
The following implementation procedures from the Open Space Element of the City of Temecula
General Plan are also relevant to the protection of cultural resources:
OS-26: Development Review Process
Use the development and environmental review processes to:
• Ensure that appropriate archaeological and paleontological surveying and documentation of
findings is provided prior to project approval.
• Require effective mitigation where development may affect archaeological or
paleontological resources.
• Require that an archaeologist or paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in
areas where the probable presence of archaeological or paleontological resources is
identified.
• Enforce CEQA provisions regarding preservation or salvage of significant archaeological
and paleontological sites discovered during construction activities.
• Require monitoring of new developments and reporting to the City on completion of
mitigation and resource protection measures.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-19 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
OS-27: Historic Preservation Program
Continue to implement a historic preservation ordinance in the Old Town area to protect
historically significant buildings, sites, road/trails, and other landscape elements, and to
encourage their reuse, where appropriate. Consider adopting an ordinance to address preservation
of other historic resources. Encourage owners of local sites to apply for recognition in the State
Historic Resources Inventory, as Riverside County Landmarks, as State Points of Historic
Interest, as State Landmarks, and as sites on the National Register of Historic Places, as deemed
necessary.
OS-37: Archaeological Reviews
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.
OS-39: Tribal Cultural Resources
Development projects proposed on previously undeveloped property which involve earth-
disturbing activities or which are located in areas with previously identified cultural resources
need to comply with the following requirements to appropriately address tribal cultural resources:
• All projects shall be evaluated by a qualified archeologist by conducting a site records
search, and if feasible, a Phase I walkover survey, and if necessary, a Phase II survey prior
to project approval to identify the potential for the presence of significant cultural
resources.
• If significant resources are located on the project site, or a high probability for cultural
resources exists, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians shall be consulted in the
identification of mitigation measures to address impacts consistent with State requirements,
including provisions to address inadvertent discoveries.
• During on-site grading activities in areas with cultural resources, or with a high potential
for cultural resources, a qualified archeologist and tribal monitors shall be on-site to
monitor grading operations.
• In the event of the discovery of a burial site, human bone or suspected human bone, grading
in the immediate area shall be immediately halted, the site protected, and the County
Coroner and representatives from Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians notified.
Old Town Historic Preservation Ordinance
As described in section Section V.C of the Specific Plan, the Old Town Historic Preservation
District Ordinance requires that within the boundaries of the Old Town Historic Preservation
District no person shall demolish, remove, relocate, or cause to be relocated, alter, or cause to be
altered, construct, or cause to be constructed or modify any designated historic building or
structure, except in strict compliance with the plans approved in conjunction with a Finding of
Historic Appropriateness.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-20 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
The list of Designated Historic Buildings and Structures within the Old Town Historic
Preservation District, as originally determined in 1994, is provided below.
• Saint Catherine's Church, 1920 28314 Mercedes Street
• Welty Building, 1897 28659 Old Town Front Street
• Machado Store, 1910 28656 Old Town Front Street
• Clogstone Restaurant, 1932 28676 Old Town Front Street
• First National Bank, 1914 28645 Old Town Front Street
• Palomar Hotel, 1915 28522 Old Town Front Street
• Alec Escallier House, 1927-28 41852 Main Street
• Burnham Store, 1902 42051 Main Street
• Friedeman Meat Market, 1901 42050 Main Street
• Welty Hotel, 1891 42100 Main Street
• J.D. Welty, 1936 42081 3rd Street
• Arviso House, 1920 41915 4th Street
• Unnamed residence, 1928 42251 6th Street
• Bill Friedeman House, 1922 42291 6th Street
• Nienke House, 1936 28575 Pujol Street
• McConville House, early 1890s 28585 Pujol Street
• Albert Nienke House, early 1920s 28649 Pujol Street
• G.A. Burnham House, early 1880s 28653 Pujol Street
• Al Otto House, 1882 28717 Pujol Street
Paleontological Resources
Federal Level
A variety of federal statutes specifically address paleontological resources. They are generally
applicable to a project if that project includes federally owned or managed lands or involves a
federal agency license, permit, approval, or funding. Federal legislative protection for
paleontological resources stems from the Antiquities Act of 1906 (PL 59-209; 16 United States
Code 431 et seq.; 34 Stat. 225), which calls for protection of historic landmarks, historic and
prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest on federal lands.
State Level
Paleontological resources are also afforded protection by environmental legislation set forth
under CEQA. Appendix G (Part V) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project will normally
result in a significant impact on the environment if it will “…disrupt or adversely affect a
paleontologic resource or site or unique geologic feature, except as part of a scientific study.”
Section 5097.5 of the Public Resources Code specifies that any unauthorized removal of
paleontological remains is a misdemeanor. Further, the California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets
the penalties for the damage or removal of paleontological resources.
Local Level
The City of Temecula General Plan contains several policies concerning paleontological
resources; these are detailed above.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-21 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Professional Standards
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) has established standard guidelines that outline
acceptable professional practices in the conduct of paleontological resource assessments and
surveys, monitoring and mitigation, data and fossil recovery, sampling procedures, and specimen
preparation, identification, analysis, and curation. Most practicing professional paleontologists in
the nation adhere closely to the SVP’s assessment, mitigation, and monitoring requirements as
specifically provided in its standard guidelines. Most California state regulatory agencies accept
the SVP standard guidelines as a measure of professional practice.
3.4.6 Impacts and Mitigation
Significance Criteria
For the purposes of this EIR and consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the
proposed project is considered to have a significant impact if it would result in any of the
following:
• A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource that is either listed
or eligible for listing in the National Register, the California Register, or a local register of
historic resources;
• A substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource;
• Disturbance or destruction of a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature; or
• Disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
CEQA provides that a project may cause a significant environmental effect where the project
could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource (Public
Resources Code, Section 21084.1). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines a “substantial
adverse change” in the significance of a historical resource to mean physical demolition,
destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the
significance of a historical resource would be “materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15064.5[b][1]).
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(b)(2), defines “materially impaired” for purposes of the
definition of “substantial adverse change” as follows:
The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
• Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an
historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or
eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register; or
• Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that
account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to
Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical
resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources
Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a
preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-22 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
• Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a
historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for
inclusion in the California Register as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3), a project that follows the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings is considered to have
mitigated impacts to historic resources to a less-than-significant level.
Historic resources are usually 50 years old or older and must meet at least one of the criteria for
listing in the California Register (such as association with historical events, important people, or
architectural significance), in addition to maintaining a sufficient level of physical integrity
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a][3]).
Impact Analysis
Based on archival research and communications with Native Americans, there is a high
possibility of uncovering and identifying previously unrecorded archaeological deposits in the
Specific Plan area. The large number of both prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, as well
as Old Town’s historic structures, indicate that the Specific Plan area has been occupied
throughout both prehistoric and historic time periods and should be considered very sensitive for
cultural resources. In addition, unrecorded paleontological deposits may also be located in the
Specific Plan area. Finally, a number of older buildings located outside of Old Town but within
the Specific Plan area may be considered historic resources upon further review and evaluation.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would encourage mixed-use and residential development
within Old Town and could result in the addition of 749 residential units. New development has
the potential to disrupt undiscovered archaeological or paleontological resources during project
construction, and may directly or indirectly impact sites of historic architectural importance
through demolition or substantial alteration.
Specific projects would require supplemental environmental analysis prior to implementation to
comply with CEQA requirements. Existing national, state and local laws as well as
implementation of three additional proposed mitigation measures (below) would reduce these
potential impacts on cultural resources to a less-than-significant level.
Impact 3.4-1: Ground-disturbing activities associatied with implementation of the Specific
Plan Amendment could result in the substantial adverse change of previously unknown
archaeological resources as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5.
The Temecula General Plan Open Space Element calls for the City to work to preserve or salvage
potential archeological 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 sensitivity, and historic sites in the Specific Plan area. However,
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-23 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
previously unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources could exist anywhere within the
Specific Plan area, and may be unearthed during excavation and grading activities for individual
projects. This can occur even in already developed areas, as older buildings are known to have
often been built on top of or within archaeological deposits. If previously undiscovered artifacts
or remains are uncovered during excavation or construction, significant impacts could occur.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a and 3.4-1b would minimize this impact to a less
than significant level
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: Consistent with the City of Temecula’s General Plan Goal 6
and Implementation Procedure OS-26 and OS-39, the Specific Plan Amendment shall
include a new policy which requires that all areas slated for development or other ground-
disturbing activities shall be subject to a Phase I survey (including records search and
archaeological survey) for archaeological resources on a project-specific basis prior to the
City’s approval of project plans. The survey shall be carried out by a qualified
archaeologist in consultation with local Native American groups. If potentially significant
archaeological resources are encountered during the survey, the City shall require that the
resources are evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the National Register or California
Register, and that recommendations are made for treatment of these resources if found to
be significant, in consultation with the appropriate Native American groups. Any identified
resources shall be avoided if feasible. Ground-disturbing activity in areas determined to be
sensitive for cultural resources shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and Native
American representative.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b: Consistent with the City of Temecula’s General Plan Goal 6
and Implementation Procedure OS-26 and OS-39, the Specific Plan Amendment shall
include a new policy which states that during construction, should prehistoric or historic
subsurface cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop
and a qualified archaeologist will be contacted to assess the significance of the find
according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant,
the City and the archaeologist will determine, in consultation with local Native American
groups, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. All significant
cultural materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting
archaeologist and in consultation with local Native American groups, subject to scientific
analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current
professional standards.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact 3.4-2: Implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could result in a substantial
adverse change to historic resources as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5.
Twelve previously recorded historic resources in Old Town Temecula were reidentified during
the field survey prepared for this Program EIR. The existing Old Town Historic Preservation
Ordinance, and numerous implementation procedures within the City of Temecula General Plan,
are designed to protect historic resources in Old Town Temecula. As no changes to these
ordinances or protection procedures are planned as part of the Specific Plan Amendment, no
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-24 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
significant direct or indirect impacts to those resources in particular are anticipated as a result of
implementing the Specific Plan Amendment.
The primary goal for the Specific Plan Amendment is to incorporate form-based code principles
to more clearly define development regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly
development through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use
development within Old Town. The goals and recommendations intended to direct the City in its
development of the OTSP area include the protection of designated historic buildings by
delineating a historic core, protecting the historic grid of streets and alleys, and encouraging
future development to maintain the historic setting and character of the plan area.
The proposed amendment would include architectural standards intended to encourage new
development to respect the historic setting and character of the project area and its historic
structures, by providing guidance and regulations concerning building form, frontage type,
architectural style, and materials. For example, the City would provide landscape guidelines to
soften the impact of commercial development and unify and establish the historical theme of the
OTSP area, and strongly encourage paving materials that reflect the historic materials used in the
19th century to be used in the Specific Plan area wherever possible. Improvements to areas such
as the Murrieta Creek Walk corridor are intended to be aesthetically compatible with the vision
for Old Town and the preservation of its historic character and setting. Implementation of these
guidelines would result in a less-than-significant impact to historic resources within the OTSP
area.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would also result in the annexation of approximately 2.4
acres into the Specific Plan at a location south of First Street, along the west side of Old Town
Front Street, and the removal of approximately 2.3 acres from the Specific Plan at a location west
of the intersection of Sixth Street and Pujol Street. Neither the annexation nor the removal of land
from the OTSP area would result in a significant impact to historic resources, as neither area
includes any previously identified or potential resources. The 2.3 acres intended for removal from
the OTSP area includes predominantly modern residential structures located along a private road.
However, the Specific Plan area contains other buildings dating older than 50 years. As these
structures have not been comprehensively surveyed and evaluated, it is possible that they may be
eligible as historic resources if other criteria apply, such as significant associations with important
events, people, or have high architectural merit. Mitigation Measure 3.4-2a would require that
structures 50 years old or older be evaluated for significance prior to the implementation of
specific projects and would minimize this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.4-2a: Consistent with the City of Temecula’s General Plan Goal 6
and Implementation Procedure OS-2, the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new
policy which states that all areas slated for development or other ground-disturbing
activities in the Specific Plan Area which contain structures 50 years old or older be
surveyed and evaluated for their potential historic significance prior to the City’s approval
of project plans. The survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-25 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural History. If
potentially significant resources are encountered during the survey, demolition or
substantial alteration of such resources identified shall be avoided. If avoidance of
identified historic resources is deemed infeasible, the City shall prepare a treatment plan to
include, but not limited to, photo-documentation and public interpretation of the resource.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact 3.4-3: Implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could cause a substantial
adverse change to areas of traditional cultural significance to local Native American
individuals and groups.
The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians recognize the
Specific Plan area as having cultural significance. Pechanga tribal cultural traditions including
oral histories, songs, and creation accounts directly refer to the project area and its immediate
environs. According to SB 18, the lead agency is required to consult with Native American tribes
to identify any Native American sacred places or geographical areas within which sacred places
may be located. SB 18 likewise requires the development of appropriate treatment or
management plans to ensure the protection and preservation of such sacred places. The
identification of sacred sites through appropriate consultation as required under SB 18, as well as
through Phase I investigation in coordination with local Native American groups for individual
projects as specified in Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a above, would ensure that no significant
impacts would occur.
Mitigation: None required.
Impact 3.4-4: Ground-disturbing construction associated with implementation of the
Specific Plan Amendment could result in damage to previously unidentified human
remains.
There is no indication that any particular site in the Specific Plan area has been used for human
burial purposes in the recent or distant past. In addition, General Plan Implementation Procedure
OS-39: Tribal Cultural Resources, already protects previously unidentified human remains from
accidental damage. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries, the human remains could be inadvertently damaged,
which could be a significant impact. This impact could be further minimized by implementation
of Mitigation Measure 3.4-4a.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.4-4a: Consistent with State law, CEQA Guidelines, and the City of
Temecula’s General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS-26 and OS-39, the
Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which states that if human skeletal
remains are uncovered during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-26 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
cease and the Riverside County coroner will be contacted to evaluate the remains,
following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA
Guidelines. If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American, he or
she will contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as
amended by AB 2641). The NAHC will then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most
Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American, who will then help determine what
course of action should be taken in dealing with the remains.
Per Public Resources Code 5097.98, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate
vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices,
where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by
further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed
in this section (PRC 5097.98), with the most likely descendents regarding their
recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human
remains.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact 3.4-5: Ground-disturbing construction activities associated with implementation of
the Specific Plan Amendment could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource, or site, or unique geologic feature.
The project area is underlain by the Pauba Formation and younger and older Quaternary
Alluvium. The Pauba Formation and older Quaternary Alluvium have a high paleontological
sensitivity, as they have a high potential to contain significant non-renewable paleontologic
resources. These formations occur throughout a large percentage of the Specific Plan area. In
addition, the Riverside County Planning Department’s Land Information System lists the
paleontological sensitivity for most of the project area as “High”.
Temecula’s General Plan (implementation measure OS-26) requires that a paleontologist be
retained to observe grading activities in areas where the probable presence of paleontological
resources is identified. However, significant paleontological resources can be uncovered even in
areas of low sensitivity, and it is possible that ground-disturbing construction activities associated
with implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could result in the inadvertent discovery of
paleontological resources, which could be a significant impact. The following mitigation
measures would further reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 3.4-5a: The Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy
which states that in the event that paleontological resources are discovered, the project
proponent will notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will document the
discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find
under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or fossil bearing
deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find will be
temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Cultural Resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-27 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
(in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology, 1995)). The paleontologist will notify the appropriate agencies to determine
procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location
of the find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist will
prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make
the resource important. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior
to implementation.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-1 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
3.5 Hydrology and Water Quality
3.5.1 Introduction
The proposed project’s potential to impact hydrology and water quality was evaluated in the
NOP. The NOP determined that the proposed project will have no impact or a less-than-
significant impact upon water quality, drainage and flooding, embankment failure, groundwater
depletion, and seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The following section describes the findings of the
NOP. The environmental baseline in this chapter uses the current physical condition of the OTSP
area as compared to build-out of the OTSP amendment.
3.5.2 Setting
Climate
The project site is located within the southern end of the Temecula Valley of Southern California.
The climate is considered mild Mediterranean with annual precipitation averages of
approximately 14 inches. Over 50 percent of the annual rainfall occurs between January and
March with scattered shower activity during the other nine months. Summers are dry with low
humidity and are very warm, with most days in July and August above 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
Environmental Setting
The project area lies within the Temecula Valley, in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province,
which extends from Baja California to the San Gabriel Mountains. The Santa Ana Mountains and
the Santa Rosa Plateau are located directly to the west, the Santa Margarita and Agua Tibia
Ranges are to the south, and the San Jacinto Ranges lie approximately 35 miles to the east. The
elevation at the project site is approximately 1,005 feet.
Both the City of Temecula and the sphere of influence area lie within the inland portion of the
Santa Margarita River basin, which encompasses an area of approximately 750 square miles. The
major tributary within the study area is Murrieta Creek, which runs north to south through the
project site. Murrieta Creek currently lacks the capacity to safely convey 100-year storm flows
through the City. Currently, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
is proposing to improve 11 miles of Murrieta Creek from Rancho California Road in Temecula to
upstream of Clinton Keith Road north of the Murrieta City limits, to provide 100-year flood
protection to existing development. According to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, these improvements would include a natural riverine system which would
require the excavation of 912,000 cubic yards of material that would be disposed of offsite. The
excavated area would be graded to a slope of 1000:1.5, with a higher grade at Warm Springs, and
a lower one at the outlet into Murrieta Creek. Initial contouring would create two low flow
channels, one on Murrieta Creek and one on Warm Springs Creek. Average width of the channels
would range between 10 and 15 feet, with an average depth of 3 feet. Flows above those
contained within the low-flow channels would have the opportunity to flood back channels and
ponded areas. Nine acres of freshwater ponds would be created which would receive flows and
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Hydrology and Water Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-2 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
more frequent intervals which will significantly increase infiltration as compared to the existing
condition.
The Murrieta-Temecula Basin is the major groundwater basin in the project area, extending
approximately 60,000 acres. It is the largest groundwater basin in the area drained by the Santa
Margarita River. Murrieta, Temecula, Pauba, Long, and Lancaster Valleys are the largest of the
valleys overlying the basin. The basin is bounded by nonwater-bearing crystalline rocks of the
Peninsular Ranges. The overlying valleys are drained mainly by Wilson, Temecula, Murrieta,
Warm Springs, and Pechanga Creeks to the Santa Margarita River, which flows west out of the
Temecula Valley. The Pechanga Indian Reservation covers a portion of the southwestern part of
the basin. The basin has an estimated storage capacity of 1.2 million acre-feet. It underlies the
entire Murrieta Creek channel, which is an important source of recharge water for the underlying
groundwater basin. Water flows out of the basin toward the Lake Elsinore area in the northwest
and rises to the Santa Margarita River in the southwest.
Surface water quality within Murrieta Creek is generally good with the exception of occasionally
high levels of nitrate and phosphate, and increased total suspended solids (TDS) during low
flows. Groundwater quality varies within the Murrieta-Temecula Basin. Water extracted at higher
elevation and deeper unconfined aquifers is generally of higher quality.
Regional Hydrogeology
Quaternary Alluvium, which is estimated to reach more than 2,500 feet thick, is the water-bearing
material of this basin. Well yields generally range to 300 gallons per minute (gpm) in the
northwestern part of the basin, but reach 1,750 gpm for wells in Pauba Valley. Groundwater is
generally unconfined, but is confined in the Pauba Valley and near some faults that cross the
basin.
Holocene alluvial deposits consist of unconsolidated gravels, sand, silt, and clay that are generally
about 100 to 125 feet thick, but reach 200 feet thick. The Pleistocene age Temecula Arkose, an
alluvial deposit composed of arkosic sand with some marl, tugg, and silt, is at least 1,400 feet
thick. Groundwater is also extracted from residuum and from fractured rocks beneath the basin.
The Lancaster, Aguanga, and Agua Caliente faults and several strands of the Elsinore fault zone
cross the basin and may affect groundwater movement. The Wildomar fault is a groundwater
barrier that produces differences in water level and pressure in the northwestern part of the basin.
Murrieta Hot Springs lie along an unnamed fault, indicating that the fault affects subsurface flow.
Natural recharge of the alluvium is from direct precipitation and percolation in the Warm Springs,
Tucalota, Santa Gertrudis, Murrieta, and Pechanga Creeks and the Temecula River.
Groundwater Quality
Groundwater in this basin is largely suitable for domestic and irrigation uses. The groundwater is
largely sodium bicarbonate in character. Sodium-calcium bicarbonate, sodium-calcium sulfate,
calcium bicarbonate, and sodium chloride waters are also present in the basin. The concentrations
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Hydrology and Water Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-3 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
of solids (TDS) ranged from 220 to 984 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in 1956; however, water from
50 public supply wells ranges from 240 to 1,500 mg/L, and averages 476 mg/L.
Water quality is a regional issue regulated at the county, state, and federal levels. The
Rancho California Water District (RCWD) supplies most of the domestic and commercial water
to Temecula, paid for by user fees. Water supply to the City is drawn from the Murrieta-
Temecula groundwater basin and supplemented with imported water from the Metropolitan
Water District (MWD). Other sources include reclaimed water and untreated MWD water used
for groundwater recharge. The current and future projected distributions of water sources are
provided in Table 3.5-1. The local water agency expects that there will not be a shortage of water
supplies in the future.
TABLE 3.5-1
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WATER SOURCES
Sources Present Future/Build-out
Local Groundwater 35% 26%
MWD Water 37% 55%
Reclaimed Water 3% 9%
Groundwater Recharge 24% 10%
SOURCE: Temecula General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element.
3.5.3 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Clean Water Act
The purpose of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to protect and maintain the quality and integrity of
the nation’s waters by requiring states to develop and implement state water plans and policies.
Section 303 of the CWA requires states to establish water quality standards consisting of
designated beneficial uses of water bodies and water quality standards to protect those uses for all
Waters of the United States.
Total Maximum Daily Load
Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states, territories and authorized tribes are required to develop
lists of impaired waters. Impaired waters are the waters that do not meet water quality standards,
even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution
control technology. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for water
bodies on the lists and develop action plans to improve water quality. This process includes
development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) that set discharge limits for nonpoint-
source pollutants. The TMDL is the quantity of a pollutant that can be safely assimilated by a
water body without violating water quality standards. Listing of a water body as impaired does
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Hydrology and Water Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-4 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
not necessarily suggest that the pollutants are at levels considered hazardous to humans or aquatic
life or that the water body segment cannot support the beneficial uses. The intent of the 303(d) list
is to identify the water body as requiring future development of a TMDL to maintain water
quality and reduce the potential for continued water quality degradation.
The recently passed Ducheny Bill (AB 1740) requires the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards to post this list and to provide an
estimated completion date for each TMDL (SWRCB, 2003). The list is administered by the
Regional Boards, in this case, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Under the CWA, discharges into navigable waters are prohibited except in compliance with
specified requirements and authorizations. Municipal and industrial facilities are required to
obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that specifies
allowable limits, based on available wastewater treatment technologies, for pollutant levels in
their effluent. In California, the EPA has delegated the implementation of this program to the
State Board and to the Regional Boards.
Stormwater discharges are regulated somewhat differently. Stormwater runoff from construction
areas of one acre or more require either an individual permit or coverage under the statewide
General Construction Stormwater Permit. In addition, specific industries, including wastewater
treatment plants, that have direct stormwater discharges to navigable waters are required to obtain
either an individual permit issued by the Regional Board, or obtain coverage under the statewide
General Industrial Stormwater Permit.
State
California Toxics Rule
The EPA is responsible for implementing federal laws designed to protect air, water, and land.
EPA has developed national water quality standards in accordance with the CWA and these
standards are used to determine the amount and the conditions under which pollutants can be
discharged. The EPA published the California Toxics Rule (CTR) in the Federal Register (FR)
establishing water quality standards for toxic pollutants for California waters (FR 31681). On
April 28, 2000, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Policy for Implementation of
Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California
(State Implementation Plan [SIP]). The State Water Resources Control Board adopted the policy
in March 2000. The SIP establishes the implementation policy for all toxic pollutants.
State Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), located in Sacramento, is the agency with
jurisdiction over water quality issues in the State of California. The SWRCB is governed by the
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code), which establishes
the legal framework for water quality control activities by the SWRCB. The intent of the Porter-
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Hydrology and Water Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-5 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Cologne Act is to regulate factors which may affect the quality of Waters of the State to attain the
highest quality which is reasonable, considering a full range of demands and values. Much of the
implementation of the SWRCB’s responsibilities is delegated to its nine Regional Boards. The
project site is located within the San Diego Region. The San Diego Water Quality Control Board
uses planning, permitting, and enforcement authorities to meet this responsibility.
Construction Activity Permitting
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the NPDES stormwater
permitting program in the Central Valley region. Construction activities on one acre or more are
subject to the permitting requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of
Stormwater Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Construction Permit). The
General Construction Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP is prepared before construction begins. The
plan includes specifications for Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented
during project construction to control degradation of surface water by preventing the potential
erosion of sediments or discharge of pollutants from the construction area.
The General Construction Permit program was established by the RWQCB for the specific
purpose of reducing impacts to surface waters that may occur due to construction activities.
BMPs established by the RWQCB in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice
Handbook (2003) are recognized as effectively reducing degradation of surface waters to an
acceptable level. Additionally, the SWPPP would describe measures to prevent or control runoff
degradation after construction is complete, and identify a plan to inspect and maintain these
facilities or project elements
Waste Discharge Requirements
Article 4 of the Porter-Cologne Act (California Water Code § 13260-13274) states that persons
discharging or proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of Waters of the State
(other than into a community sewer system) shall file a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) with
the applicable RWQCB. For discharges to surface water, an NPDES permit is required, which is
issued under both state and federal law. For other types of discharges, such as waste discharges to
land (e.g., wastewater or spoils disposal), waste discharge requirements (WDRs) are required and
are issued exclusively under state law.
Local
The City of Temecula’s General Plan includes elements to protect the groundwater and surface
water resources of the City through various goals and policies. The following policies would
apply to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment:
• 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.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Hydrology and Water Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-6 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
• Conserve potable water by requiring water conservation techniques in all new
development.
• 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.
• Work with appropriate agencies to encourage groundwater recharge facilities along flood
control channels and creeks.
• Regulate and manage lands adjacent to or affecting watercourses as stipulated by the
Regional Water Resources Control Board.
The City of Temecula’s General Plan contains several policies regarding the risks associated with
flooding in the Public Safety Element. Specifically, the Public Safety Element provides
assessment of natural and manmade hazards associated with flooding and dam inundation, and
provides a framework and guiding policies to guide future development and strengthen existing
regulations within the City.
3.5.5 Impacts and Mitigation
Significance Criteria
The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7
of the CEQA Guidelines. However, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that impacts
on hydrology and water quality may be considered potentially significant if the proposed project
would:
• Violate any water quality or waste discharge requirements.
• Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted).
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site.
• Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
• Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
• Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.
• Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flows.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Hydrology and Water Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-7 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of a failure of levee or dam.
• Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Impact Analysis
Impact 3.5-1: The proposed project would not violate water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements.
Construction
Construction of individual projects within Old Town, associated with the Specific Plan
Amendment, would include grading and other earth moving activities, which would expose soils
to erosion. This in turn could lead to an increase in suspended solids from site runoff, as
unprotected disturbed soil is susceptible to high rates of erosion from wind and rain, as well as
from such activities as washing down the project site. Additionally, construction activities of
individual projects over the course of 20 to 30 years could lead to exposure of contaminated
materials/soils which could impact surface water quality during storm events.
However, any proposed development within the OTSP area larger than one acre would have to
satisfy all applicable requirements of the NPDES Program and Chapter 8.24, Stormwater/Urban
Runoff Management and Discharge Controls of the City of Temecula’s Municipal Code, to the
satisfaction of the City of Temecula’s Public Works Department. These requirements include the
preparation of a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan, containing structural treatment and
source control measures applicable to the individual project. Compliance with these requirements
would ensure that construction impacts to water quality and waste discharge would be less than
significant.
Operation
The incremental increase of development over the span of 20 to 30 years is likely to contribute to
nonpoint sources of pollution such as motor oil, possible fertilizers and pesticides, human
littering, animal waste, and other pollutants which are typical of developed areas. These
pollutants are washed from streets and parking lots during rainfall events that create sufficient
runoff to carry the waste materials. These pollutants may also be washed away when a street,
walkway or parking surface is cleaned. These pollutants have the potential to degrade water
quality and may result in significant impacts. However, development projects have a
responsibility under the NPDES Municipal Permit No. CAS004001 to ensure pollutant loads
from the projects do not exceed the TMDL for downstream receiving waters.
Development projects within the OTSP area would be required by the Stormwater/Urban Runoff
Management and Discharge Controls of the City of Temecula’s Municipal Code to submit and
implement a SWPPP using BMPs that would effectively reduce or prevent the discharge of
pollutants into receiving waters.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Hydrology and Water Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-8 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
The following mitigation measures shall be implemented, as required by applicable local, state, or
federal law or regulations:
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for
individual projects, the project developer shall file a NOI with California to comply with
the requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit (Municipal Code, Chapter
Chapter 8.24). This would include the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating construction
BMPs for control of erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact 3.5-2: The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (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).
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is not anticipated to affect the quantity of groundwaters,
either though direct additions or withdrawals, through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Less-than-significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.
Mitigation: None required.
Impact 3.5-3: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
Impact 3.5-4: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site.
The OTSP area is developed and served by existing stormwater collection and conveyance
systems which empty into Murrieta Creek. Construction activities associated with development of
the OTSP area could result in localized changes to drainage patterns. In particular, vacant lots that
drain via sheet flow would be developed with collection and conveyance systems. These changes
could increase the amount and rate of discharge into the storm drain system. Individual projects
developed within the OTSP area would include project design features that would aid in the
conveyance of stormwater to existing facilities. All runoff would continue to be conveyed via
streets and gutters to storm drain locations within the Specific Plan area. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would ensure that erosion or flooding remain less than significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Hydrology and Water Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-9 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Mitigation: None required.
Impact 3.5-5: The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
The majority of the Specific Plan area is developed. However, build-out of the Specific Plan area
would decrease natural groundcover and increase impervious surfaces (such as paved areas and
buildings). Surface water runoff volumes and rates generated from undeveloped, unpaved areas
can increase significantly when a site is paved, the impervious surface area increased, and surface
water infiltration reduced or eliminated. Increased runoff volume and peak discharge rates from
development within the Old Town area over the course of 20 to 30 years could exacerbate
downstream drainage problems, particularly if the capacity of downstream infrastructure is
inadequate. Increased detention basin capacity and improvements to the storm drainage network
would be necessary to accommodate future storm flows, provide adequate drainage, and control
flooding.
Development under the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would involve residential and mixed
uses, a downtown core, office, retail, entertainment, and hotel uses. Open space would include the
creation of pedestrian and equestrian walkways along both sides of the Murrieta Creek and in the
creek bottom. Other open space areas would include landscaped buffers and small parks. Surface
water runoff volumes and rates are anticipated to increase when the majority of the area is paved
and developed. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1, potential impacts
related to increases in stormwater runoff rates and volume would be reduced to less than
significant.
Mitigation: None required.
Impact 3.5-6: The project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
Construction would typically require stripping of existing surface vegetation, additional site
grading, and soil excavation. During construction, established groundcover that currently serves
to stabilize site soils would be removed, potentially resulting in increased erosion and increased
sediment load to existing or planned storm drainage facilities. Construction activities can also
generate hazardous waste products such as adhesives, solvents, paints, and drilling and petroleum
products that, if not managed appropriately, can adhere to soil particles, become mobilized by
rain or runoff, and contribute to nonpoint-source pollution. In addition, during excavation and
grading, contaminated soils may be exposed and/or disturbed; this could impact surface water
quality through contact during storm events. Increased soil erosion and the accidental discharge
of construction materials and/or contaminated soils from the project site could adversely affect
water quality in downstream water bodies.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Hydrology and Water Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-10 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
However, all individual development projects within the Old Town project area will be required
to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) pursuant to the Municipal Separate
Storm-Sewer permit (MS4 permit) issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board. Water quality control measures identified in the WQMP will be incorporated into project
designs to eliminate potential adverse impacts to receiving waters. A less-than-significant impact
is anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.
Mitigation: None required.
Impact 3.5-7: The proposed project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map.
Impact 3.5-8: The proposed project would not place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.
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 stream overflows. Murrieta Creek is the most flood-prone of the Temecula
creeks. However, specific building standards, as described within the flood damage prevention
and floodplain management regulations of the City Development Code, apply to flood-prone
areas, including anchoring, use of flood–resistant building materials, use of adequate drainage
paths, and elevating the structures to or above the base flood elevation.
Furthermore, 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
would also review development plans for projects within the floodplain, to ensure compliance
with City and FEMA floodplain development requirements. According to the Public Safety
Element of the City’s General Plan, no development of any kind will be allowed in the floodway
portion of the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.
Mitigation: None required.
Impact 3.5-9: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam.
Flooding from dam failure can result from natural and human causes including earthquakes,
erosion, improper siting and/or design, and rapidly rising floodwater during heavy storms. The
type of failure, ranging from instantaneous to gradual, is dependent on the building material of
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Hydrology and Water Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-11 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
the dam. Dam failure can potentially cause loss of life and property damage. Other effects include
displacement of persons residing in the inundation path and damage to infrastructure.
According to the Public Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, three local bodies of water have
the potential to impact the project site if such an event occurred (please refer to Figure 3.5-1):
• Lake Skinner has a volume of 43,800 acre-feet located behind an earthen dam northeast of
Temecula. Failure of the Lake Skinner Dam would result in flooding along Tucalota Creek
and Benton Road. Areas along I-15 and Murrieta Creek could also be substantially affected.
• Vail Lake is located to the east of Temecula. Dam failure of this 51,000-acre-foot facility
would cause flooding in the Pauba and Temecula Valleys. Interstate 15 and an adjacent
three-mile area would also flood.
• Diamond Valley Lake, impounded by two earthen dams, is the largest reservoir in Southern
California and is located north of Temecula. Failure of the western dam would result in
flooding in the northern parts of Temecula. Areas along I-15 and Murrieta Creek could also
be substantially affected.
The City will maintain a Dam Inundation Evacuation Plan, will update the Multi-Hazard
Functional Plan as needed to address flood hazards, and will coordinate with the State Office of
Emergency Services to ensure that dam safety plans reflect the level of development within the
community. Therefore, the rare likelihood of such an event and compliance with these plans
would reduce any risks of death or loss to less than significant.
Mitigation: None required.
Impact 3.5-10: The proposed project would not be inundated by a seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow.
Tsunamis are large sea waves generated by submarine earthquakes or similar large-scale, short-
duration phenomena, such as volcanic eruptions, than can cause considerable damage to low-
lying coastal areas. Seiches are waves, also caused by large-scale, short-duration phenomena, that
result from the oscillation of confined bodies of water (such as reservoirs or lakes) that also may
damage low-lying adjacent areas. The proposed project would not expose people to a significant
risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow because the
project site is not located near a coast, large body of water, or steep enough slopes. The project
site is located approximately 23 miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is a sufficient distance to
avoid tsunami impacts.
As mentioned above, there are three dams within the City of Temecula, and the nearest dam is
Lake Skinner, located approximately 7.5 miles away from the project area. The lake is
sufficiently far away to eliminate impacts associated with seiches in the Specific Plan area.
Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294
Figure 3.5-1
Dam Inundation
SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2008; City of Temecula, 2009.
0 1000
Feet
Legend
Diamond Valley Lake
Lake Skinner
Vail Lake
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Hydrology and Water Quality
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-13 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
The nearest foothills with exposed soils are located immediately adjacent to the west of the
project site; however, due to the gently rolling slope, mudflows would not likely reach the project
site. Therefore, no impact associated with mudflows is anticipated to occur.
In summary, there would be no impact that would expose people or structures at the project site to
a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudlow.
Mitigation: None required.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-1 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
3.6 Land Use and Planning
3.6.1 Introduction
Impacts related to the potential to disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community
were found to be less than significant in the NOP prepared for this project. The focus of the following
discussion is the potential impacts related to possible conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the General Plan,
Specific Plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect.
3.6.2 Setting
The project site is located in the City of Temecula and is bounded to the north by Rancho California
Road, to the east by I-15, to the south by First Street, and to the west from approximately 225 feet west of
Pujol Street and an area outside of the existing Specific Plan boundary extending approximately 350 feet
south of First Street, between the eastern edge of the Murrieta Creek channel and Old Town Front Street.
The project proposes to create land use districts that will establish permitted land uses and development
standards intended to implement the goals, policies and objectives of the Specific Plan and the City's
General Plan. The existing land uses in each proposed district are described below. Figure 3.6-1 shows
the location of each of the existing land uses.
Downtown Core District and Hotel Overlay
The Downtown Core land use district would be located between Mercedes Street and the Murrieta Creek
Open Space corridor. The existing land uses in this area are characterized by multi-story buildings that
accommodate art galleries, museums, restaurants and small-scale boutique retailers such as gift, specialty
food, and antique shops, or similar retail uses. Residential, service and office uses are also present within
this district. The Hotel Overlay would be located south of Second Street between the I-15 freeway and the
Murrieta Creek Open Space corridor. This area contains hotels, such as the Roadway Inn, and conference
facilities. Figure 3.6-2 shows examples of existing structures in the Downtown Core and Hotel Overlay
districts that characterize the land uses in these areas (see Figure 3.6-1 for photographic survey key).
Civic District
Civic Districts are proposed in three locations. One is bounded by Moreno Road, Mercedes Street, Sixth
Street and the I-15 freeway. This area’s land uses are characterized by Sam Hicks Monument Park, a
chapel, a museum, a fire station and Mary Phillips Senior Center. Another Civic District is located south
of Fourth Street, north of Second Street and between Mercedes Street and the I-15 freeway. This area is
currently under construction and will include a small park and other public/quasi-public uses such as city
offices. A third Civic District area is located in the area east of the Murietta Creek Open Space corridor,
north of Main Street and south of Fourth Street. This area is characterized by quasi-public uses such as
museums and community assembly uses. Figure 3.6-3 shows examples of structures in the Civic District
areas that characterize the existing land uses (see Figure 3.6-1 for photographic survey key).
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Land Use and Planning
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-2 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Residential/Limited Mixed Uses
Two Residential/Limited Mixed Uses Districts are proposed within the OTSP boundary. One is located in
the northeast corner of the Specific Plan area and is characterized by motels, a gas station,
takeout/delivery restaurants, the U.S. Postal Service office, and other commercial/convenience
commercial and industrial land uses. The other Residential/Limited Mixed Uses District is located in the
area east of Mercedes Street, south of Sixth Street, and west of the I-15 freeway. This area consists
mainly of single-family homes and commercial uses. Figure 3.6-4 shows examples of structures located
within the Residential/Limited Mixed Uses Districts (see Figure 3.6-1 for photographic survey key).
Neighborhood Residential
The Neighborhood Residential District is proposed along the western side of the project area, west of the
Murrieta Creek Open Space corridor. Typical land uses in this area consist of residential land uses
including single family (detached homes), duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, condominiums, and
apartments. Figure 3.6-5 shows examples of existing structures that characterize the Neighborhood
Residential District (see Figure 3.6-1 for photographic survey key).
Open Space
The Open Space corridor, which traverses through the central portion of the project area, includes both
public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone
includes Murrieta Creek and associated riparian vegetation. Figure 3.6-5 shows portions of the proposed
Open Space corridor (see Figure 3.6-1 for photographic survey key).
M o re n o R d
S ixth S tFifth StFourth S tM ain S tO
l
d
T
o
w
n
F
r
o
n
t
S
t
P
u
j
o
l
s
S
t Third S tMore
n
o
R
d
Sixth
St
Fifth
St
Fourt
h
St
Mai
n
St
Ol
d
T
ow
n
F
r
o
n
t
S
t
Pu
j
o
l
s
S
t
Thir
d
St
Photo Location &
View Direction
Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294
Figure 3.6-1
Existing General Plan Land Use Districts
and Photographic Survey Key
SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2008; City of Temecula, 2009.
15
Second S tSecond
St
First S tFirst
St
0500
Feet
Land Use Description
Community Commercial
High Residential
Highway Tourist Commercial
Low Medium Residential
Medium Residential
Open Space
Public Facilities
Service Commercial
R a n c h o C a lifo rn ia R d
Ranc
h
o
C
ali
f
o
r
ni
a
R
d
RM-2
RM-3
RM-4
RM-6
RM-5
RM-7
RM-9
RM-8
DT-6
DT-5
C-2
C-1
C-4
C-3
C-5
RM-1
DT-7
DT-9
NR-5
DT-4DT-3
DT-2
OS-3
OS-2
OS-1
DT-1
NR-4
NR-3
NR-2
NR-1
NR-6
DT-8
NR-5
C-6
Figure 3.6-2Downtown Core andHotel Overlay Existing Land UsesSOURCE: ESA, 2009.DT-1. Mixed Use DT-2. Mixed Use DT-3. RetailDT-4. Mixed Use DT-5. Mixed Use DT-6. Hotel - Mixed UseDT-7. Retail DT-8. Hotel DT-9. Conference FacilityOld Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294
Figure 3.6-3Civic District Existing Land UsesSOURCE: ESA, 2009.Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294C-1. Sam Hicks Memorial Park C-2. Chapel C-3. Fire StationC-4. Museum C-5. Existing ConstructionC-6. Threater
Figure 3.6-4Residential / Limited Mixed UseExisting Land UseSOURCE: ESA, 2009.RM-1. Motel RM-2. Motel RM-3. RestaurantRM-4. Car Wash RM-5. Gas Station RM-6. UtilityRM-7. Massage Service RM-8. Office RM-9. Single Family DwellingOld Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294
Figure 3.6-5Neighborhood Residential andOpen Space Existing Land UseSOURCE: ESA, 2009.NR-1. Multi Family Dwelling NR-2. Single Family Dwelling NR-3. Single Family DwellingNR-4. Single Family Dwelling NR-5. Single Family Dwelling NR-6. Multi Family DwellingOS-1. Riparian Vegetation OS-2. Murrieta Creek OS-3. Creek BankOld Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Land Use and Planning
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-8 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
3.6.3. Regulatory Framework
Regional
Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the designated Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and
Imperial. As the designated MPO for the region, SCAG is mandated by the federal government to
research and create plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air.
• Maintenance of a continuous, comprehensive, and coordinated planning process resulting in a
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).
• Development of demographic projections plus the integrated land use, housing, employment,
transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP), as well as serving as co-lead agency for air quality planning for the
Central Coast and Southeast Desert air basin districts.
• Responsibility under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for determining whether projects, plans, and
programs conform to the CAA.
• To function as the authorized regional agency for intergovernmental review of programs proposed
for federal financial assistance and direct development activities.
• Review of environmental impact reports for projects having regional significance for consistency
with regional plans.
• To function as the authorized area-wide waste treatment management planning agency pursuant to
federal water pollution control statutes.
• Responsibility under state law for preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA).
SCAG, along with the San Diego Association of Governments and the Santa Barbara County/Cities Area
Planning Council, is also responsible for preparing the Southern California Hazardous Waste
Management Plan pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code.
Because the proposed project is a project with regional significance, per CEQA Guidelines Sections
15125(d) and 15206, SCAG is responsible for ensuring that the project is consistent with regional plans,
which, in this case, include the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG), the RTP, and the
Compass Blueprint Growth Vision. In addition, this Program EIR uses the most recently adopted SCAG
population, housing and job forecasts as the basis for applicable analyses throughout this Program EIR.
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
The 2008 Draft RCPG is an advisory plan that establishes a strategy for defining and solving the region’s
interrelated housing, traffic, water, air quality and other regional challenges. The RCPG ties together
SCAG’s role in transportation, land use, and air quality planning as well as recommending key roles and
responsibilities for public and private sector stakeholders and inviting them to help implement the policies
of the RCPG. The areas covered in the RCPG are land use and housing, solid and hazardous waste,
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Land Use and Planning
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-9 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
energy, air quality, open space and habitat, economy and education, water, transportation, security and
emergency preparedness, and finance. The Growth Management Chapter (GMC) contains policies that
are particularly applicable to the proposed project. These policies are outlined below.
GMC policies related to improving the regional standard of living:
SCAG has developed the following goals that are aimed toward developing urban forms that enable
individuals to spend less income on housing costs, that minimize public and private development costs,
that enable firms to be more competitive, and that strengthen the regional strategic goal to stimulate the
regional economy.
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.
3.02 In areas with large seasonal population fluctuations, such as resort areas, forecast permanent
populations. However, appropriate infrastructure systems should be sized to serve high-season
population totals.
3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utilities systems, and transportation
systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region’s growth policies.
3.04 Encourage local jurisdictions’ efforts to achieve a balance between the types of jobs they seek to
attract and housing prices.
3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use which reduce costs on infrastructure
construction and make better use of existing facilities.
3.06 Support public education efforts regarding the costs of various alternative types of growth and
development.
3.07 Support subregional policies that recognize agriculture as an industry, support the economic
vitality of agricultural activities, preserve agricultural land, and provide compensation for
property owners holding lands in greenbelt areas.
3.08 Encourage subregions to define an economic strategy to maintain the economic vitality of the
subregion, including the development and use of marketing programs, and other economic
incentives, which support attainment of subregional goals and policies.
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.
3.10 Support local jurisdictions’ actions to minimize red tape and expedite the permitting process to
maintain economic vitality and competitiveness.
GMC polices related to regional quality of life:
The following growth management goals aim to attain mobility and clean air goals and to develop urban
forms that enhance the quality of life, that accommodate a diversity of lifestyles, that preserve open space
and natural resources, that are aesthetically pleasing and preserve the character of communities, and that
enhance the regional strategic goal of maintaining the regional quality of life.
3.11 Support provisions and incentives created by local jurisdictions to attract housing growth in job
rich subregions and job growth in housing rich subregions.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Land Use and Planning
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-10 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
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.
3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions’ plans that maximize the use of existing urbanized area accessible
to transit through infill and redevelopment.
3.14 Support local plans to increase density of future development located at strategic points along the
regional commuter rail, transit systems, and activity centers.
3.15 Support local jurisdictions’ strategies to establish mixed-use clusters and other transit-oriented
developments around transit stations and along transit corridors.
3.16 Encourage development in and around activity centers, transportation corridors, underutilized
infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and redevelopment.
3.17 Support and encourage settlement patterns which contain a range of urban densities.
3.18 Encourage planned developments in locations least likely to cause adverse environmental
impacts.
3.19 National Forests shall remain permanently preserved and used as open space. SCAG shall support
policies and actions that preserve open space areas identified in local, state, and federal plans.
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.
3.21 Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and protection of recorded
and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites.
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 would reduce exposure to
seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and recovery
plans.
Open Space and Conservation Chapter goals:
9.1 Provide adequate land resources to meet the outdoor recreation needs of the present and future
residents in the region and to promote tourism in the region.
9.2 Increase the accessibility to open space lands for outdoor recreation.
9.3 Promote self-sustaining regional recreation resources and facilities.
9.4 Maintain open space for adequate protection to lives and properties against natural and manmade
hazards.
9.5 Minimize potentially hazardous developments in hillsides, canyons, areas susceptible to flooding,
earthquakes, wildfire and other known hazards, and areas with limited access for emergency
equipments.
9.6 Minimize public expenditure for infrastructure and facilities to support urban type uses in areas
where public health and safety could not be guaranteed.
9.7 Maintain adequate viable resource production lands, particularly lands devoted to commercial
agriculture and mining operations.
9.8 Develop well-managed viable ecosystems or known habitats of rare, threatened and endangered
species, including wetlands.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Land Use and Planning
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-11 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is a key tool for SCAG and its member governments
to plan for growth in the region. The RHNA, which was adopted in July 2007, quantifies the need for
housing within each jurisdiction between 2006 and 2014. Communities then plan, consider, and decide
how they will address this need through the process of completing the Housing Elements of their General
Plans. The RHNA does not necessarily encourage or promote growth, but it helps communities to
anticipate growth so that they can guide the growth in such a way as to enhance the quality of life,
improve access to jobs, transportation and housing, and not adversely impact the environment. The
RHNA consists of two measurements of housing need: (1) existing need and (2) future need.
The existing needs assessment is based on data from the most recent U.S. Census to measure ways in
which the housing market is not meeting the needs of the current residents. These variables include the
number of low-income households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing as well as
severe overcrowding.
The future need for housing is determined primarily by the forecasted growth in households in a
community (based on historical growth patterns), job creation, household formation rates, and other
factors to estimate how many households will be added to each community over the projection period.
The housing need for new households is then adjusted to account for an ideal vacancy rate needed to
promote housing choice, maintain price competition, and encourage acceptable levels of housing upkeep
and repair. The RHNA also accounts for units expected to be lost due to demolition, natural disaster, or
conversion to non-housing uses. The sum of these factors—household growth, vacancy need and
replacement need—form the “construction need” assigned to each community.
Destination 2030: 2004 Regional Transportation Plan
Destination 2030 is SCAG’s 2004 RTP for its member counties. The RTP focuses on improving the
balance between land use, and current and future transportation systems. SCAG develops, maintains, and
updates the RTP on a three-year cycle. This RTP links its goal of sustaining mobility with its goals for
fostering economic development; enhancing the environment; reducing energy consumption; promoting
transportation-friendly development patterns; and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents
affected by socioeconomic, geographic and commercial limitations. In summary, the RTP supports
transit- and pedestrian-oriented development. Among the relevant goals and policies of the RTP are the
following:
RTP G1 Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region.
RTP G2 Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region.
RTP G3 Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system.
RTP G4 Maximize the productivity of our transportation system.
RTP G5 Protect the environment, improve air quality, and promote energy efficiency.
RTP G6 Encourage land use and growth patterns that complement our transportation investments.
Compass Blueprint Growth Vision and 2% Strategy
SCAG has also implemented the Compass Blueprint Growth Vision and 2% Strategy. The overarching
goals are to increase mobility, enhance the livability, enable prosperity, and promote sustainability within
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Land Use and Planning
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-12 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
the region. The Compass Blueprint encourages cities and counties to work collaboratively with SCAG to
achieve sustainable development plans. It calls for modest changes to current land use and transportation
trends on only 2 percent of the land area of the region: the 2% Strategy Opportunity Areas, which were
identified through public participation and land use and transportation modeling and analysis. The 2%
Strategy Opportunity Areas are composed primarily of regional centers; city centers; airports, ports, and
industrial centers; priority residential in-fill areas; rail transit stops; and bus rapid transit corridors. The
Strategy Area is approximately two miles in diameter, centered at the Metrolink station. The following
principles from the Compass Blueprint Growth Vision and 2% Strategy pertain to the proposed project:
Principle 1: Improve mobility for all residents.
GV P1.1 Encourage transportation investments and land use decisions that are mutually supportive.
GV P1.2 Locate new housing near existing jobs and new jobs near existing housing.
GV P1.3 Encourage transit-oriented development.
GV P1.4 Promote a variety of travel choices.
Principle 2: Foster livability in all communities.
GV P2.1 Promote infill development and redevelopment to revitalize existing communities.
GV P2.2 Promote developments, which provide a mix of uses.
GV P2.3 Promote “people scaled,” walkable communities.
GV P2.4 Support the preservation of stable, single-family neighborhoods.
Principle 3: Enable prosperity for all people.
GV P3.1 Provide, in each community, a variety of housing types to meet the housing needs of all
income levels.
GV P3.2 Support educational opportunities that promote balanced growth.
GV P3.3 Ensure environmental justice regardless of race, ethnicity, or income class.
GV P3.4 Support local and state fiscal policies that encourage balanced growth.
GV P3.5 Encourage civic engagement.
Principle 4: Promote sustainability for future generations.
GV P4.1 Preserve rural, agricultural, recreational, and environmentally sensitive areas.
GV P4.2 Focus development in urban centers and existing cities.
GV P4.3 Develop strategies to accommodate growth that use resources efficiently, eliminate pollution,
and significantly reduce waste.
GV P4.4 Utilize “green” development techniques.
City of Temecula Regulations
General Plan
Temecula’s General Plan was initially adopted in 1993 and was updated in 2005. Considered a blueprint
for development in the City, the General Plan provides long-term policy guidance for the community’s
physical, economic, social and environmental changes. The General Plan includes a Land Use Element
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Land Use and Planning
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-13 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
that provides land use policies and a land use map to guide future development within the City. It also
designates permitted land uses for all parcels within the Temecula Planning Area, which includes the
project site. Table 3.6-1 lists all General Plan land use designations that are currently present within the
project boundary and summarizes the permitted land uses associated with each designation. Table 3.6-4
lists all General Plan goals and policies that are applicable to the proposed project (see Section 3.6.4).
TABLE 3.6-1
EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE PROJECT BOUNDARY
Land Use Designation Summary of Permitted Uses
CC-Community Commercial The Community Commercial designation includes retail,
professional office, and service-oriented business activities
serving the entire community. Community commercial areas
typically include larger retail uses such as supermarkets,
department stores, theaters, restaurants, professional and
medical offices, and specialty retail stores. Community
Commercial uses usually occupy 10 to 50 acres of land, and
include in excess of 100,000 square feet of floor area.
SC-Service Commercial The Service Commercial designation provides for commercial
uses typically requiring extensive floor area. Typical uses include
home improvement stores, discount retail stores, furniture stores,
auto dealerships and light automotive service. Warehousing and
manufacturing may be incidental uses within a business that is
otherwise consistent with the Service Commercial designation.
HT-Highway Tourist Commercial The Highway/Tourist Commercial designation provides for uses
located adjacent to major transportation routes oriented to the
needs of tourists. Highway/Tourist Commercial development
should be appropriately located and developed as clusters of
commercial development rather than as shallow commercial
frontage along major streets. Typical uses may include tourist
accommodations and lodging facilities, automobile service
stations, restaurants, convenience stores, gift shops, and
entertainment centers. Facilities should be well landscaped,
providing an attractive visual image.
PI-Public Institutional Facilities The public and institutional facilities designation provides for a
wide range of public and private uses including schools,
transportation facilities, government offices, public utilities,
libraries, museums, public art galleries, hospitals, and cultural
facilities. To the extent possible, public and institutional facilities
should be clustered in activity centers to reinforce other uses and
benefit from access to alternative modes of transportation.
Additional public and institutional uses, including churches and
day care facilities, may be developed in other residential or non-
residential land use designations under procedures established in
the City Development Code.
LM-Residential Low Medium (3-6 dwellings per acre) The Low-Medium Density designation provides for typical single-
family neighborhoods. The range of housing types includes
single-family detached, single-family zero lot line, patio homes
and duplexes. Congregate care facilities could be approved as a
conditional use in accordance with provisions of the City
Development Code.
M-Residential Medium (7-12 dwellings per acre) The Medium Density Residential designation provides for
development of attached and detached residential units. Typical
housing types may include single-family zero lot line, patio
homes, duplexes, townhouses, and multi-family apartments.
Congregate care facilities could be approved as a conditional use
in accordance with provisions of the City Development Code.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Land Use and Planning
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-14 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.6-1
EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE PROJECT BOUNDARY
Land Use Designation Summary of Permitted Uses
H-Residential High (13-20 dwellings per acre) The High Density designation provides for the development of
attached residential developments. Typical housing types include
multi-family apartments. Congregate care facilities could be
approved as a conditional use in accordance with the provisions
of the City Development Code. Increases in the density for
congregate care may be allowed under special provisions of the
Development Code.
OS-Open Space The Open Space/Recreation designation accommodates both
public and private areas of permanent open space for such uses
as parks, golf courses, recreation facilities, natural open spaces,
recreation trails, greenbelts, lakes, utility easements, active fault
zones, and undevelopable portions of floodplains along
waterways. This designation is intended to include:
• lands acquired by easement, fee and other methods
sanctioned by state and federal law for parkland,
• preservation of biological and cultural resources, and
• protecting the public from flood, seismic and other hazards.
Only accessory buildings or structures related to parks and
recreation facilities are intended within the Open Space
designation. These areas may also accommodate certain
commercial outdoor recreation uses as a conditional use in
accordance with the City Development Code.
SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan, 2005
Building Scale, Design and Height
City-wide community design concepts relating to building scale, design and height are disclosed in the
City’s General Plan Community Design Element. According to the Community Design Element, multi-
story structures beyond two stories may be appropriate. By increasing the scale and height of buildings,
the ground floor area is then made available for open space, plazas and increased pedestrian uses. These
increases would allow for more innovation in architectural and landscape design. Furthermore, increasing
the height of buildings in the mixed-use overlay areas will allow for potential increases in both
commercial and residential development. The allowable height increases in the mixed-use areas should be
designed to not adversely impact surrounding low-density residential areas. If mixed use abuts a single-
family area, new development should be stepped back and reduced in height to remain sensitive to the
scale of the adjacent residential neighborhood. All Community Design Element Goals and Policies that
are applicable to the proposed project are listed in Table 3.6-4 (see Section 3.6.4).
Zoning Code
The City of Temecula Zoning Code (Title 17 of the Municipal Code) implements the Land Use Element
of the General Plan and provides specific development and land use standards for the City. Section
17.01.030 of the Zoning Code states that the purpose of the Zoning Code is:
A. To implement the goals, and policies and programs of the Temecula general plan, and to manage
future growth and change in accordance with that plan;
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Land Use and Planning
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-15 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
B. To promote health, safety, welfare and general prosperity with the aim of preserving a wholesome,
serviceable and attractive community in accordance with the general plan for the city;
C. To attain the physical, social and economic advantages resulting from comprehensive and orderly
land use and resource planning;
D. To encourage, classify, designate, regulate, restrict and segregate the most compatible and beneficial
location and use of buildings, structures and land;
E. To limit the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures hereafter designed,
erected or altered;
F. To regulate and determine the setbacks and other open spaces;
G. To regulate and limit the density of population;
H. To facilitate adequate provisions for community facilities, such as transportation, water, sewage, and
parks.
Currently, the project site is zoned Specific Plan 5 (SP-5) with the exception of three parcels located south
of First Street, which are proposed to be annexed into the OTSP area. These parcels are zoned Service
Commercial (SC). The land uses permitted in the zoning districts located within the project site are
described in Table 3.6-2.
TABLE 3.6-2
EXISTING ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE PROJECT BOUNDARY
Zoning District Summary Description
SP-5-Specific Plan 5 The Specific Plan 5 District denotes the OTSP area. The
existing OTSP is comprised of eight land use districts.
Each district establishes permitted land uses and
development standards, which are intended to implement
the goals, policies and objectives of the Specific Plan, as
contained in Section II, and the City's General Plan. These
land use regulations and development standards constitute
the primary zoning provisions for the OTSP area.
SC-Service Commercial The service commercial designation is intended to provide
for intensive commercial uses and selected light
manufacturing uses that typically require extensive floor
area. Typical uses include home improvement stores,
discount retail stores, furniture stores, auto dealerships and
auto service and repair. Warehousing and light
manufacturing may be permitted as supporting uses for a
business that is consistent with the service commercial
designation.
SOURCE: City of Temecula Zoning Code, 2008
Existing Old Town Specific Plan
The existing OTSP is a regulatory plan which serves as zoning law for properties within the plan
boundaries. All proposed development plans or agreements, tract or parcel maps, and any other
development approvals must be consistent with the Specific Plan and with the General Plan. The Specific
Plan may be amended to further the systematic implementation of the General Plan. The existing Specific
Plan includes a Land Use Plan that covers the permitted land uses, general provisions, site development
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Land Use and Planning
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-16 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
standards, and sign controls. The Land Use Plan geographically divides the planning area into land use
districts. The existing land use districts are described in Table 3.6-3.
TABLE 3.6-3
EXISTING OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DISTRICTS
Land Use District Description
HT-Highway Tourist Commercial The Highway Tourist Commercial designation is intended
to provide for those uses that are located adjacent to major
transportation routes and may be oriented to the needs of
tourists and recreation enthusiasts. Highway Tourist
Commercial development should be located at appropriate
locations, and developed as clusters of commercial
development rather than as shallow commercial frontage
along major streets. Typical uses may include tourist
accommodations and lodging facilities, automobile service
stations, restaurants, convenience stores, and gift shops.
The facilities should be well landscaped and provide an
attractive visual image.
OTC-Old Town Civic The Old Town Civic designation is intended to provide for
public and quasi-public uses such as parks, city offices,
police/fire stations, public day care centers, senior citizen
centers, community centers, museums, and similar
facilities.
TRC-Tourist Retail Core The Tourist Retail Core designation is intended to provide
for those uses that support and compliment the pedestrian-
oriented core. The designation typically includes small
scale, boutique-type retail businesses. Service and office
uses are generally allowed on either the second floor or on
non-Old Town Front and non-Main Street parcels.
Residential uses are allowed as ancillary uses when
located above the ground floor or in the rear of the lot.
Tourist retail uses are generally small businesses
occupying no more than 5,000 square feet. Typical uses
may include gift shops, restaurants, small hotels, bed and
breakfasts, mixed use, antique shops, small
hardware/decorator stores, museums, art galleries, flower
shops, jewelry shops, clothing shops, custom furniture
items, and similar retail uses.
CC-Community Commercial The Community Commercial designation includes retail,
professional office, and service-oriented businesses that
serve the entire community. Community commercial areas
typically include neighborhood commercial uses, as well
as, larger retail uses including department stores, theaters,
restaurants, professional and medical offices, and specialty
retail stores.
TSR-Tourist Serving Residential The Tourist Serving Residential designation is intended to
provide for the wide range of tourist serving overnight
accommodations which include senior housing, bed &
breakfasts, hotels, motels, motor courts, rental cottages,
and hostels. Eating places would be allowed as accessory
uses. Camping and R.V. parks would not be allowed.
MDR- Medium Density Residential The Medium Density Residential designation (7 to 12
dwelling units per acre) is intended to provide for the
development of attached and detached residential
development. Typical housing types may include single-
family detached, single-family zero lot line, patio homes,
duplexes, townhouses, condominiums, garden apartments
and conventional apartments.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Land Use and Planning
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-17 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.6-3
EXISTING OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DISTRICTS
Land Use District Description
HDR-High Density Residential The High Density Residential designation (13 to 20
dwelling units per acre) is intended to provide for the
development of attached residential developments. Typical
housing types may include townhouses, condominiums,
garden apartments, and conventional apartments.
OS-Open Space The Open Space designation includes both public and
private areas of permanent open space along the
floodways of Murrieta Creek. This designation is intended
to include lands acquired by exaction, easement, fee, and
other methods sanctioned by State and Federal law for
parkland, for preservation of biological and cultural
resources, and for protecting public safety from flood
hazards.
SOURCE: Temecula Old Town Specific Plan, 2006.
3.6.4. Impacts and Mitigation
Significance Criteria
The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the
state CEQA Guidelines. However, Appendix G of the state CEQA Guidelines indicates that impacts
related to land use and planning issues may be considered potentially significant if the proposed project
would:
• Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan, Specific Plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Impact Analysis
Impact 3.6-1: Project implementation would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the
General Plan, Specific Plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
SCAG Analysis
SCAG policies focus largely on achieving job and housing balance within individual communities
throughout the region, encouraging development patterns and densities that reduce infrastructure costs
and reliance on automobiles and promote public transit use, minimizing environmental impacts through
the use of “green” building techniques and landscaping practices, providing affordable housing, and
minimizing new development in open space areas and areas with limited emergency access.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment strives to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development
through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town.
The proposed project would implement many of the SCAG policies related to high-density, infill
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.6 Land Use and Planning
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-18 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
development that is pedestrian oriented. The project would also introduce high-density commercial uses
that would create new jobs and regional shopping and entertainment destinations. In addition, the project
would introduce high-density residential uses, thus creating a mixed-use environment in which residents
would benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities, which would reduce the
community’s reliance on automobiles. Thus, the project would be consistent with SCAG goals to reduce
the prominence of the suburban development pattern that exists throughout the SCAG region. The project
would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to consistency with SCAG goals and policies.
General Plan Analysis
The City will create a new General Plan land use category called Specific Plan Implementation (SPI). As
such, a General Plan amendment is proposed. In doing so, the City’s intent is to create a land use category
that identifies the area as having a Specific Plan and the Specific Plan’s land use map and land use
narrative will describe the intended land uses and special provisions that govern the Specific Plan. This
will allow for more flexibility in the City’s Specific Plan land use categories without resulting in
inconsistencies with the General Plan. In essence, all existing General Plan land use designations within
the proposed Specific Plan boundary will be replaced with one land use category [i.e., Specific Plan
Implementation (SPI)] that will refer to the Specific Plan for the land use map and descriptions.
The following discussion analyzes each proposed land use district against the existing land uses
designated in the General Plan. The consistency of the proposed project with the policies of the Temecula
General Plan is described in Table 3.6-4. The proposed project would be consistent with all relevant
policies of the City’s existing General Plan, including those identified in the Community Design Element.
With the creation of the new General Plan land use category ‘SPI’, the proposed project land use districts
would also be internally consistent with the General Plan. Policies deemed not relevant to the project,
based on proposed land uses, are not included in Table 3.6-4.
Proposed Land Use District General Plan Compatibility Analysis
Downtown Core and Hotel Overlay: The areas that lie within the proposed Downtown Core and Hotel
Overlay are currently designated as either CC, PI or SC in the General. The proposed Downtown Core is
defined by multi-story urban buildings of up to four stories that are intended to accommodate art galleries,
museums, restaurants and small-scale boutique retailers such as gift, specialty food, and antique shops, or
similar retail uses. Service and office uses would be permitted within the district, but would be restricted
to the second floor and higher for parcels along Old Town Front Street and Main Street. Residential uses
would be permitted in the Downtown Core but would be restricted to the second floor and higher for
parcels along Old Town Front Street and Main Street. All four-story buildings in the Downtown Core
District would be required to contain at least one floor restricted to residential use. The Hotel Overlay
permits hotels with conference facilities to be constructed at a greater building height (up to eight stories)
than other buildings in the underlying district. This will provide adequate visitor accommodations for Old
Town and the surrounding area.
Table 3.6-1 summarizes the permitted uses within the CC, PI and SC General Plan land use designations.
As shown, the uses permitted in the proposed Downtown Core and Hotel Overlay Districts are
comparable to and would not conflict with the uses permitted in the existing CC, PI and SC General Plan
land use designations.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-19 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Land Use Element Goal 1: A diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses. Policy 1.1 Review all proposed development plans for consistency with community goals, policies and implementation programs of this General Plan, and consider potential impacts on surrounding land uses and infrastructure. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would implement form-based code principles in order to establish a set of detailed design guidelines by which future development within the Specific Plan area must comply. The original OTSP, certified in 1992 by the City Council, was found to adhere to all applicable goals of the City of Temecula General Plan. As a Specific Plan Amendment, the proposed project is designed to clarify the goals and policies of the original OTSP. The land use designations from the City of Temecula General Plan would continue to govern the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy as all existing General Plan land use designations within the proposed Specific Plan boundary will be replaced with one land use category SPI that will refer to the Specific Plan for the land use map and descriptions resulting in consistency between the Specific Plan and General Plan. 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. The Specific Plan Amendment would address planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines. The Specific Plan Amendment is anticipated to result in the addition of approximately 749 residential units within the Specific Plan area and would include the development of new residential product styles and designs. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 1.3 Require development of unified or clustered community-level and neighborhood-level commercial centers and discourage development of strip commercial uses. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would establish a historical core that also contains mixed-use development and a pedestrian-friendly environment. Development within the new land use districts established by the Specific Plan Amendment would employ the use of clustered community-level and neighborhood level commercial centers, and would be discouraged from the development of strip commercial uses in order to attain the goal of creating a pedestrian-friendly and mixed-use downtown. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 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 infrastructure. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would utilize form-based code principles in order to create clearly defined development regulations for future development within Old Town. The proposed project is designed to establish the design guidelines intended for the Specific Plan area and would compliment the goals and policies established in the original Specific Plan. The new land use districts would govern all future development within the Specific Plan area, in accordance with the original Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-20 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Policy 1.6 Encourage flexible zoning techniques in appropriate locations to encourage mixed-use development, preserve natural features, achieve innovative site design, achieve a range of transition of densities, provide open space and recreation facilities, and/or provide necessary amenities and facilities. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would utilize form-based code principles in order to clearly define development standards within the project area. The proposed project would not require a General Plan Amendment. The proposed project would encourage mixed-use development, encourage the preservation of open space areas, and would achieve a range of transition of densities in both residential and commercial development. The Specific Plan Amendment would also outline the appropriate design guidelines in order to ensure structural consistency and innovative site design for developments within each of the six new land use districts. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 1.7 Pursue opportunities to locate higher density housing with supporting commercial and public uses west of I-15. The Specific Plan area is located directly west of I-15 and provides for both Neighborhood Residential and Residential/Limited Mixed-Uses Districts. The proposed project would provide for both attached and detached three-story residential development, some at a density of up to 35 dwelling units per acre, and could include such typical housing types as single-family detached, duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and live/work units. Therefore, the proposed project would encourage the development of higher density housing with supporting commercial and public uses west of the I-15, and would not conflict with this policy. Policy 1.9 Establish paseos, greenbelts, linear parks and trails within buffer areas between developments and at the City’s edge. The Specific Plan Amendment would orient building activity to the street, create a clear street edge, and preserve existing and reclaim vacated alleys for pedestrian activity where possible. The proposed project would also establish the Murrieta Creek Walk through the dedication of the Open Space corridor, which would include both public and private areas of permanent open space along Murrieta Creek and throughout the central portion of the project area. The Downtown Core District would also provide for land uses that will support pedestrian-oriented and mixed-use development. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 1.10 Distribute high-density housing throughout the community around transit nodes. As mentioned in the discussion of Policy 1.7 above, the Specific Plan area is located directly west of I-15, a major transit corridor. Through the establishment of Neighborhood Residential and Residential/Limited Mixed-Uses Districts, the proposed project would provide for attached and detached three-story residential development, some at a density of up to 35 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is intended to encourage the development of higher density and mixed-use housing throughout the community. The project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 2: Successful, high-quality mixed-use development projects containing a mix of residential, commercial/office, and civic land uses, supported by alternative modes of transportation. Policy 2.1 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. The Specific Plan Amendment would encourage mixed-use development within the Old Town area. The Residential/Limited Mixed-Uses District are intended to provide for attached residential and mixed-use development that would accommodate a variety of housing types and resident-serving ground floor retail, restaurants, and office spaces. The Specific Plan Amendment would promote the use of mixed-use development within the Specific Plan area and would address resulting impacts to roadway capacity and circulation. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-21 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy 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. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would establish six new land use districts within the Specific Plan area. The Residential/Limited Mixed-Used District would accommodate a variety of housing types and resident-serving ground floor retail, restaurants, and office spaces. The mixed-use areas could also contain corner markets, takeout/delivery restaurants, dry cleaners, beauty shops, florist, and similar uses. The Specific Plan Amendment would analyze the capacity of all necessary supporting public and community facilities in order to ensure there is adequate capacity to serve the planning area. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 2.3 Require preparation of a detailed plan and a traffic study for all proposed mixed-use projects within Mixed Use Overlay Areas. The potential incremental traffic impacts of the proposed project are evaluated in Section 3.9, Transportation and Traffic, of this Program EIR. 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. The purpose of the original OTSP was to provide a comprehensive plan for land use, development regulations, design guidelines, vehicular circulation, parking, development incentives and other related actions located within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan Amendment is intended to establish form-based code principles in order to clarify and establish design guidelines for development within the Specific Plan. The proposed project would encourage the development of mixed-use areas and village centers and would ultimately be serviced by a network of pedestrian-friendly paseos, open space trails including the Murrieta Creek Walk, and by several modes of public transportation including RTA buses. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 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. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would implement form-based code principles in order to establish a set of detailed design guidelines by which future development within the Specific Plan area must comply. These guidelines would aim to: preserve the historic buildings and architecture currently established in the project area; enhance the pedestrian-friendly nature of the streets; regulate building heights, especially is proximity to historic buildings and residential structures; and create new architecture that respects the area’s existing historic architecture and contributes to a well-defined, lively and pedestrian-oriented streetscape. The proposed project would require all new development in the Specific Plan area to conform to the design guidelines and permitted land uses for the area, as established in the Specific Plan Amendment. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 2.6 Ensure adequate public gathering areas or plazas are incorporated within mixed-use projects to allow for social interaction and community activities. The Civic District areas proposed by the Specific Plan Amendment are intended to provide for public and quasi-public uses such as city offices, senior citizen centers, community centers and other community assembly uses, museums, and similar facilities. In addition, the placement of public art within the project area will be encouraged on both private and public property as public art gives a community an identity that can be representative of the City’s culture and heritage in addition to promoting social gathering places and interaction. Wall murals, lighting displays, sculptures, mosaics, monuments and fountains will all be considered significant examples of artistic expression. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-22 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy 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. The proposed project would establish an Open Space corridor around the Murrieta Creek, which would traverse the length of the Specific Plan area. This open space area would buffer the primarily non-residential Civic and Downtown Core Districts located to the east of the buffer from the Neighborhood Residential District located to the west of the buffer. The proposed project would include a wide variety of housing types and densities, which would be developed in a manner that would increase land use compatibility and preserve the aesthetic quality of the site. The Specific Plan does not contain any industrial or agricultural areas. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 3.3 Limit the number and size of additional structures on large lots to preserve the character of low-density areas. The proposed project is the redevelopment of the OTSP area with the intent of fitting with current economics, implementing significant new investment in the area to help promote rapid growth, developing a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use development, and accommodating greater density within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan Amendment would be consistent with the City’s intent to create a high-density mixed-use downtown area that incorporates areas of open space and a network of pedestrian-friendly trails and streets. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 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. The Specific Plan Amendment is intended to preserve and protect the historic buildings and unique architecture of the OTSP area through the delineation of a historic core centered on the intersection of Front and Main Streets. New projects in this area would be required to pay special attention to the height and massing of the historic buildings so as to maintain compatibility with the historic character of the area’s architecture. The Specific Plan Amendment would also include detailed performance standards that respect the relationship with adjacent historic structures. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 5: A land use pattern that protects and enhances residential neighborhoods. Policy 5.1 Consider the compatibility of proposed project 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. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would implement form-based code principles in order to establish a set of detailed design guidelines by which future development within the Specific Plan area must comply. The proposed project would include guidelines related to building configuration, building height, building materials, landscaping, vegetation preservation, and historic building preservation. In addition, the proposed project would also establish regulations and policies related to noise and traffic impacts. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 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. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would implement form-based code principles in order to establish a set of detailed design guidelines by which future development within the Specific Plan area must comply. The proposed project’s design guidelines would assist in the implementation of required buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses, in compliance with established City policy. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-23 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy 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. A Traffic Impact Analysis was completed for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. As discussed in Section 3.9, Transportation and Traffic, of this Program EIR, the proposed project is required to mitigate all identified adverse impacts to the greatest extent feasible. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 6: A development pattern that preserves aesthetics and enhances the environmental resources of the Planning Area. Policy 6.1 Preserve the natural aesthetic quality of hillsides and reduce hazards associated with hillside development within the Planning Area. The Specific Plan area is relatively flat and does not contain any area of hillsides or significant relief. The proposed project would assist in the preservation and enhancement of the aesthetic quality of the project area through the establishment of an Open Space corridor, which would traverse the length of the Specific Plan area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 6.2 Whenever possible, use alternative flood control techniques to reduce capital and maintenance costs and provide recreational and open space opportunities. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to establish the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 6.3 Conserve the natural resources of area watercourses, including Santa Gertrudis, Temecula and Murrieta Creeks, through appropriate development densities, managing stormwater runoff, and conservation site planning. As stated above, the proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to establish the Murrieta Creek Walk. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 6.4 Protect and enhance significant ecological and biological resources within and surrounding Temecula. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to establish the Murrieta Creek Walk. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 7: 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. Policy 7.1 Encourage revitalization of Old Town through implementation of the OTSP. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would implement form-based code principles in order to establish a set of detailed design guidelines by which future development within the Specific Plan area must comply. The proposed project serves to enhance the existing OTSP in an attempt to revitalize the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-24 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Policy 7.2 Require preservation and reuse of historic buildings in and around the Old Town area. One of the goals of the proposed project is to protect and preserve existing historic buildings within the Specific Plan area through the establishment of a historic core centered on the intersection of Front and Main Streets. New projects in this area would be required to pay special attention to the height and massing of the historic buildings. Future buildings would also be required to respect historic architectural styles and contribute to a well-defined, lively and pedestrian-oriented streetscape through regulation on building form, architectural style, street frontage design, and materials. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 7.3 Consider locating additional civic, public and cultural facilities in and around the Old Town area. The proposed project’s Civic District areas are intended to provide for public and quasi-public uses such as parks, city offices, police/fire stations, senior citizen centers, community centers and other community assembly uses, museums, and similar facilities. Furthermore, the placement of public art within the project area will be encouraged on both private and public property and could include wall murals, lighting displays, sculptures, mosaics, monuments and fountains. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 7.4 Provide infill residential development incentives throughout Old Town. The Specific Plan Amendment is anticipated to result in a reduction in commercial building floor space of approximately 1,405,285 square feet and the addition of approximately 749 residential units within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would provide infill residential development incentives throughout the Old Town’s Residential/Limited Mixed-Uses and Downtown Core, and Neighborhood Residential Districts. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 8: 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. The Specific Plan Amendment would address planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan, in order to establish a more unified and efficient use of land within the Specific Plan area as compared to existing conditions. By enhancing the Specific Plan area, the proposed project would also assist in enhancing the viability of region as a whole. The proposed project would have no adverse impacts to any neighboring communities or jurisdictions. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 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. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to establish the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 8.3 Ensure development projects within the French Valley Airport area of influence comply with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Airport, and refer all land use actions identified within the ALUCP to the Airport Land Use Commission for mandatory review. The Specific Plan area is not located within the French Valley Airport area of influence. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-25 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Policy 8.4 Ensure that development proposals within the French Valley Airport area of influence fully comply with the permit procedures specific in Federal and State law, with the referral requirements of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), and with the conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration and ALUC. This requirement is in addition to all other City development review requirements. The Specific Plan area is not located within the French Valley Airport area of influence. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 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. The proposed project would establish an Open Space District that would include a network of trails, including the Murrieta Creek Walk. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, and to protect the public from flood hazards. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Please also refer to response to Impact 3.8-1. 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. Refer to the discussion of Policy 1.1 above. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 1.3 Encourage the enhancement and preservation of historic structures and landscape, and significant natural features, such as riparian areas, rock outcroppings, sensitive habitat areas, and viewpoints through park design and site development. One goal of the proposed project is to protect and preserve existing designated historic buildings within the Specific Plan area through the establishment of a historic core. New projects in this area would be required to pay special attention to the height and massing of the historic buildings, as well as to site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines. The proposed project would also expand an Open Space corridor, located through the center of the Specific Plan area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 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. The Specific Plan Amendment would utilize form-based code principles in order to more clearly define development regulations, site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan. The proposed project would result in more compatible land uses within the Specific Plan area as compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 1.6 Encourage the establishment of natural habitat spaces for recreational hiking and nature education. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to develop the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-26 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Goal 2 Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water resources. Policy 2.1 Coordinate with the Riverside County Flood Control District to design flood control improvements that preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, important natural features and resources of the local creeks and riparian forest of the Santa Margarita River. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to develop the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 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. The proposed project will protect groundwater resources from depletion through the creation of the Open Space corridor and the preservation of Murrieta Creek. Development within the remainder of the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with established regulatory requirements to prevent pollution of groundwater resources. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 2.3 Conserve potable water by requiring water conservation techniques in all new development. The Specific Plan Amendment would ensure that all new development in the Specific Plan would be required to adhere to all applicable water conservation techniques imposed by the City, including Title 24 standards. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 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. The Specific Plan Amendment would require that development within the project area comply with standard City regulations regarding soil-related problems. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 2.6 Regulate and manage lands adjacent to or affecting watercourses as stipulated by the RWCD. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to develop the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 2.7 Ensure that approved projects have filed a Notice of Intent and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with the Federal CWA, prior to issuance of grading permits. The Specific Plan Amendment would require that development within the project area comply with standard regulations related to the Federal CWA. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 2.8 Ensure adequate inspection and enforcement of the requirements of general construction permits, particularly related to erosion control during grading and construction. Development within the project area will comply with standard City regulations including inspections and enforcement of the requirements of general construction permits. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 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. The Specific Plan Amendment will comply with this policy by providing the City with direct decision-making capability regarding development of the Specific Plan area, including the annexation area, and thus a more direct role in regional planning for the Santa Margarita River Watershed. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-27 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy 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. Development within the Specific Plan area will be required, through compliance with the City’s standard development review procedures, to identify significant biological resources that will be affected by each development and provide mitigation. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not interfere with regulations related to biological resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 3.2 Work with State, regional and non-profit agencies and organizations to preserve and enhance significant biological resources. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to develop the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 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. The primary goal for the Specific Plan Amendment is to incorporate form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan. Permitted landscape vegetation would be established in the Specific Plan Amendment, and would include native drought resistant vegetation typical of the surrounding area. New development associated with the proposed project would also be required to adhere to all applicable water conservation techniques imposed by the City, including Title 24 standards. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 3.5 Maintain an inventory of existing natural resources in the City. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. This district will be added to the City’s inventory of existing natural resources, in accordance with this policy. Policy 3.6 Limit recreational use of designated open space areas where there are sensitive biological resources as needed protect these resources. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to develop the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 3.7 Maintain and enhance the resources of Temecula Creek, Pechanga Creek, Murrieta Creek, Santa Gertrudis Creek, Santa Margarita River, and other waterways to ensure the long-term viability of the habitat, wildlife, and wildlife movement corridors. See the discussion under Policy 3.6 above. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 5 Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features. Policy 5.1 Conserve the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and other important landforms and historic landscape features through the development review process. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The density of development within the remaining Specific Plan area would allow for the siting of houses and other structures in a manner that will facilitate the conservation of sensitive areas located in the surrounding vicinity. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-28 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy 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. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor, which traverses through the central portion of the project area, will facilitate the city’s preservation of identified viewsheds. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 5.3 Encourage the use of clustered development and other site planning techniques to maximize the preservation of permanent open spaces. One of the goals of the proposed project is to create a pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use environment within the OTSP area. Implementation of form-base code principles through the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would encourage the use of clustered development and other site planning techniques that would maximize density and thus the preservation of open space. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 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. The Specific Plan Amendment would utilize form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan. The enhanced design guidelines associated with the Specific Plan Amendment would help to retain and improve the quality of landscaping in parkways, public slopes, rights-of-way, parks, civic facilities, and other public open. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 5.7 Require adequate open space in new development for both passive and active recreation. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to develop the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 5.8 Require re-vegetation of graded slopes concurrent with project development to minimize erosion and maintain the scenic character of the community. Through the introduction of form-based code principles, the proposed project would create clearly define development regulations, site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan. These guidelines would require re-vegetation of graded slopes in order to minimize erosion and maintain the scenic character of the community. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 5.11 Encourage the use of native vegetation where re-vegetation and landscaping is to occur The Specific Plan Amendment would establish form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan. Permitted landscape vegetation would be established in the Specific Plan Amendment, and would include native drought resistant vegetation typical of the surrounding area. New development associated with the proposed project would also be required to adhere to all applicable water conservation techniques imposed by the City, including Title 24 standards. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 5.12 Identify and develop natural habitat areas for low impact hiking and nature education. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone would include the Murrieta Creek Walk, which would include areas for low impact hiking and nature education. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-29 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Policy 5.13 Utilize natural, undeveloped greenbelts as buffers between developments and on outskirts of the City to preserve the rural and unique character of Temecula. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone provides a buffer between the Neighborhood Residential land use district and the Civic/Downtown Core land use districts, and will help to preserve the rural and unique character of Temecula. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 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. The EIC was contacted for an inventory of known archaeological and historic sites within the project area. The results of the records search are summarized in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, of this Program EIR. In accordance with this policy, the results of the records search will be added to the city’s inventory of areas with archaeological/paleontological sensitivity and historic sites. 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. Refer to the above analysis for Policy 6.1. Compliance with the statutory requirements, as summarized in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, of this Program EIR will assure compliance with this policy. Policy 6.3 Preserve and reuse historical buildings in accordance with the OTSP. The Specific Plan Amendment would help to protect and preserve existing designated historic buildings within the OTSP area through the establishment of a historic core centered on the intersection of Front and Main Streets. New projects in this area would be required to pay special attention to the height and massing of the historic buildings. Future buildings would also be required to respect historic architectural styles and contribute to a well-defined, lively and pedestrian-oriented streetscape through regulation on building form, architectural style, street frontage design, and materials. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 6.5 Pursue the acquisition and preservation of historical buildings for public facilities in accordance with the OTSP when appropriate. Refer to the above analysis for Policy 6.3. The proposed project consists of a Specific Plan Amendment with the goal of acquiring historic buildings and preserving the historic nature of Old Town. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 6.6 Ensure compatibility between land uses and building designs in the OTSP Area and areas adjacent to Old Town. The Specific Plan Amendment would utilize form-based code principles in order to create clearly define development regulations, site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan area. These guidelines would help to ensure compatibility between land uses and building designs within the OTSP area and areas adjacent to Old Town. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-30 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Policy 6.9 Encourage the preservation and re-use of historic structures, landscape features, roads, landmark trees, and trails. One goal of the proposed project is to protect and preserve existing designated historic buildings within the Specific Plan area through the establishment of a historic core. New projects in this area would be required to pay special attention to the height and massing of the historic buildings, as well as to site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines. The proposed project would also establish an Open Space corridor located in the center of the Specific Plan area, which would ultimately accommodate the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 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. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone would add to the citywide recreation system in accordance with this policy. Goal 9 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. The Specific Plan Amendment recognizes the procedures for dark skies and will apply the necessary restrictions on development within the project area to assure that this policy is met. Policy 9.2 Participate in Palomar Observatory's dark sky conservation requirements. See the above analysis for Policy 9.1. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Growth Management/Public Facilities Element Goal 1 Cooperative management of growth among local governments within Riverside County. Policy 1.3 Achieve economic growth and prosperity while preserving natural beauty and the social quality of life in southwestern Riverside County. The Specific Plan Amendment would implement significant new investment in the Old Town area to help promote rapid growth in Temecula Valley and develop a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use development. The project intends to enhance the quality of life of Temecula residents by balancing economic development objectives with protection of the environment, health, and safety of the community. Through the incorporation of form-based code principles, the proposed project would assist the City in preserving the natural beauty of the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 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 The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to develop the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-31 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy 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. Development within the project area will comply with standard City regulations regarding acceptable exterior and interior noise levels. The incorporation of form-based code principles into the Specific Plan Amendment would ensure future development within the Specific Plan area is compatible with surrounding land uses and discourages noise sensitive land uses in noisy exterior environments. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 2 Minimize transfer of noise impacts between adjacent land uses. 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. The Specific Plan Amendment would utilize form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan. These regulations would require that mixed-use structures be designed to prevent transfer of noise and vibration from commercial areas to residential areas, in compliance with the City’s noise policies. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 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. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would enforce and maintain all City-imposed noise limit standards. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 3.4 Evaluate potential noise conflicts for individual sites ad projects, and require mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of project approval. Development within the project area will comply with standard City regulations regarding noise. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Air Quality Element 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. The proposed project includes the development of commercial and residential land uses that would provide both employment and housing opportunities to the residents of Temecula. Implementation of the proposed project would occur over a 20 to 30 year period and would be developer-driven. Ultimately, the proposed project would be designed to address the City’s needs and therefore development would be adjusted to consider to the most current jobs/housing balance. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the policy. Policy 2.2 Encourage infill development near activity centers, within Mixed Use Overlay Areas, and along transportation corridors. The proposed project is designed to implement significant new investment in the Old Town area to help promote rapid growth, greater density, and develop a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use development. The Specific Plan area is located directly west of I-15. As such, the proposed project would encourage infill development within the Specific Plan area and along transit corridors, thus improving air quality though effective land use planning. The proposed project would not conflict with the policy.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-32 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Policy 2.3 Minimize land use conflicts between emission sources and sensitive receptors. The Specific Plan Amendment would utilize form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations and site planning guidelines within the Specific Plan area. The residences associated with the proposed project would be considered to be sensitive receptors, and some of the commercial establishments could emit point and mobile source emission sources within their vicinity. However, the project would minimize land use conflict between emission sources and sensitive receptors through better planning principles and land use techniques, as well as building design and orientation. The potential impacts of these emissions are addressed in Section 3.2, Air Quality, of this Program EIR. The proposed project would not conflict with the policy. Policy 2.4 Mitigate air quality impacts associated with development projects to the greatest extent feasible. The potential impacts of project-related air emissions are addressed in Section 3.2, Air Quality, of this Program EIR. Appropriate mitigation measures are set forth in that section. Community Design Element Goal 1 Enhancement of the City’s image related to its regional and natural setting and its tourist orientation. Policy 1.5 Maintain and incorporate natural amenities such as: rock outcroppings, indigenous vegetation, streams and watercourses within proposed development projects. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological, cultural, and other natural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to develop the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 2 Design excellence in site planning, architecture, landscape architecture and signs. Policy 2.2 Require preparation of Specific Plans to promote cohesive and integrated patterns of development for large undeveloped areas. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is intended to integrate form-based code principles into the Specific Plan in order to more clearly define the design guidelines applicable to future development within the OTSP area. The proposed project serves to enhance the existing OTSP in an attempt to encourage cohesive and integrated patterns of development within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 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. The Specific Plan Amendment would create clearly define development regulations, site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would also include the Open Space corridor, which would help the City to integrate the Murrieta Creek into the design of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan Amendment would help to improve the appearance of neighborhood areas and neighborhood edges through the establishment of landscaping regulations and the incorporation of open space buffers. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-33 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Goal 7 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. The Civic Districts proposed by the Specific Plan Amendment are intended to provide for public and quasi-public uses such as city offices, senior citizen centers, community centers and other community assembly uses, museums, and similar facilities. In addition, the placement of public art within the project area will be encouraged on both private and public property as public art gives a community an identity that can be representative of the City’s culture and heritage in addition to promoting social gathering places and interaction. Wall murals, lighting displays, sculptures, mosaics, monuments and fountains will all considered significant examples of artistic expression. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan, 2005.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Land Use and Planning
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-34 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Civic Districts: The areas that lie within the proposed Civic Districts are currently designated as
either CC or PI in the General Plan. The proposed Civic Districts areas would permit public and
quasi-public uses such as parks, city offices, police/fire stations, senior citizen centers,
community centers and other community assembly uses, museums, and similar facilities. As
shown in Table 3.6-1, these uses are comparable to and would not conflict with the uses permitted
in the existing CC and PI General Plan land use designations.Residential/Limited Mixed Uses:
The areas that lie within the proposed Residential/Limited Mixed Uses Districts are currently
designated as either HT, PI or LM in the General Plan. The Residential/Limited Mixed Uses
Districts would provide for attached residential or mixed-use development of up to three stories to
accommodate a variety of housing types with some opportunities for ground floor retail,
restaurants, and offices to serve residents. These uses are intended to provide convenience or
services for the residents in the surrounding neighborhood such as corner markets,
takeout/delivery restaurants, dry cleaners, beauty shops, florists, and similar uses. Appropriate
building types include live/work, courtyard housing, rowhouses, condominiums, and apartments.
As shown in Table 3.6-1, these uses are comparable to and would not conflict with the uses
permitted in the existing HT, CC, PI and LM General Plan land use designations.
Neighborhood Residential: The areas that lie within the proposed Neighborhood Residential
District are currently designated as either M or H in the General Plan. The Neighborhood
Residential District would provide for attached and detached three-story residential development
at a density of up to 35 dwelling units per acre. Typical housing types in this area would include
single-family detached, duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and
live/work units. As shown in Table 3.6-1, these uses are comparable to and would not conflict
with the uses permitted in the existing M and H General Plan land use designations.
Open Space: The areas that lie within the proposed Open Space zone are currently designated as
OS in the General Plan. The Open Space zone is intended to provide for the preservation of
biological and cultural resources, and to protect the public from flood hazards. As shown in
Table 3.6-1, these uses would not conflict with the uses permitted in the existing OS land use
designation.
Zoning Analysis
The majority of the project site is zoned SP-5. However, the project proposes to include or annex
approximately 2.4 acres located south of First Street, currently zoned SC. Thus, the inclusion
would require a zoning amendment to reflect the incorporation of the proposed 2.4 acres into the
SP-5 zone. Also, the project would result in the removal of approximately 2.3 acres from the
Specific Plan area, at a location west of the intersection of Sixth Street and Pujol Street. This
deannexation would also require a zoning amendment to reflect the exclusion of these lands from
the SP-5 zone. The project proposes to amend the zoning code to reflect the proposed annexation
and deannexation. The proposed zoning code amendment would ensure that the proposed project
is consistent with the zoning code. Impacts related to zoning conformity would be less than
significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Land Use and Planning
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-35 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Existing Old Town Specific Plan Analysis
The primary goal for the Specific Plan Amendment is to incorporate form-based code principles
to more clearly define development regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly
development through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use
development within Old Town. The Specific Plan Amendment is intended to achieve these goals
through changes to site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district
locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, parking lot guidelines, public art
guidelines, paving material guidelines, outdoor dining/sidewalk furniture guidelines, sign
regulations and guidelines, alley guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan.
The existing OTSP states that the Specific Plan may be amended to further the systematic
implementation of the General Plan. With respect to the existing Specific Plan, the proposed
amendment would more effectively implement the applicable goals and policies established in the
General Plan (see Table 3.6-4). In addition, all actions proposed under the project would be
established through an amendment to the Specific Plan. Therefore, project implementation would
not conflict with the adopted Specific Plan. The project would have a less-than-significant impact
with regard to consistency with the OTSP.
Mitigation: None required.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-1 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
3.7 Noise
This section provides an overview of the existing noise environment at the proposed project site
and surrounding area, the regulatory framework, an analysis of potential noise impacts that would
result from implementation of the proposed project, and mitigation measures where appropriate.
Noise impacts are assessed based on a comparative analysis of the noise levels resulting from the
proposed amendment to the OTSP to the noise levels under existing conditions. As the existing
OTSP area has not yet been fully constructed, the existing conditions will be used as the baseline
in this noise in this noise analysis.
3.7.1 Setting
Noise Principles and Descriptors
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, exerts a
sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) which is measured in decibels (dB), with zero dB
corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing, and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the
threshold of pain. Pressure waves traveling through air exert a force registered by the human ear as
sound.
Sound pressure fluctuations can be measured in units of hertz (Hz), which correspond to the
frequency of a particular sound. Typically, sound does not consist of a single frequency, but rather a
broad band of frequencies varying in levels of magnitude (sound power). When all the audible
frequencies of a sound are measured, a sound spectrum is plotted consisting of a range of frequency
spanning 20 to 20,000 Hz. The sound pressure level, therefore, constitutes the additive force exerted
by a sound corresponding to the sound frequency/sound power level spectrum.
The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum.
As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic
filter that deemphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hz and above 5,000 Hz in a manner
corresponding to the human ear’s decreased sensitivity to extremely low and extremely high
frequencies. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed
in units of A-weighted decibels (dBA). Frequency A-weighting follows an international standard
methodology of frequency deemphasis and is typically applied to community noise
measurements. Some representative noise sources and their corresponding A-weighted noise
levels are shown in Figure 3.7-1.
Noise Exposure and Community Noise
An individual’s noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. A noise level is a measure
of noise at a given instant in time. The noise levels presented in Figure 3.7-1 are representative of
measured noise at a given instant in time; however, they rarely persist consistently over a long period
of time. Rather, community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the
contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily
the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise
exposure, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes
throughout a typical day, but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction
110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rock Band Inside Subway Train (New York) Food Blender at 3 Ft. Garbage Disposal at 3 Ft. Shouting at 3 Ft. Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Ft. Quiet Rural Nighttime LETTERS OF PROTEST COMPLAINTS LIKELY COMPLAINTS POSSIBLE COMPLAINTS RARE ACCEPTANCE 4 Times As Loud Twice As Loud REFERENCE 1/2 As Loud 1/4 As Loud LOCAL COMMITTEE ACTIVITY WITH INFLUENTIAL OR LEGAL ACTION Concert Hall (Background) Broadcast and Recording Studio Threshold of Hearing Jet Flyover at 1000 Ft. Gas Lawn Mower at 3 Ft. Diesel Truck at 50 Ft. Noisy Urban Daytime Gas Lawn Mower at 100 Ft. Commercial Area Heavy Traffic at 300 Ft. Quiet Urban Daytime Quiet Suburban Nighttime Conference Room (Background) Dishwasher Next Room Large Business Office Small Theater, Large Library Quiet Urban Nighttime PUBLIC REACTION NOISE LEVEL (dBA, L ) COMMON INDOOR NOISE LEVELS COMMON OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS eq Figure 3.7-1Effects of Noise on PeopleSOURCE: ESA, 2010.Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Noise
Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-3 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
of distant noise sources such as traffic. What makes community noise variable throughout a day,
besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short–duration, single event noise
sources (e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens), which are readily identifiable to the
individual.
These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment change the community
noise level from instant to instant, requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of
time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise
impacts. This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise
descriptors. The most frequently used noise descriptors are summarized below:
Leq: The equivalent sound level is used to describe noise over a specified period of time, typically
one hour, in terms of a single numerical value. The Leq is the constant sound level which
would contain the same acoustic energy as the varying sound level, during the same time
period (i.e., the average noise exposure level for the given time period).
Lmax: The instantaneous maximum noise level for a specified period of time.
L50: The noise level that is equaled or exceeded 50 percent of the specified time period. The L50
represents the median sound level. Limits for the L50 parameter are specified in the County
General Plan Noise Element.
Ldn: Also termed the DNL, the Ldn is the 24-hour day and night A-weighted noise exposure level
which accounts for the greater sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise by weighting
noise levels at night (“penalizing” nighttime noises). Noise between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM
is weighted (penalized) by adding 10 dBA to take into account the greater annoyance
caused by nighttime noises.
CNEL: Similar to the Ldn, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) adds a 5-dBA “penalty”
for the evening hours between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM in addition to a 10-dBA penalty
between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
As a general rule, in areas where the noise environment is dominated by traffic, the Leq during the
peak-hour is generally equivalent to the Ldn at that location (within +/- 2 dBA) (Caltrans, 1998).
Effects of Noise on People
The effects of noise on people can be placed into three categories:
• subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction;
• interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning; and
• physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling.
Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial
plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure
the subjective effects of noise, or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction.
A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists, and different tolerances to noise tend
to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Noise
Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-4 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it
compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so called “ambient noise” level.
In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less
acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A-weighted
noise level, the following relationships occur:
• except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be
perceived;
• outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference;
• a change in level of at least 5-dBA is required before any noticeable change in human
response would be expected; and
• a 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can
cause adverse response.
These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system.
The human ear perceives sound in a non-linear fashion, hence the decibel scale was developed.
Because the decibel scale is based on logarithms, two noise sources do not combine in a simple
additive fashion, rather logarithmically. For example, if two identical noise sources produce noise
levels of 50 dBA, the combined sound level would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA.
Noise Attenuation
Stationary point sources of noise, including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles,
attenuate (lessen) at a rate between 6 dBA for hard sites and 7.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling
of distance from the reference measurement. Hard sites are those with a reflective surface between
the source and the receiver, such as parking lots or smooth bodies of water. No excess ground
attenuation is assumed for hard sites and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate)
is simply the geometric spreading of the noise from the source. Soft sites have an absorptive ground
surface such as soft dirt, grass or scattered bushes and trees. In addition to geometric spreading,
an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA (per doubling distance) is normally assumed for
soft sites. Line sources (such at traffic noise from vehicles) attenuate at a rate between 3 dBA for
hard sites and 4.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement
(Caltrans, 1998).
Fundamentals of Vibration
As described in the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
(FTA, 2006), ground-borne vibration can be a serious concern for nearby neighbors of a transit
system route or maintenance facility, causing buildings to shake and rumbling sounds to be heard.
In contrast to airborne noise, ground-borne vibration is not a common environmental problem. It
is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations
close to major roads. Some common sources of ground-borne vibration are trains, buses on rough
roads, and construction activities such as blasting, pile-driving and operating heavy earth-moving
equipment.
Several different methods are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is
defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently
used to describe vibration impacts to buildings. The root mean square (RMS) amplitude is most
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Noise
Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-5 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. The RMS amplitude is
defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. Decibel notation (Vdb) is commonly
used to measure RMS. The decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to
describe vibration.
Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with
distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receptors for vibration include structures
(especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly and sick), and
vibration-sensitive equipment.
The effects of ground-borne vibration include movement of the building floors, rattling of
windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. In extreme cases,
the vibration can cause damage to buildings. Building damage is not a factor for most projects, with
the occasional exception of blasting and pile-driving during construction. Annoyance from
vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by only a small margin.
A vibration level that causes annoyance will be well below the damage threshold for normal
buildings. The FTA measure of the threshold of architectural damage for conventional sensitive
structures is 0.2 in/sec PPV and the FTA threshold of human annoyance to ground-borne
vibration is 80 RMS (FTA, 2006).
3.7.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal regulations establish noise limits for medium and heavy trucks (more than 4.5 tons, gross
vehicle weight rating) under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 205, Subpart B. The federal
truck pass-by noise standard is 80 dBA at 15 meters from the vehicle pathway centerline. These
controls are implemented through regulatory controls on truck manufacturers.
State
The State of California establishes noise limits for vehicles licensed to operate on public roads.
For heavy trucks, the state pass-by standard is consistent with the federal limit of 80 dB. The state
pass-by standard for light trucks and passenger cars (less than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle rating) is
also 80 dBA at 15 meters from the centerline. These standards are implemented through controls
on vehicle manufacturers and by legal sanction of vehicle operators by state and local law
enforcement officials.
The state has also established noise insulation standards for new multi-family residential units,
hotels, and motels that would be subject to relatively high levels of transportation-related noise.
These requirements are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24,
California Code of Regulations). The noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard
of DNL 45 dBA in any habitable room. They require an acoustical analysis demonstrating how
dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed
in areas subject to noise levels greater than DNL 60 dBA. Title 24 standards are typically enforced
by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Noise
Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-6 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Local
City of Temecula General Plan Noise
The following sections of the Temecula General Plan are relevant to the proposed project:
Goal 1: Separate significant noise generators from sensitive receptors.
Policy 1.1: Discourage noise sensitive land uses in noisy exterior environments unless
measures can be implemented to reduce exterior and interior noise to acceptable levels.
Alternatively, encourage less sensitive uses in areas adjacent to major noise generators
but require sound –appropriate interior working environment.
Policy 1.2: Limit the hours of construction activity next to residential areas to reduce
noise intrusion in the early morning, late evening, weekends and holidays.
Policy 1.3: Use information from the noise contour map in the General Plan in the
development review process to prevent location of sensitive land uses near major
stationary noise sources.
Goal 2: Minimize transfer of noise impacts between adjacent land uses.
Policy 2.1: Limit the maximum permitted noise levels crossing property lines and
impacting adjacent land uses.
Policy 2.2: Establish criteria for placement and operation of stationary outdoor
equipment.
Policy 2.3: Require that mixed use structures and areas be designed to prevent transfer of
noise and vibration from commercial areas to residential areas.
Goal 3: Minimize the impact of noise levels throughout the community through land use
planning.
Policy 3.1: Enforce and maintain acceptable noise limit standards.
Policy 3.2: Work with the County of Riverside and the City of Murrieta to minimize or
avoid land use/noise conflicts prior to project approvals.
Policy 3.3: Encourage the creative use of site and building design techniques as a means
to minimize noise impacts.
Policy 3.7: Evaluate potential noise conflicts for individual sites and projects, and require
mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of project approval.
Goal 4: Minimize impacts from transportation noise sources.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Noise
Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-7 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Policy 4.1: Minimize noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation network, and
mitigate sound levels where necessary or feasible to ensure the peace and quiet of the
community.
Policy 4.2: Ensure the effective enforcement of City, State and Federal noise impacts
from vehicles, particularly in residential areas.
Policy 4.3: Enforce the speed limit on arterials and local roads to reduce noise impacts
from vehicles, particularly in residential areas.
Policy 4.4: Coordinate with Caltrans to ensure the inclusion of noise mitigation measures
in the design of new highways or improvement projects in the Planning Area.
Policy 4.5: Participate in the planning and impact assessment activities of the County
Airport Land Use Commission and other regional or State agencies relative to any
proposed expansion of the airport or change in flight patterns.
City of Temecula Municipal Code
The following sections of the Temecula Municipal Code are relevant to the proposed project:
9.20.040 General Sound Level Standards
No person shall create any sound, or allow the creation of any sound, on any property that causes
the exterior sound level on any other occupied property to exceed the sound level standards set
fourth in Table 3.7-1.
TABLE 3.7-1
TEMECULA LAND USE / NOISE STANDARDS
Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level (Ldn or CNEL, dBA)
Type of Use Land Use Designation Interior Exterior
Residential
Medium 45 65/70a
High 45 70a
Commercial and Office Neighborhood, Service, etc -- 70
Professional Office 50 70
Light Industrial Industrial Park 55 75
Public/Industrial Schools 50 65
All others 50 70
Open Space
Vineyards/Agriculture -- 70
Open Space -- 70/65b
a Maximum exterior noise level up to 70 dB CNEL are allowed for Multiple-Family Housing.
b Where quiet is a basis required for the land use
c Regarding aircraft-related noise, the maximum acceptable exposure for new residential development is 60 dB CNEL
SOURCE: City of Temecula, October 2007.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Noise
Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-8 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
9.20.060 Special Sound Sources Standards
No person shall engage in or conduct construction activity, when the construction site is within
one-quarter mile of an occupied residence, between the hours of 6:30 PM and 6:30 AM, Monday
through Friday, and shall only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of
7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on
Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. The City Council may, by formal action, exempt
projects from the provisions of this chapter.
9.20.030 Exemptions
Sound emanating from motor vehicles, other than off-highway vehicles, is exempt from the
provisions of Chapter 9.20 Noise of the municipal code.
Old Town Specific Plan and Design Guidelines
The previous OTSP identified limitations and requirements to prevent potentially significant
noise impacts from development:
• Roof mounted equipment shall be screened in accordance with the requirements of the
Development Code. Special consideration shall be given to the location and screening of
noise generating equipment such as refrigeration units, air conditioning, and exhaust fans.
Noise reducing screens and insulation may be required where such equipment has the
potential to impact residential uses.
• Loading and unloading facilities shall be visually screened from access streets and adjacent
properties and constructed in a manner to reasonably contain and restrict emission of noises
typically attributed to such function. When screening of loading and unloading facilities is
physically not possible, the facilities shall be architecturally integrated into the overall
design of the building. Loading and unloading areas in or adjacent to the alleys do not
require additional visual screening.
3.7.3 Existing Noise Environment
The noise environment surrounding the project site is influenced primarily by traffic on I-15 and
local roadways. Noise levels away from these noise sources can be quite low depending on the
amount of nearby human activity.
A Metrosonics Model db3080 sound level meter was used to measure the existing ambient noise
levels at various locations on the project site. The meter was calibrated to ensure the accuracy of
the measurements. Short-term noise level measurements were taken at 10 locations around the
project site. The noise measurement results are presented below in Table 3.7-2.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Noise
Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-9 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.7-2
EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENTS AT PROJECT SITE
Location Time Period
Leq
(dBA)
Noise Sources
(dBA)
Temecula
Exterior
Standards
Significant
(Yes/No)
Short-term Measurement 1:
Southeast corner of Moreno and
Old Town Front Street
08/20/09
5:20 – 5:25
PM
5-minute Leq
73
Traffic
Motorcycle: 93 70 Yes
Short-term Measurement 2:
On landscape island 50 ft north
of Denny’s entrance on Rancho
California Rd.
08/20/09
5:34 – 5:39
PM
5-minute Leq
75
Traffic
Fire Truck Siren:
91
70 Yes
Short-term Measurement 3:
Northwest corner of Mercedes
and 5th
08/20/09
5:45 – 5:50
PM
5-minute Leq
59
Traffic
Traffic on I-15
Car: 63
70 No
Short-term Measurement 4:
End of 5th along Chain link fence
(a berm is located between 5th
and I-15)
08/20/09
5:55 – 6:00
PM
5-minute Leq
60 Traffic on I-15: 70 70 Yes
Short-term Measurement 5:
Southeast corner of Main Street
and Old Town Front Street
08/20/09
6:06 – 6:11
PM
5-minute Leq
67
Traffic
Truck: 70
Motorcycle: 84
70 No
Short-term Measurement 6:
Northwest corner of 1st Street
(Santiago ends at this
intersection) and Old Town
Front Street
08/20/09
6:18 – 6:23
PM
5-minute Leq
72
Traffic
Truck: 66
Motorcycle: 84
70 Yes
Short-term Measurement 7:
Northeast Corner of 1st
(Santiago turns into 1st) and
Pujol
08/20/09
6:29 – 6:34
PM
5-minute Leq
61
Traffic
Skateboard: 71
Truck: 68
70 No
Short-term Measurement 8:
Southeast Corner of Main Street
and Pujol
08/20/09
6:40 – 6:45
PM
5-minute Leq
68
Traffic
Children: 63
Truck: 83
70 No
Short-term Measurement 9:
Northwest Corner or 6th and
Pujol
08/20/09
6:48 – 6:23
PM
5-minute Leq
58
Traffic
Children: 75 70 No
Short-term Measurement 10:
Along Specific Plan boundary
on east side of Felix Valdez
Street
08/20/09
6:57 – 7:02
PM
5-minute Leq
60
Traffic
Truck: 71 70 No
SOURCE: ESA, 2009.
Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others because of the
amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the
types of activities typically involved. Residences, hotels, schools, rest homes, and hospitals are
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Noise
Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-10 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
generally more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial land uses. Sensitive receptors
are located throughout the proposed Specific Plan area.
3.7.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Methodology
Noise impacts are assessed by comparing the noise levels resulting from the proposed amendment
to the OTSP to the noise levels under existing conditions. As the existing OTSP has not yet been
fully constructed, the existing conditions will be used as the baseline in this noise analysis. The
analysis of temporary construction noise effects is based on typical construction phases, typical
equipment noise levels and attenuation of those noise levels over distance, and barriers between
the construction activity and sensitive receptors.
The Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-
77-108) was used to find how much noise the proposed project would contribute to the area due
to an increase in traffic volumes along local roadways.
Significance Criteria
Based on the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant effect on the
environment with respect to noise and/or ground-borne vibration if it would result in:
• Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
• A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project;
• A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project;
• Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels
(for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport);
• Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels
(for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip); or
• Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne
noise levels.
The following analysis discusses the first three criteria; the fourth and fifth are not discussed
because the site lies outside a two-mile radius of a public airport or private airstrip.
Some guidance as to the significance of changes in ambient noise levels is provided by the
1992 findings of the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), which assessed the
annoyance effects of changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations. The
recommendations are based upon studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of
persons highly annoyed by the noise. “Annoyance” is a summary measure of the general adverse
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Noise
Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-11 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
reaction of people to noise that generates speech interference, sleep disturbance, or interference
with the desire for a tranquil environment. Although the FICON recommendations were
specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, it has been asserted that they are
applicable to all sources of noise described in terms of cumulative noise exposure metrics such as
the Ldn, as shown in Table 3.7-3.
TABLE 3.7-3
MEASURES OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE FOR NOISE EXPOSURE
Ambient Noise Level
without Project (Ldn)
Significant Impact Assumed to Occur if the
Project Increases Ambient Noise Levels By:
<60 dB + 5.0 dB or more
60-65 dB + 3.0 dB or more
>65 dB + 1.5 dB or more
SOURCE: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), 1992.
The rationale for the Table 3.7-3 criteria is that, as ambient noise levels increase, a small increase
in decibel levels is sufficient to cause significant annoyance. The quieter the ambient noise level
is, the more the noise can increase (in decibels) before it causes significant annoyance.
Construction Noise
Noise impacts from short-term construction activities could exceed noise thresholds and could
result in a significant construction impact if short-term construction activity occurred outside of the
daytime hours permitted by the City’s noise ordinance. However, project construction would be
temporary in duration and only occur in short intervals (as long as the particular piece of
construction machinery is running).
Stationary Noise
A stationary noise source is a non-transportation source that operates from one location, such as
heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment noise. If a stationary noise source
causes the noise level at residences to exceed an exterior maximum of 65 dBA CNEL or an
interior maximum of 45 dBA CNEL, this is considered a significant noise impact.
Traffic Noise
As described in Table 3.7-3 above, the proposed project would result in a significant traffic noise
impact if mobile noise would result in increased noise levels of:
• 1.5 dBA Ldn or more in an ambient noise environment greater than 65 dBA Ldn; or
• increased noise of 3 dBA Ldn or more in an ambient noise environment between 60 and 65
dBA Ldn; or
• increased noise of 5 dBA Ldn or more in an ambient environment of less than 60 dBA Ldn.
The FICON thresholds are representative of noise increases that could adversely affect sensitive
receptors along the roadway. Although an increase in noise may be significant based on the
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Noise
Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-12 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
thresholds, if there are no sensitive receptors along the roadway and thus no receptors that would
be adversely impacted, then the noise would be deemed less than significant.
Vibration Noise
The project would result in a significant vibration impact if buildings would be exposed to the FTA
building damage ground-borne vibration threshold level of 0.2 PPV or if sensitive individuals
would be exposed to the FTA human annoyance response ground-borne vibration threshold level of
80 RMS.
3.7.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.7-1: Project construction could expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess
of standards.
Construction activity noise levels at and near the construction areas would fluctuate depending on
the particular type, number, and duration of uses of various pieces of construction equipment.
Construction-related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes,
depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. In addition, certain types of
construction equipment generate impulsive noises (such as pile driving), which can be particularly
annoying. Pile driving, however, is not proposed for project development. Table 3.7-4 shows
typical noise levels during different construction stages. Table 3.7-5 shows typical noise levels
produced by various types of construction equipment.
TABLE 3.7-4
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
Construction Phase Noise Level (dBA, Leq)a
Ground Clearing
Excavation
Foundations
Erection
Finishing
84
89
78
85
89
a Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase of
construction and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase.
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home
Appliances, 1971.
Noise from construction activities generally attenuates at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of
distance. Based on the project site layout and terrain, an attenuation of 6 dBA will be assumed.
Construction could occur adjacent to sensitive receptors. Table 3.7-4 states that excavation noise
is 89 dBA at 50 feet; if sensitive receptors were located at this distance, construction noise at
these levels would be substantially greater than existing noise levels at nearby sensitive receptor
locations. These construction noise levels, especially if they were to occur during the nighttime
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Noise
Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-13 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.7-5
TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Construction Equipment Noise Level (dBA, Leq at 50 feet )
Dump Truck
Portable Air Compressor
Concrete Mixer (Truck)
Scraper
Jack Hammer
Dozer
Paver
Generator
Pile Driver
Backhoe
88
81
85
88
88
87
89
76
101
85
SOURCE: Cunniff, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977.
hours when people are sleeping, would be potentially significant. Subsequent exposure to
construction noise by individual sensitive receptors could be lessened over time due to
attenuation of noise by project structures built in the interim.
The City of Temecula noise ordinance states that, when the site is within one-quarter mile from
an occupied residence, no person shall conduct construction activity between the hours of 6:30
PM and 6:30 AM Monday through Friday, and shall only conduct construction between the hours
of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on
Sundays and nationally recognized holidays. Daytime construction is commonly exempt from
noise ordinances because background noise is typically louder during the day than at night, and
sleep disturbance is typically considered to be a nighttime impact. However, even daytime noise
levels from construction can exceed daytime ambient levels and be a substantial annoyance to
nearby residential units. It should be noted that exceptions may be requested from the standards
set forth in the City’s Noise Ordinance. An application for a construction-related exception can be
submitted in writing at least three working days (seventy-two hours) in advance of the scheduled
and permitted activity (accompanied by the appropriate inspection fees), subject to approval by
the City Manager or designated representative. The following mitigation measures would reduce
nighttime and daytime construction noise levels.
Mitigation Measures
Measure 3.7-1a: The applicant shall ensure, as specified in City of Temecula Ordinance No.
94-25, that no construction may occur within one-quarter (1/4) of a mile of any occupied
residence during the following hours:
A. 6:30 PM to 6:30 AM, Monday through Friday.
B. Before 7:00 AM or after 6:30 PM, Saturday.
C. At any time on Sunday or any nationally recognized holiday.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Noise
Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-14 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Measure 3.7-1b: The applicant shall ensure that all construction equipment will have
properly operating mufflers.
Measure 3.7-1c: The applicant shall ensure that all construction staging shall be performed
as far as possible from occupied dwellings.
Measure 3.7-1d: The applicant shall ensure that signs shall be posted at the construction sites
that include permitted construction days and hours, and a contact number for the job site.
Significance after Mitigation: Although the above mitigation measures would reduce the noise
impact from construction, construction sites are noisy locations with heavy equipment that could
substantially affect noise levels at nearby residences. Such impacts could last a substantial time
before the noise complaint system would be used to reduce the impact. Therefore, construction
noise could at times be a short-term significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project.
Impact 3.7-2: Construction activities associated with the project could result in exposure of
sensitive receptors to excessive levels of ground-borne vibration.
As shown in Table 3.7-6, use of a large bulldozer for project construction generates vibration
levels of up to 0.089 PPV or 87 RMS at a distance of 25 feet. The nearest sensitive receptor or
historic building to construction has yet to be determined. Because the location of potential
sensitive receptors is unknown, mitigations measures have been included to lessen noise impacts
no matter where the sensitive receptors are placed. A large bulldozer would reach 80 RMS at 45
feet and 0.2 PPV at 15 feet from operation. This impact would be less than significant with
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.7-1a through 3.7-1d above and 3.7-2 below.
TABLE 3.7-6
VIBRATION VELOCITIES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Equipment/Activity
PPV at 25 ft
(inches/second)a
RMS at 25 ft
(Vdb)b
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
a Buildings can be exposed to ground-borne vibration levels of 0.2 PPV without experiencing structural damage.
b The human annoyance response level is 80 RMS.
SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.
Mitigation Measure
Measure 3.7-2a: The construction contractor will conduct crack surveys before
construction activities that could cause architectural damage to nearby structures. The
survey will include any historic buildings or buildings in poor condition within 15 feet of
construction. The surveys will be done by photographs, video tape, or visual inventory, and
will include inside as well as outside locations. All existing cracks in walls, floors, and
driveways should be documented with sufficient detail for comparison after construction to
determine whether actual vibration damage occurred. A post-construction survey should be
conducted to document the condition of the surrounding buildings after the construction is
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Noise
Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-15 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
complete. The construction contractor would be liable for construction vibration damage to
adjacent structures.
Significance after Mitigation: The above mitigation measures would ensure vibration impacts
would be less than significant.
Impact 3.7-3: Operation of the project could expose persons to or generate noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plans or noise ordinances, or applicable
standards of other agencies.
Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Equipment Noise
The HVAC system for maintaining comfortable temperatures in buildings within the Specific
Plan Amendment area would consist of packaged rooftop air conditioning systems. Such rooftop
HVAC units typically generate noise levels of approximately 55 dB at a reference distance of 100
feet from the operating units during maximum heating or air conditioning operations. The noise
level of the HVAC, if on the edge of the building nearest the sensitive receptors, could exceed the
City of Temecula’s 65 dBA noise standard.
Loading Dock/Truck Delivery Noise
Delivery trucks are expected to be used during on-site commercial operations. The number of
delivery trucks will depend on the individual businesses. Mixed-use areas are intended and truck
noise could potentially impact adjacent residents. Noise measurements of passing and idling
delivery trucks were taken by ESA in 2009. An idling truck at 50 feet was found to produce noise
levels of 72 dBA Leq, and a passing truck at 50 feet was found to produce noise levels of 68 dBA
Leq. Cal-OSHA also requires backup beepers to be at least 5 dBA above ambient noise levels.
These noise levels would potentially exceed Temecula’s daytime and nighttime noise standards if
loading docks were to be located near residences.
Mitigation Measures
Measure 3.7-3a: Building equipment (e.g., HVAC units) shall be located away from
nearby residences, on building rooftops, and properly shielded by either the rooftop parapet
or within an enclosure that effectively blocks the line of sight of the source from the nearest
receptors. The resultant HVAC noise level shall not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest
receptors.
Measure 3.7-3b: In order to avoid noise-sensitive hours, commercial and retail shall
prohibit loading and unloading activities between the nighttime hours of 10:00 PM and
7:00 AM.
Measure 3.7-3c: To further address the nuisance impact of loading dock/truck delivery
noise, all loading areas for commercial and retail uses shall be located at the rear or sides of
buildings within the commercial and mixed-use districts, where noise can be directed away
from residential uses within the mixed use areas of the project.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Noise
Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-16 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Significance after Mitigation: With implementation of the above mitigation measures, the
operational (non-transportation) noise impacts of the project would be reduced to less-than-
significant levels.
Impact 3.7-4: Traffic associated with operation of the project would result in a significant
increase in ambient noise levels on nearby roadways.
Most of the noise generated by the implementation of the project would result from increased
traffic. The proposed amendment to the OTSP would contribute to an increase in local traffic
volumes, resulting in higher noise levels along local roadways as compared to existing
conditions. To assess the impact of project traffic on roadside noise levels, noise level projections
were made using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) TNM Lookup model and the
project traffic study provided by RK Engineering Group, Inc., for those road segments that pass by
sensitive receptors. Traffic noise levels were analyzed for 10 roadway segments. The segments
analyzed and results of the modeling are shown in Table 3.7-7.
TABLE 3.7-7
EXISTING AND FUTURE PEAK-HOUR NOISE LEVELS ALONG SELECTED ROADWAYS
Modeled Roadway
Segment
Peak Hour Noise Levels (Leq)a
Existing
(A)
Existing +
Project
(B)
Incremental
Increase
(B – A)
Significant
(Yes/No)b
Cumulative
2035 + Project
(C)
Incremental
Increase
(C – A)
Cumulatively
Considerable?
1. Old Town Front St north
of Rancho California Rd
70 71 1 No 71 2 Yes
2. Old Town Front St south
of Rancho California Rd
68 70 2 Yes 70 2 Yes
3. Rancho California Rd
east of Old Town Front St
73 74 1 No 74 1 No
4. Old Town Front St south
of Main St
66 67 1 No 67 2 Yes
5. Main St east of Old Town
Front St
50 58 8 Yes 58 8 Yes
6. Main St West of Old
Town Front St
52 59 7 Yes 59 7 Yes
7. Old Town Front St north
of Santiago
66 68 3 Yes 69 4 Yes
8. Mercedes St. South of
Moreno Rd.
56 60 4 No 61 5
Yes
9. 3rd St west of Mercedes 52 52 0 No 52 1 No
10. Moreno road east of
Mercedes St
52 55 4 No 56 4 No
a Noise levels are estimated at a distance of 50 feet from roadway centerline. Data based on PM Peak Hour. Ldn is approximately equal to the peak-hour Leq under
normal traffic conditions (Caltrans, 1998).
b Considered significant if the incremental increase in noise (Ldn) is greater than 5 dBA in a noise environment of 60 dBA or less, an increase of 3 dBA in a noise
environment greater than 60 dBA and less than 65 dBA, or an increase of 1.5 dBA in a noise environment greater than 65 dBA, as described in Table 3.7-3.
SOURCE: RK Engineering Group Inc. 2009, ESA 2009.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Noise
Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-17 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
As depicted in Table 3.7-7, four of the 10 roadway segments would experience a significant
increase in traffic noise (compared to existing conditions) resulting from the proposed
amendment to the OTSP.
Notably, the traffic study has found that the existing Specific Plan at build-out is projected to
generate approximately 11,165 net vehicles during the PM peak hour. The proposed Specific Plan
Amendment at build-out is projected to generate approximately 7,357 net vehicles during the PM
peak hour. Therefore, the proposed amendment to the OTSP at build-out would generate
considerably fewer trips and less noise from traffic operations than the currently approved
Specific Plan at build-out.
Residences in the project area would be subject to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations,
which requires an interior noise standard of DNL 45 dBA in any habitable room. Residences
along affected roads exceeding 65 dBA would require sound-rated assemblies at the exterior
facades of project buildings. The project shall implement the following mitigation measure to
reduce indoor noise exposure to within City of Temecula and State standards. Implementation
would ensure that interior noise levels are reduced to 45 dB and are less than significant.
However, as shown in Table 3.7-7, exterior noise levels from project traffic would exceed the
standards for substantial noise increases along roadway segments 2, 5, 6, and 7.
Mitigation Measures
Measure 3.7-4: If necessary to comply with the interior noise requirements of the City of
Temecula and achieve an acceptable interior noise level, noise reduction in the form of
sound-rated assemblies (i.e., windows, exterior doors, and walls) shall be incorporated into
project building design, based upon recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer.
Final recommendations for sound-rated assemblies will depend on the specific building
designs and layout of buildings on the site and shall be determined during the design phase.
Significance after Mitigation: With implementation of the above mitigation measure, the
interior noise impact from project traffic would be reduced. However, exterior noise levels along
roadways 2, 5, 6, and 7 would be substantially greater with the project than existing and would
remain a significant and unavoidable impact.
Cumulative Impacts
Impact 3.7-5: The project, together with anticipated future development could result in
long-term traffic increases that could cumulatively increase noise levels. (Significant and
Unavoidable)
A cumulative impact arises when two or more individual projects, when considered together, are
considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts
can result from individually minor but collectively significant impacts, meaning that the project
incremental effects must be viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable
future projects.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.7 Noise
Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-18 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
When considered alone, the proposed project would generate noise mainly by adding more traffic
to the area. Other anticipated projects would contribute to noise in the area due to increased
traffic volumes. Table 3.7-8 shows the future cumulative traffic with the project and existing
traffic and the difference between the two. As depicted in Table 3.7-8, seven out of 10 roadway
segments would experience a significant increase in traffic noise from the proposed project.
TABLE 3.7-8
EXISTING AND FUTURE PEAK-HOUR NOISE LEVELS ALONG SELECTED ROADWAYS
Modeled Roadway
Segment
Peak Hour Noise Levels (Leq)a
Existing
(A)
Existing +
Project
(B)
Incremental
Increase
(B – A)
Significant
(Yes/No)b
Cumulative
2035 + Project
(C)
Incremental
Increase
(C – A)
Cumulatively
Considerable?
1. Old Town Front St north
of Rancho California Rd 70 71 1 No 71 2 Yes
2. Old Town Front St south
of Rancho California Rd 68 70 2 Yes 70 2 Yes
3. Rancho California Rd
east of Old Town Front St 73 74 1 No 74 1 No
4. Old Town Front St south
of Main St 66 67 1 No 67 2 Yes
5. Main St east of Old Town
Front St 50 58 8 Yes 58 8 Yes
6. Main St West of Old
Town Front St 52 59 7 Yes 59 7 Yes
7. Old Town Front St north
of Santiago 66 68 3 Yes 69 4 Yes
8. Mercedes St. South of
Moreno Rd. 56 60 4 No 61 5
Yes
9. 3rd St west of Mercedes 52 52 0 No 52 1 No
10. Moreno road east of
Mercedes St 52 55 4 No 56 4 No
a Noise levels are estimated at a distance of 50 feet from roadway centerline. Data based on PM Peak Hour. Ldn is approximately equal to the peak-hour Leq under
normal traffic conditions (Caltrans, 1998).
b Considered significant if the incremental increase in noise (Ldn) is greater than 5 dBA in a noise environment of 60 dBA or less, an increase of 3 dBA in a noise
environment greater than 60 dBA and less than 65 dBA, or an increase of 1.5 dBA in a noise environment greater than 65 dBA, as described in Table 3.7-3.
SOURCE: RK Engineering Group Inc. 2009, ESA 2009.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.7-4 as described above.
Significance after Mitigation: With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-4, the cumulative
interior noise impacts of the project would be reduced. However, the project would result in
cumulatively considerable exterior noise levels along roadways 1, 2, and 4 through 8, which
would remain a significant and unavoidable impact.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-1 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
3.8 Utilities and Services
3.8.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to analyze potential impacts to utilities in the City of Temecula that
could occur with implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment. The analysis identifies and
evaluates key utilities and service systems within the City of Temecula and determines the degree
of impacts that could occur from the Specific Plan Amendment implementation. For each of the
utilities included in this section, existing infrastructure and levels of service are described, as well
as improvements required to accommodate the projected demand for additional services where
necessary. This section therefore describes current capacity, as appropriate, for construction and
operation of the project. Services for the area are assessed in terms of location of the services,
existing and projected service ratios, and other service objectives as applicable. Where impacts on
services are determined to be potentially significant, mitigation measures are recommended to
ensure adequate delivery of services and utilities to the Specific Plan area.
3.8.2 Environmental Setting
Public Services
Parks
The City of Temecula owns and maintains 38 parks (approximately 302 acres of parkland),
including a skate park and roller hockey arena. As of 2008, the City had 23 neighborhood parks,
two specialty parks, seven sports parks, and six recreational facilities. Neighborhood parks are
intended to serve the immediate area; they are generally three to 10 acres including open space
and play areas; and they should be easily accessed by pedestrians. Specialty parks generally serve
one or two purposes. The two specialty parks within Temecula are a duck pond and a skate park.
Sports parks offer athletic facilities such as soccer fields, baseball fields, basketball courts, and/or
tennis courts.
Parks are an important resource in Temecula as they provide community gathering areas and
recreational facilities for residents and visitors. The closest parks, those located within a 1.5-mile
radius of the proposed Specific Plan area, are listed in Table 3.8-1 (City of Temecula, Parks and
Recreational Facilities, 2009a and 2009b).
The City of Temecula also has a joint-use agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School
District which allows the City to utilize school facilities (City of Temecula General Plan EIR,
2005). These facilities are generally open to the public during non-school hours and are considered
adjuncts to the citywide park system. The following 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) (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005).
• Vail Ranch Middle School Basketball Courts
• James L. Day Middle School Fields
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-2 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.8-1
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Name Location Amenities
Approximate
Distance from
Specific Plan area
Sam Hicks Memorial Park 41970 Moreno Road • Children's play area
• Picnic tables
• Restrooms
• Handicap accessible
• 1.8 acres
Within Specific Plan
Boundaries
Temecula Duck Pond &
Veteran's Memorial
28250 Rancho
California Rd
• Pond with paved walking area
around water
• Wheelchair access ramp
• Memorial “Paths of Honor”
• 7.51 acres
Approximately 0.25
miles from north
eastern edge of
project site
Rotary Park 28816 Pujol Street • BBQ
• Picnic tables
• Handicap accessible
• 1.09 acres
Adjacent to the south
of the Specific Plan
area
Margarita Community Park 29119 Margarita Road • 2 lit ballfields
• 1 lit football /soccer field
• Tennis
• Roller hockey rink
• Restrooms
• Handicap accessible
• 12.16 acres
Within one mile north
of the Specific Plan
area
Ronald Reagan Sports Park
(formally Rancho California
Sports Park)
30875 Rancho Vista
Road
• Community recreation center
• 63 acres
• Five unlit ballfields
• Five lit ballfields
• Two lit football/soccer fields
• Children's play area
• Picnic shelter
• BBQs
• Picnic tables
• Restrooms
1.2 miles east of the
Specific Plan area
Temecula Skate Park
(located at Ronald Reagan
Sports Park)
42569 Margarita Road • Skateboarding and in-line skating
• A competition 60-foot-diameter
bowl with ramp entry
• A 10-foot-wide apron connects the
upper bowl with a street plaza
skate area
• Street plaza has a pyramid, fun
box, curbs, ramps, stairs and a 20-
foot hand rail
• 1 acre
1.5 miles east of the
Specific Plan area
Mary Phillips Senior Center 41845 Sixth Street • 3 pool tables
• Library
• Classrooms
• Computers with internet access
• Auditorium with a stage
Within Specific Plan
Boundaries
Civic Center Plaza
Area where the fountain
is located, just west of
the Civic Center
• Grassy plaza area that can be
used for summer concerts, winter
ice skating rink, etc.
Within Specific Plan
Boundaries
SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2009; ESA, 2009.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-3 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Other recreational opportunities in the City of Temecula include facilities such as a community
center and a children’s museum. In addition to the City-owned and operated parks and recreation
facilities, there are many private recreational facilities throughout Temecula. There are also three
private golf courses within the City. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment area is located
within 1.5 miles of two of these courses (Table 3.8-2).
TABLE 3.8-2
PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Name Location Amenities
Approximate Distance
from Specific Plan area
Temecula Creek Inn and
Golf Course
44501 Rainbow Canyon
Road
Golf Course (and Inn) 1.3 miles from the south of
the OTSP area
Temeku Hills Golf Course 41687 Temeku Drive Golf Course 1.5 miles northeast of the
OTSP area
SOURCE: ESA, 2009.
The City of Temecula is in proximity to the Lake Skinner Regional Park. The 600-acre park
offers overnight camping, fishing, swimming, sailing, picnicking, and other activities. The
Cleveland National Forest is accessible to the residents of Temecula and the surrounding area.
The City of Temecula has a parkland standard of five acres of City-owned parkland per 1,000
residents (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005). In 2000, the City had an estimated
population of approximately 57,716 (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005). In 2005,
however, the City population was estimated to be approximately 72,715 (City of Temecula
General Plan EIR, 2005). Thus, the City should have had 363.5 acres of parkland but was
operating a deficit of approximately 61.5 acres of parkland.
Utilities
Water Service
Water Suppliers
There are two major water suppliers for the City of Temecula: the Rancho California Water
District (RCWD) and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). The EMWD is a wholesaler
and distributes water to the surrounding areas including portions of Beaumont, San Jacinto,
Perris, Murrieta, portions of Temecula, Hemet and Moreno Valley along with portions of
unincorporated Riverside County. The population within the current 555-square-mile service area
is about 687,000 (as of June 2009) (Eastern Municipal Water District, 2009).
The EMWD is a retail water agency and receives water directly from a connection to
Metropolitan Water District (MWD). EMWD depends on its own wells for approximately 25 to
30 percent of its water supply, with the remainder imported through the MWD from the Colorado
River and from northern California. The EMWD provides service through 2,382 miles of
pipeline, 81 water storage tanks, 18 wells, two groundwater desalters (brackish groundwater
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-4 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
desalination program), 82 pumping plants and two freshwater filtration plants (Eastern Municipal
Water District, 2005).
EMWD retails water to more than 82,000 homes and businesses. In 2000, EMWD customers’
water usage totaled approximately 84,608 acre-feet (af), of which 63,463 af were consumed by
domestic users (Eastern Municipal Water District, 2005). In 2000, water consumption was
estimated to be 129 gallons per day (gpd) per person (Eastern Municipal Water District , 2000).
The RCWD supplies most of the domestic and commercial water to the City of Temecula. The
RCWD’s service area encompasses approximately 100,000 acres (City of Temecula General Plan
EIR, 2005) including the City of Temecula, portions of the City of Murrieta, and unincorporated
areas of southwestern Riverside County. The service area is bounded on the southwest by the
Santa Ana Mountains, and on the northeast by Gavilan Hills.
The RCWD is a local, independent “special district.” A special district is defined by state law as
“any agency of the state for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within
limited boundaries” (City of Temecula General Plan EIR 2005). To provide supplemental imported
water, the RCWD was annexed in 1966 to the EMWD and the MWD (City of Temecula General
Plan EIR 2005). The RCWD has approximately 940 miles of water mains, 36 storage reservoirs,
one surface reservoir (Lake Vail), 47 groundwater wells, and 40,000 service connections with
service to approximately 120,000 people (Rancho California Water District, 2009).
The RCWD’s natural sources of water include precipitation, surface stream flows, and regional
groundwater (aquifers). The RCWD estimates that its groundwater basins hold over two million
acre-feet of water, with the annual safe yield of these basins approximately 30,000 acre-feet per
year (Rancho California Water District, 2009). This amount of groundwater is estimated to meet
approximately half of the RCWD’s needs. Additionally, the RCWD purchases approximately 65
percent of its water from MWD of Southern California. The RCWD receives its imported water
(treated and untreated) directly through six MWD water turnouts (Rancho California Water
District, 2005). Table 3.8-3 summarizes the RCWD current water supply (2005).
TABLE 3.8-3
RCWD WATER SUPPLY SOURCES (acre-feet per year)
Water Supply Sources 2005
Imported Water (MWD)
Treated 33,000
Untreated 18,000
Local Groundwater Pumping 38,000
Recycled Water 6,700
Total 95,700
SOURCE: RCWD Regional Integrated Resources Plan (CDM, 2005).
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-5 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Water Demand
In 2005, the approximate consumptive water demand for the RCWD was 76,100 acre-feet per
year (AFY). The largest accounts for water come from the domestic sector. Table 3.8-4 displays
a list of the RCWD customer accounts by land use classification for the year 2000 and 2005.
TABLE 3.8-4
TYPE OF RCWD CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS (UNITS)
Customer Class 2000 2005
Agricultural and Agricultural/Domestic Areas 1,310 1,699
Domestic 23,320 33,378
Multiple Dwelling 160 178
Commercial 827 1,280
Landscape 674 1,059
Schools, Etc 51 65
SOURCE: RCWD Update of the Urban Water Management Plan, 2005
The domestic water demands have steadily increased in the RCWD service area (Rancho
California Water District, 2005). Table 3.8-5 illustrates the average past and planned water
supplies for the RCWD. By 2030, the RCWD projects that consumptive water demand would be
112,700 AFY. The largest increase in water demand would occur in the single-family domestic
sub-group, which is expected to more than double its water demand between 2000 and 2030.
However, according to the City of Temecula General Plan, no water supply shortage is expected
in the near future (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005).
TABLE 3.8-5
EXISTING AND PROJECTED AVERAGE WATER DEMANDS IN THE RCWD (AFY)
Year 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Agriculture/Ag Domestic
Demands 33,900 35,900 38,000 40,000 41,000 44,000 46,000
Single-Family Domestic 21,700 25,500 29,300 33,000 36,800 40,600 44,300
Multi-Family Domestic 1,400 1,900 2,300 2,800 3,200 3,700 4,200
Commercial/Institutional 3,500 4,100 4,800 5,400 6,100 6,700 7,400
Landscape/Golf Course 8,300 8,700 9,100 9,500 9,900 10,300 10,800
Total 68,800 76,100 83,500 90,700 97,000 105,300 112,700
SOURCE: RCWD, 2005.
The projections shown in Table 3.8-5 were formulated using normal weather conditions. Total
annual average water demands are projected to increase from the current 76,100 AFY to 112,700
AFY in 2030, an increase of 36,600 acre-feet. The largest growth is expected to occur in the
single-family domestic sector, increasing from 25,500 AFY in 2005 to 44,300 AFY in 2030
(Rancho California Water District, 2005).
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-6 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Wastewater
The EMWD is the nearest service provider for wastewater collection and treatment for the project
area. EMWD has five regional water reclamation facilities (RWRF): Hemet-San Jacinto, Moreno
Valley, Sun City, Temecula Valley and Perris Valley. The EMWD treats approximately 46
million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater and is capable of treating 56 mgd. EMWD regional
treatment plants serve approximately 180,000 connections, with a network of pipelines that
extends for approximately 1,600 miles, supported by 45 lift (pumping) stations (Eastern
Municipal Water District , 2009). EMWD’s regional water reclamation facilities have the
capacity to treat 56 mgd of wastewater; however, the volume of wastewater is expected to grow
to 64 mgd by 2013 (Eastern Municipal Water District , 2007).
The EMWD produces two grades of recycled water:
Secondary
Secondary treatment employs biological oxidation to remove nearly all suspended solids and
other impurities. This water can be used on pastures for fiber, feed and seed crops not eaten
directly by humans.
Tertiary
Tertiary treatment removes bacteria, viruses and virtually all suspended solids. At this level,
recycled water can be used for almost any purpose except direct consumption (Eastern Municipal
Water District , 2009).
Approximately 60 percent of the treated wastewater currently generated is sold to agricultural and
irrigation users (Eastern Municipal Water District, 2007). Recycled water is currently used on
approximately 22,350 acres, which includes a number of public facilities such as golf courses and
several schools (Eastern Municipal Water District , 2007).
Table 3.8-6 illustrates EMWD’s wastewater consumption by residential classifications.
TABLE 3.8-6
EMWD’S WASTEWATER CONSUMPTION BY RESIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATION
Residential
EDUs/ Acrea
Population/ EDU GPD/ Capita GPD/ Acreb Typical Range
Low Density (LDR) 2.5 0 to 2.9 4 105 1,050
Medium Density (MDR) 4.5 3 to 11 3.5 100 1,575
High Density (HDR) 12 12 to 16 2.5 80 2,400
Very High Density (VHDR) 17 17+ 2.2 80 2,922
Mobile Homes (MH) 6 Varies 2 80 960
Age Restrict Comm. varies varies 2 80 960
a For calculation of actual flow, the Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) per Gross Acre are used. b Applies to Typical EDUs/Acre only.
SOURCE: EMWD, Sanitary Sewer System Planning and Design, February 1993.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-7 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Table 3.8-7 illustrates EMWD’s wastewater consumption by non-residential classifications.
TABLE 3.8-7
EMWD’S WASTEWATER CONSUMPTION BY
NON-RESIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATION
Non-Residential EDUs/ Acre
Commercial 1,700 GPD/ Acre
Industrial 1,700 GPD/ Acre
Institutional 1,000 GPD/ Acre
Hospital 250 GPD/ Bed
Schools 20 GPD/ Student
SOURCE: EMWD, Sanitary Sewer System Planning and Design, September 2006.
The Temecula Valley RWRF would provide wastewater services to the project area. The
Temecula Valley plant is a 95-acre facility and is the smallest of EMWD’s five reclamation
plants. Located in the central commercial area of Temecula, this plant maintains only 25 million
gallon (mg) of temporary on-site storage (Eastern Municipal Water District, 2009b). When
additional storage is required, the Temecula plant pumps reclaimed water north 10 miles to the
450 mg storage ponds in Winchester (Eastern Municipal Water District, 2009b).
The facility has the capacity to treat 13.2 mgd of wastewater; however, EMWD plans to expand the
facility from 13.2 mgd to 19.8 mgd (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005). The next
expansion of the facility is anticipated to occur around 2014 and will provide approximately 24 mgd
of capacity (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005).
Electricity
Southern California Edison (SCE) supplies the Specific Plan area and the City of Temecula with
power and electricity from 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. SCE’s
Auld-Moraga No. 2 Sub-transmission Line Project installed new double-circuit lines that connect
to the Moraga Substation. The completed project serves current and projected demand for
electricity in Temecula and Murrieta and nearby areas of unincorporated Riverside County.
However, due to the rapid growth in Riverside County and the City of Temecula, SCE’s current
forecast shows the increased demand for electrical service would exceed the designed operating
limits of the existing distribution facilities serving this area as early as the summer of 2010,
creating a need for increased load (Southern California Edison, 2009). Table 3.8-8 provides
SCE’s 2005 estimated and future electrical demand.
SCE is proposing to build a new substation that would maintain electrical system reliability and
serve the projected increase in demand in Temecula and Murrieta as well as other new
developments in adjacent unincorporated Riverside County. This substation, the Triton
Substation, would include a 115/12-kilovolt substation and a 12-kilovolt sub-transmission line
segment 0.25 mile long.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-8 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.8-8
ESTIMATED CURRENT AND FUTURE ELECTRICITY DEMAND
Land Use
Usage
Factor
(kwh/month/
du or ksf)
Existing
(du/ksf)
Estimated
Existing
Usage
(mwh/month)
Proposed
(du/ksf)
Estimated
Usage at
Buildout
(mwh/month)
Change
(mwh/month)
Single-Family
Residential
5,700/du 2,008 du 11.45 3,259 du 18.58 7.13
Multi-Family
Residential
3,940/du 27,260 du 107.40 49,445 du 194.81 87.41
Commercial 20/ksf 11,837 ksf 0.24 18,553 ksf 0.37 0.13
Light Industrial
and Office
17/ksf 13,431 ksf 0.23 38,313 ksf 0.65 0.42
Community
Facilities
8/ksf 11,083 ksf 0.09 16,344 ksf 0.13 0.04
Mixed Use 3,940/du
20/ksf
N/A 0.00 1,760 du
2,245 ksf
6.93
0.04
6.97
TOTAL 29,268 du
36,351 ksf
119.41 54,464 du
75,455 ksf
221.51
102.10
kwh = kilowatt hours; mwh = megawatt hours; du = dwelling units; sf = square feet; ksf = thousand square feet.
SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan Update EIR, 2005.
Natural Gas
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 of residents utilize
bottled propane or butane fuel (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005). Natural gas is
currently provided to the OTSP area through existing facilities. Availability is based on present
conditions of gas supplies and regulatory policies. New developments would 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). Table 3.8-9 provides the Gas Company’s 2005
estimated and future natural gas demand.
The demand for natural gas is anticipated to increase by approximately 104.49 million cubic feet
(mcf) per month (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005). The Gas Company coordinates with
new developments that are proposed to construct additional natural gas infrastructure as necessary
to meet demand.
Solid Waste
CR&R Incorporated (CR&R) is a privately operated company under contract with the City of
Temecula and provides solid waste collection and disposal services. CR&R has the option of
hauling residential waste to any permitted waste facility in Riverside County (i.e., transfer station
or landfill). Transfer stations can process waste prior to disposal at landfills.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-9 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.8-9
ESTIMATED CURRENT AND FUTURE NATURAL GAS DEMAND
Land Use
Usage Factor
(cf/month/
du or ksf)
Existing
(du/ksf)
Estimated
Existing
Usage
(mcf/month)
Proposed
(du/ksf)
Estimated Usage
at Buildout
(mcf/month)
Change
(mcf/month)
Single-Family
Residential
6,665.0/du 2,008 du 13.38 3,259 du 21.72 8.34
Multi-Family
Residential
4,011.5/du 27,260 du 109.35 49,445 du 198.35 89.00
Commercial 2.9/ksf 11,837 ksf 0.03 18,553 ksf 0.05 0.02
Light Industrial and
Office
2.0/ksf 13,431 ksf 0.03 38,313 ksf 0.08 0.05
Community Facilities 2.0/ksf 11,083 ksf 0.02 16,344 ksf 0.03 0.01
Mixed Use 4,011.5/du
2.9/ksf
N/A 0.00 1,760 du
2,245 ksf
7.06
0.007
7.07
TOTAL 29,268 du
36,351 ksf
122.81 54,464 du
75,455 ksf
227.30 104.49
cf = cubic feet; du = dwelling unit; sf = square feet; mcf = million cubic feet; ksf = thousand square feet.
NOTE: This table does not include open space land use designations.
SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan Update EIR, 2005.
The City of Temecula provides curbside recycling services. Recyclables are transported to a
center in Stanton, while general waste is hauled to the El Sobrante and Badlands Landfills in
Riverside County. The El Sobrante Landfill, a Riverside County regional municipal solid waste
landfill, is located east of I-15 and Temescal Canyon Road at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road. The
landfill is owned and operated by USA Waste of California, a subsidiary of Waste Management,
Inc. The El Sobrante Landfill is permitted to receive 10,000 tons of waste per day (tpd) and a
maximum permitted capacity of 184,930,000 tons (California Integrated Waste Management
Board, 2009a). The remaining capacity in 2007 was 118,573,540 tons, with an estimated cease
operation date of January 2030 (California Integrated Waste Management Board , 2009a).
The Badlands Landfill is located northeast of the City of Moreno Valley at 31125 Ironwood
Avenue. The Badlands Landfill is owned and operated by Riverside County Waste Management
Department. The landfill is currently permitted to receive 4,000 tpd and has a permitted capacity
of 30,386,322 cubic yards (California Integrated Waste Management Board , 2009b). The
remaining capacity as of 2005 was 21,866,092 cubic yards with an estimated cease operations
date of January 2016 (California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2009b).
Table 3.8-10 displays the current (2005) and future solid waste generation for the City of
Temecula.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-10 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.8-10
ESTIMATED CURRENT AND FUTURE SOLID WASTE GENERATION
Land Use
Generation
Factor
(lbs/du or ksf)
Existing
(du/ksf)
Exiting Solid
Waste
Generation
(lbs/day)
Future
du/ksf
Net Increase
(du/ksf)
Increase in Solid
Waste
Generation
(lbs/day)
Single-Family
Residential
10/du 2,008 du 20,080 3,259 du 1,251 du 12,510
Multi-Family
Residential
7/du 27,260 du 190,820 49,445 du 22,185 du 155,295
Commercial, Light
Industrial and Office
6/ksf 25,268 ksf 151,608 56,866 ksf 31,598 ksf 189,588
Public Institutional
Facilities
8/ksf 11,083 ksf 88,664 16,344 ksf 5,261 ksf 42,088
Overlay Designation 7 du/6 ksf N/A N/A 1,760 du
2,245 ksf
1,760 du
2,245 ksf
12,320
13,470
TOTAL 29,268 du
36,351 ksf
451,172 54,464 du
75,455 ksf
25,196 du
39,104 ksf
425,271
du = dwelling unit, ksf = thousand square feet
NOTE: Table does not include solid waste calculations for Vineyards/Agriculture, Open Space, and Tribal Trust Lands.
SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan EIR Update, 2005.
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 (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005).
3.8.3 Regulatory Setting
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act (State Subdivision Map, Section 66477) allows the legislative body of a City or
County, by ordinance, to require the dedication of land, the payment of fees in-lieu, or a
combination of both, for park and recreational purposes as a condition of approval for a final tract
map or parcel map. The Quimby Act requires that developers set aside land, donate conservation
easements, or pay fees for park improvements. The goal of the Quimby Act is to require
developers to help mitigate the impacts of property improvements.
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939)
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) redefined solid waste
management in terms of both objectives and planning responsibilities for local jurisdictions and
the State. The Act was adopted in an effort to reduce the volume and toxicity of solid waste that is
landfilled and incinerated by requiring local governments to prepare and implement plans to
improve the management of waste resources. AB 939 required each of the cities and
unincorporated portions of the counties to divert a minimum of 25 percent of the solid waste sent
to landfills by 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. To attain goals for reductions in disposal,
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-11 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
AB 939 established a planning hierarchy utilizing new integrated solid waste management
practices. These practices include source reduction, recycling and composting, and
environmentally safe landfill disposal and transformation. Other state statutes pertaining to solid
waste include compliance with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991
(AB 1327), which requires adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials within a
project site.
California Administrative Code
The California Administrative Code (CAC) establishes efficiency standards for reducing water
usage in new water fixtures. Title 24 CAC, Section 25352, addresses pipe insulation
requirements, which reduce the amount of hot water used before reaching equipment and fixtures.
Title 20 CAC, Section 1604, provides efficiency standards for water fixtures including lavatory
faucets, showerheads, and sink faucets.
California Urban Water Management Planning Act
Section 10610 of the California Water Code establishes the Urban Water Management Planning
Act. The act states that every urban water service provider that serves 3,000 or more customers or
that supplies over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually should prepare an Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP) every five years. The goal of an UWMP is to ensure the appropriate level of
reliability in water service sufficient to meet the needs of customers during normal, dry, and
multiple dry years.
Section 15155 of the CEQA Guidelines Water Supply Assessment
Section 15155 of the CEQA Guidelines was updated on July 27, 2007 to include the requirement
to develop a water supply assessment. The assessment is required when a residential development
of more than 500 dwelling units is proposed. If the development is part of an existing public
water system that has fewer than 5,000 service connections, an assessment is required when the
proposed residential development will account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the
number of the public water system’s existing service connections.
City of Temecula Regulations
City of Temecula General Plan
Open Space/Conservation Element
The Open Space/Conservation Element contains goals and policies concerned with managing
open space areas, including undeveloped wilderness lands and outdoor recreation uses. The Open
Space/Conservation Element states that open space should be preserved for:
• Preservation of natural resources;
• Managed production of resources;
• Recreation; and
• Public health and safety.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-12 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
City of Temecula Parks and Recreation Master Plan
The City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan addresses the long-term park and recreation needs
of residents. The Master Plan contains: current and projected recreational needs; park
development and design standards; a park and trails classification system; parks, trails and
recreation facilities improvements; target locations for acquisition of future parkland; future trail
connections to the regional trail system; a Citywide bicycle route and recreation trails system;
timing and phasing of parks, recreation facilities and trails; and cost estimates for park acquisition
and development. The Master Plan will support implementation of the goals and policies in the
Open Space/Conservation Element.
Goals and policies of the Open Space/Conservation Element are to provide a quality parks and
recreation system as a high priority for Temecula residents. Implementation of a Parks and
Recreation Master Plan is critical to achieving this goal. The Master Plan strives to attain a
balance between quantitative and qualitative levels of service. This balance involves providing an
acceptable amount of useable parkland, in close proximity to residents, as well as the appropriate
type and number of facilities to meet the recreation needs and desires of residents. The City’s
parks and recreation facilities are supplemented by other local and regional facilities, which may
be influenced and fostered through intergovernmental cooperation.
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 five 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 park design and site
development.
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 5.3 Encourage the use of clustered development and other site planning techniques to
maximize the preservation of permanent open spaces.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-13 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
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 5.9 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 5.13 Utilize natural, undeveloped greenbelts as buffers between developments and on
outskirts of the City to preserve the rural and unique character of Temecula.
Growth Management/Public Facilities Element
The City of Temecula General Plan establishes goals and policies related to public services and
utilities for areas within the City. The following General Plan goals and policies for public
services and utilities are relevant to the proposed project:
Goal 6 A water and wastewater infrastructure system that supports development in the
planning area.
Policy 6.1 Require landowners to demonstrate that an available water supply and sewer
treatment capacity exists or will be provided to serve proposed development, prior to
issuance of building permits.
Policy 6.2 Require landowners, prior to issuance of building permits, to demonstrate that
adequate wastewater capacity exists to serve proposed development.
Goal 8 A solid waste management system providing safe and efficient collection,
transportation, recovery, and disposal of waste.
Goal 9 Adequate electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication systems to meet
development demand.
Development Impact Fees
The City adopted Resolution No. 03-63 and subsequent amendments establishing Developer
Impact Fees (DIF) to mitigate the cost of providing or expanding public facilities (parks, open
space and trails, and corporate facilities) needed to serve new development in the community.
The DIF collected is based on the type of development proposed and the land use designations
established for the project area.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-14 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
3.8.4 Impact Analysis
Significance Criteria
The significance criteria for the public services analysis have been developed in part from criteria
presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.1 For this analysis, the proposed project would
result in significant impacts if it would:
• Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the 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 (specifically parks);
• Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects;
• Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or need new or expanded entitlements;
• Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments;
• Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s
solid waste disposal needs; or
• Not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Methodology and Assumptions
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment has been evaluated for conformity with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the City’s General Plan and regulation documents related to recreation.
The potential for adverse impacts on recreational services has been evaluated based on
information concerning current recreational service and the ability of the recreational facility to
accommodate the demand created by the proposed project. This analysis considered existing
General Plan policies, goals, and applicable regulations, as well as existing and proposed parks,
open space, and recreation facilities within the general area.
The project team contacted the agencies and utilities that have jurisdiction or provide services to
the Specific Plan Amendment area. Correspondence included requesting current information
about service ratios, performance objectives, number of apparatus devoted to the project vicinity,
etc., and reviewing web-based information about these agencies. These agencies were contacted
as part of the Notice of Preparation to determine available service levels and anticipated service
needs caused by the proposed Specific Plan Amendment’s development. Additionally, federal,
state, and local regulations were reviewed for applicability.
1 Several criteria deemed less than significant will not be discussed in this section. Please refer to the Initial Study
Checklist (see Appendix A) for the criteria that were considered to be less than significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-15 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Summary of Impacts
An Initial Study analyzed potential impacts to public services, utilities, and service systems from
implementation of this project based on criteria established by Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines. It was determined that there would be no impacts or less-than-significant impacts to
all public services, with the exception of parks and limited impacts to utilities and service systems
(see Appendix A).
Pursuant to City development standards, policies, and standard conditions of approval,
development in the Specific Plan area would be properly designed. Where necessary,
infrastructure would be installed to ensure health and public safety of persons and property. These
measures would be addressed case by case as development occurs.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.8-1: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks and recreational facilities.
The Specific Plan Amendment would be implemented over approximately 20 to 30 years. Build-
out of the proposed Specific Plan area would replace existing residences with new multi-family
residential structures, and would result in new consolidated locations for commercial and retail uses.
The Specific Plan Amendment would result in an increase in residential population of
approximately 4,114 new residents2 compared to existing conditions. In order to maintain the
ratio of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, the proposed Specific Plan area would need to
contribute 205.7 acres of parkland/open space to the City’s inventory of park space. There are
538 existing (on ground) residential units in the existing Specific Plan Area that would require
approximately 2.69 acres of parkland/ open space. Taken together, the total amount of parkland/
open space for existing and proposed development would be approximately 208.39 acres (205.7
acres for proposed residential and 2.69 acres existing residential). There are 26 single-family
units along the freeway that would be removed and replaced with mixed-use development. Thus,
the actual open space/parkland needed would be less. Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-2 below would
mitigate this impact below the significance level.
As stated in the City’s General Plan, 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; as such, although the open space corridor
associated with the proposed project would be increased by 5.7 acres, this area would not
contribute towards the parks and recreational facilities requirement. Within the OTSP area, the
Sam Hicks Memorial Park would provide 2 acres of parkland and the Civic Center Plaza would
contribute .45 acres of recreational facilities towards this requirement. However, there would still
be a need for the contribution of 7.29 acres of parks and recreational facilities into the City’s
inventory of park space as a result of the proposed project. Although the additional open space
provided by the amended Specific Plan would not contribute towards the parks and recreational
facilities requirement, this additional open space area would still have a beneficial affect on the
2 Multi-family dwelling unit assumption of 2.2 persons/du.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-16 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
City an OTSP area. Overall, due to the improvements proposed by the Specific Plan Amendment
(improved landscaping and walkways, etc.) and implementation of the Mitigation Measures 3.8-1
through 3.8-3 listed below, impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, all development
projects must contribute their fair share to the maintenance or provision of public services
through payment of the City’s Development Impact Fee.
Mitigation Measures
Measure 3.8-1: The City shall continue to implement its local code that incorporates
standards for parkland dedication and development. The City requires (1) the dedication of
parkland or the payment of in-lieu fees and the development of recreation facilities for all
new development; and (2) developers of residential projects greater than 200 units must
dedicate land based on the park acre standard of five acres of usable parkland to 1,000
residents.
Measure 3.8-2: 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.
Measure 3.8-3: The City shall 1) implement policies and standards of the Parks and
Recreation and Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plans, 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.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Impact 3.8-2: The project would not require or result in the construction of new water
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects.
The construction and operation of uses associated with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment
would not require the preparation of a water supply assessment in accordance with Section 15155
of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15155 of the CEQA Guidelines states a water supply assessment
is required if:
• the project would result in the construction of more than 500 residential units and/or require
a water demand equivalent to a 500 dwelling unit project;
• the project would include a commercial component that would employ more than 1,000
persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space;
• the project would include a hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms; and/or
• the water district serves less than 5,000 people.
Currently, RCWD provides services to more than 120,000 people. If optimal development occurs,
the project area can expect development of approximately 749 (Fisk, 2009) new residential units.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-17 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
However, the timing of the proposed project would be 20-30 years and there is no guarantee that
a project resulting in optimal development would occur. As a result, the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment would create a situation already within the boundary of what has been accounted for
by RCWD.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is anticipated to result in an increase in water demand
annually compared to the existing conditions. Table 3.8-11 illustrates the RCWD’s average daily
unit demand for land uses.
TABLE 3.8-11
WATER SYSTEM UNIT DEMAND
Land Use Average Day Unit Demand Factors
Very Low Density/Low Density (1DU/AC) 1,500 GPD/DU
Medium Low Density (2-4 DU/AC) 1,000 GPD/DU
Medium Density/Medium High Density/High Density (5-16 DU/AC) 600 GPD/DU
Commercial 2,000 GPD/AC
Business Park/Industrial 2,500 GPD/AC
Vineyard 2.0 AF/AC/YR
Park/Golf Course 4.0 AF/AC/YR
Wildlife/Reserve 0
Resort Commercial 4.0 AF/AC/YR
Open Space 1.5 AF/AC/YR
Agriculture (Avocado, Citrus, Horse Ranch) 3.5 AF/AC/YR
SOURCE: Rancho California Water District Water System Facility Requirement and Design Guidelines, December 2007. See Appendix H.
The Specific Plan Amendment would intensify the land uses within the area (and expanded area
proposed) such that it would increase water demand to 449,4003 gpd for residential uses.
However, the Specific Plan Amendment would reduce the commercial uses by approximately
1,405,285 square feet such that it would decrease water demand to 2,810,570,000 gpd for
commercial uses. Thus, no new increase in water for commercial uses is anticipated.
Provisions have been made by RCWD and MWD in the event of a water shortage. RCWD
developed a water shortage contingency plan in accordance with the Urban Water Management
Planning Act. As stated above, RCWD purchases a substantial portion of its water from MWD. If
a water shortage were to occur, MWD “will be able to meet municipal and industrial (M&I)
demands with management of existing water supplies with no negative impact to the end user”.
Rancho California Water District, 2005). Severe and extreme shortages would require MWD to
implement some or all of the following water shortage actions:
• Draw on storage in the Diamond Valley Lake.
• Draw on out-of-region storage in Semitropic and Arvin-Edison.
3 There are 749 net new residential units proposed that fall into the category of high density (up to 35 du/ac). The
average daily demand factor for high density residential is 600 gpd/ du. Thus, 749 units would equal 449,400 gpd
of water consumption (749 units x 600 demand factor). See Appendix H.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-18 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
• Reduce/suspend long-term seasonal and groundwater replenishment deliveries.
• Draw on contractual groundwater storage programs in the region.
• Draw on SWP terminal reservoir storage (per Monterey Agreement).
• Call for extraordinary drought conservation and public education.
• Reduce IAWP (agricultural) deliveries.
• Call on water transfer options contracts.
• Purchase transfers on the spot market.
• Allocate MWD’s firm imported supplies to its member agencies (Rancho California Water
District , 2005).
If a water shortage were to occur, the RCWD has a four-level policy program in place (Stage I:
Normal Conditions, Stage II: Water Alert, Stage III: Water Warning, Stage IV: Water
Emergency). The restrictions during a water emergency can reduce agricultural water use by 80
percent and total RCWD water use by 29 percent (Rancho California Water District , 2005).
RCWD future water projections calculated the existing Specific Plan area in accordance with the
land use designation and current zoning. Therefore, this additional water demand was
incorporated into the RCWD’s future water projections and would not cause the water provider,
RCWD, to significantly increase its water entitlements to supply the project area. Furthermore,
with future implementation of recycled water (used for irrigation of common landscaped areas
and the Open Space corridor), the water demand from the proposed amendment would not require
any existing facility to expand water service to the project area. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not result in the need to expand water service facilities
or construct new water facilities. Overall, impacts related to water supply would be less than
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
The Specific Plan area is part of the existing and 2030 projected water demand forecast for
RCWD. These projections were formulated for normal weather conditions. In the event of a water
shortage, RCWD’s program would take effect to provide water sustainability to the area.
According to the City of Temecula General Plan, no water supply shortage is expected in the near
future (City of Temecula General Plan, 2005).
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation: No mitigation required.
Impact 3.8-3: The project would not require or result in the construction of wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects.
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not likely cause a substantial
increase in the demand for wastewater treatment services, nor would it necessitate the alteration
of existing facilities to meet treatment capacity expectations. As stated above, the majority of land
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-19 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
uses proposed would replace existing uses over 20 to 30 years (build-out). The EMWD treats
approximately 46 mgd of wastewater, with a capacity of treating 56 mgd.
As indicated above, EMWD’s Temecula Valley RWRF would serve as the wastewater
reclamation facility for the area. The facility has capacity to treat 13.2 mgd of wastewater; however,
EMWD plans to expand the facility from 13.2 mgd to 19.8 mgd (City of Temecula General Plan
EIR, 2005). The next expansion of the facility is anticipated to occur around 2014 and will provide
approximately 24 mgd of capacity (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005). All water effluent
at the Temecula Valley RWRF is treated to the tertiary standards of Title 22 CAC, Chapter 4.
Treated water is primarily distributed for irrigation purposes. As a direct result of the Temecula
Valley RWRF’s ability to accommodate the additional wastewater effluent, the replacement uses
proposed by the Specific Plan Amendment, and the timeframe of the Specific Plan Amendment
implementation (20 to 30 years for full build-out), there would be no substantial impacts to
wastewater treatment services.
There are various existing sewer lines within the Specific Plan area boundary. Two of these sewer
lines, the First Street and the Pujol Street lines, are anticipated to be nearing capacity. The First
Street sewer line is a 10-inch pipe and the Pujol Street sewer line is an 8-inch pipe. Both of these
sewer lines may require upgrades to accommodate full project build-out. To ensure that impacts
remain less than significant, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-3a and 3.8-3b would
be required.
Mitigation Measures
Measure 3.8-3a: Prior to construction in any undeveloped areas, EMWD shall review the
plans for consistency with design criteria. Once approved by the EMWD engineer, the
applicant shall pay the required connection fee to EMWD prior to construction of the sewer
line.
Measure 3.8-3b: Prior to construction, the project applicant and/or each subsequent project
applicant will pay its fair share in mitigation fees to EMWD to upgrade the First Street and
the Pujol Street sewer lines.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Impact 3.8-4: The project would not result in insufficient water supplies from existing
entitlements or need new or expanded entitlements.
As described for Impact 3.8-2 above, water is presently available in the Specific Plan area to
serve existing development. The additional demand for water on-site would result from the
proposed changes in land uses (i.e., kitchens, sinks, bathrooms, open space areas, public facilities
and landscaping). This type of water demand would not cause the RCWD to exceed its projected
capacity for water usage.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-20 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
As indicated above, provisions have been made by RCWD and MWD in the event of a water
shortage within western Riverside County. RCWD developed a water shortage contingency plan
in accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. If a water shortage were to
occur, the RCWD has a four-level policy program in place (Stage I: Normal Conditions, Stage II:
Water Alert, Stage III: Water Warning, Stage IV: Water Emergency). The restrictions during a
water emergency can reduce agricultural water use by 80 percent and total RCWD water use by
29 percent (Rancho California Water District, 2005).
The Specific Plan area is part of the existing and 2030 projected water demand forecast for
RCWD (Table 3.8-5). These projections were formulated for normal weather conditions. In the
event of a water shortage, RCWD’s program would take effect to provide water sustainability to
the area. According to the City of Temecula General Plan, no water supply shortage is expected
in the near future (City of Temecula General Plan, 2005). Therefore, the Specific Plan
Amendment would have a less-than-significant impact on water supply.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation: None required.
Impact 3.8-5: The project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
Please see discussion of Impact 3.8-3 above.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation: None required.
Impact 3.8-6: The project would not be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.
During construction, solid waste may include a variety of building materials that can be recycled.
Construction activities would require the removal of asphalt and concrete, stucco, wood, and
other building materials from redeveloped areas. New construction would also generate solid
waste consisting of cardboard and other paper products, metals, plastics and other building
materials. The Specific Plan Amendment would be implemented over an approximate 20- to 30-
year timeframe. Given the extended timeframe for build-out, the contribution of solid waste from
the project area would be limited.
The project area is required to have recycling collection and loading facilities in compliance with
the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which requires cities to
divert 50 percent of their solid waste through source reduction, recycling, and composting. The
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-21 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
increased Specific Plan area (annexation of approximately 2.4 acres, reduction of area by
approximately 2.5 acres) and the intensity of development anticipated by implementation of the
project would result in an increased generation of solid waste. However, that increase would be
minimal given that the commercial building floor space would be reduced in Old Town by
approximately 1,405,285 square feet (even with the increase in 749 residential units proposed).
The City would be required to maintain the 50 percent diversion rate required by the State for all
solid waste. The solid waste generated by the project would place a minimal burden on the City to
maintain the required diversion rate. This increase would not require additional landfill capacity.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8-6 would ensure that the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment would comply with the required diversion rates, and impacts associated with solid
waste would remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Measure 3.8-6: All proposed development plans shall designate adequate and convenient
space on the property to be used for collecting all recyclable materials generated on the
premises.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant.
Impact 3.8-7: The project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.
The Riverside County Solid Waste Management Plan serves as the general guideline for waste
management in the County. The City prepared a local plan to reduce solid waste by 25 percent by
1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000 through source reduction, recycling and composting
strategies. In October 1991, the City began implementation of a curbside residential waste
separation program. Recyclable and compostable materials are separated from household trash.
Household waste is transported to a processing center in Stanton, and commercial/industrial
waste is transported to a processing center in Perris.
The project will be in conformance with solid waste plans. Potential impacts to county landfills
would be further reduced through compliance with all federal, state and local statutes and
regulations regarding solid waste generation, transport and disposal. The Specific Plan
Amendment is considered to have no impacts in terms of compliance with federal, state or local
statutes or regulations related to solid waste.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation: None required.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.8 Utilities and Services
Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-22 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Impact 3.8-8: The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new
electrical and gas facilities or the expansion of existing facilities where the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects (Less than Significant).
Electricity
Future development in the Specific Plan area would use existing electricity service provided by
SCE. Some extension of service may be necessary into undeveloped areas and would require
assessment at the time of development review. Based on the current availability of electrical
service in portions of the Specific Plan area, extensive infrastructure is not necessary, and the
project would not significantly affect electrical services.
Natural Gas
The Specific Plan area is currently served by the Gas Company for natural gas service.
Development in the Specific Plan area may require an extension of service into undeveloped
areas and would require assessment at the time of development review. Future development in the
project area would not affect the current service provider or natural gas services.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation: None required.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-1 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
3.9 Traffic and Circulation
3.9.1 Introduction
This section addresses the potential traffic and circulation impacts associated with
implementation of the proposed project. The traffic and circulation analysis includes a description
of existing traffic conditions (e.g., level of congestion on roadways and at intersections in the
project site vicinity), an evaluation of potential impacts associated with implementation of the
proposed project, an evaluation of cumulative traffic impacts, and mitigation measures to reduce
potentially adverse significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. A discussion of applicable
state, local, and regional plans and/or programs is also included. Information in this section is
based on the traffic study prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., included as Appendix G of
this Program EIR.
3.9.2 Environmental Setting
Level of Service Standards
Level of Service (LOS) is a professional industry standard by which the operating conditions of a
given roadway segment are measured. LOS is defined on a scale of A to F; where LOS A
represents the best operating conditions and LOS F represents the worst operating conditions.
LOS F facilities are characterized as having forced flow with many stoppages and low operating
speeds. Table 3.9-1 gives a description of each LOS.
TABLE 3.9-1
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
LOS Description
A No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic, and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Typically,
the approach appears quite open, turns are made easily, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation.
B This service level represents stable operation, where an occasional approach phase is fully utilized and a
substantial number are nearing full use. Many drivers begin to feel restricted within platoons of vehicles.
C This level still represents stable operating conditions. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more
than one red signal indication, and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel
somewhat restricted, but not objectionably so.
D This level encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability at the intersection. Delays to
approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period; however, enough cycles
with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive
backups.
E Capacity occurs at the upper end of this service level. It represents the most vehicles that any particular
intersection approach can accommodate. Full utilization of every signal cycle is seldom attained no matter
how great the demand.
F This level describes forced flow operations at low speeds, where volumes exceed capacity. These
conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction downstream. Speeds are
reduced substantially, and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time due to the congestion. In
the extreme case, both speed and volume can drop to zero.
SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report No. 209, Washington, D.C., 2000.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Traffic and Circulation
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-2 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
The City of Temecula accepts LOS D at signalized intersections as adequate. The City has no
specific LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections. However, for the purpose of this Program
EIR, LOS D has been assumed as the minimum acceptable LOS for unsignalized intersections. If
the LOS decreases from LOS D to LOS E or F as a result of a proposed project, mitigation
measures must be identified to improve the LOS at the intersection to LOS D or better. In
addition, if the project would increase the intersection delay two seconds or more at intersections
operating at LOS E or F, the project applicant must identify mitigation measures to improve the
delay at the intersection. Should an unsignalized intersection be found to be operating at LOS E
or LOS F, a traffic signal warrant would be prepared to determine whether signalization of the
intersection is needed. Table 3.9-2 summarizes the LOS definitions for intersections.
TABLE 3.9-2
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
LOS Unsignalized Intersection
Delay per Vehicle (in seconds)
Signalized Intersection
Delay per Vehicle (in seconds)
A ≤ 10 ≤ 10
B > 10 – 15 > 10 – 20
C > 15 – 25 > 20 – 35
D > 25 – 35 > 35 – 55
E > 35 – 50 > 55 – 80
F > 50 > 80
SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report No. 209,
Washington, D.C., 2000.
As previously described in this document, Old Town is envisioned to develop as a pedestrian-
friendly, vibrant downtown. The activity that is expected to occur by those biking, walking and
getting around the area requires that the entire right of way in Old Town be oriented toward the
safety and comfort of the pedestrian, while concurrently encouraging the use of transit. These
principles, as well as the anticipated increase in activity in the Old Town area require that the
streets become less automobile-oriented and more pedestrian and people oriented. As a result of
the amendment to the OTSP, streets will no longer be considered for the fast-paced, high-volume
movement of cars, trucks and other motorized vehicles; the concept of a “street” in the OTSP area
will be expanded to include the safe, efficient movement of all pedestrians. Therefore, to facilitate
this concept, the City will accept LOS E and F inside the Old Town Temecula area for
intersections on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North as a result of
development of the proposed project in order to maintain the unique “Main Street” character of
the OTSP area.
Existing Roadway Network
The project site is served by a network of regional and local roadways. I-15 is the major north-
south roadway in the project site vicinity, connecting with the City of Murrieta to the north and
unincorporated Riverside County to the south. I-15 is an eight-lane freeway in the project
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-3 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
vicinity. Old Town Front Street is another major north-south roadway within the project site. Old
Town Front Street is a two-lane undivided roadway.
Key east-west roadways in the project vicinity include Rancho California Road, First
Street/Santiago Road, and State Route 79 (SR-79)/Temecula Parkway.
The following is a brief description of the existing roadways and freeways in the study area (see
Figures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2).
Interstate 15 (I-15) is an eight-lane (four lanes in each direction) north-south freeway that
extends through San Bernardino County to the north, and San Diego County to the south. Access
to the project site is provided via interchanges at Rancho California Road and SR-79/Temecula
Parkway. The posted speed limit is 65 miles per hour (mph).
Rancho California Road is an east-west arterial located north of the project site. This roadway
will provide access to the project site via Old Town Front Street. Rancho California Road is a six-
lane (three lanes in each direction) divided roadway to the west of Old Town Front Street, and an
eight-lane (four lanes in each direction) divided roadway to the east of Old Town Front Street.
Old Town Front Street is a north-south collector that is the major thoroughfare within the
project site and would provide direct access to the project site via First Street to the south and
Rancho California to the north. Old Town Front Street is a two-lane (one lane in each direction)
undivided roadway.
First Street/Santiago Road is an east-west arterial located south of the project site and would
provide direct access to the project site via Old Town Front Street. First Street/Santiago Road is
currently a four-lane (two lanes in each direction) undivided roadway.
SR-79/Temecula Parkway is an east-west state highway located south of the project site and
would provide access to Old Town Front Street from I-15. SR-79/Temecula Parkway is currently
a six-lane divided highway.
Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service
Traffic volumes in the project area were calculated based on traffic counts taken by RK
Engineering, Inc. in 2006 during AM and PM peak hours. Existing LOS for the project area
roadways are given in Table 3.9-3. LOS D is the minimum acceptable service level for the City
of Temecula.
Based on peak-hour volume, existing traffic volumes exceed the acceptable LOS for the City of
Temecula at the following intersections:
• Old Town Front Street/Rancho California Road (LOS E during PM peak hour)
• I-15 Northbound (NB) Ramps/SR-79 (LOS F during PM peak hour)
1
9
10
2
3
4
5
14
15
6
7
13
Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294
Figure 3.9-1
Location Map
(Existing Conditions)
SOURCE: RK Engineering Group, Inc., 2010.
Legend
Study Area Intersections N
1
2
3
4
5
13
14
6
7
8
11
12
Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294
Figure 3.9-2
Location Map
(Future Conditions)
SOURCE: RK Engineering Group, Inc., 2010.
Legend
Study Area Intersections
Future Planned Roadway N
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Traffic and Circulation
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-6 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.9-3
EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Intersection Controla
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delayb
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
1. Old Town Front Street/Rancho California Road TS 26.1 C 63.8 E
2. Old Town Front Street/North Moreno Road CSS 11.4 B 16.3 C
3. Old Town Front Street/South Moreno Road CSS 14.1 B 19.2 C
4. Old Town Front Street/6th Street AWS 12.0 B 19.9 C
5. Old Town Front Street/Main Street AWS 14.2 B 13.9 B
6. Old Town Front Street/2nd Street CSS 21.3 C 17.9 C
7. Old Town Front Street/1st Street/Santiago Road TS 21.8 C 23.8 C
8. Old Town Front Street/SR-79 TS 17.4 B 17.7 B
9. I-15 SB Ramps/Rancho California Road TS 20.8 C 19.9 B
10. I-15 NB Ramps/Rancho California Road TS 8.8 A 12.4 B
11. I-15 SB Ramps/SR-79 TS 25.7 C 29.7 C
12. I-15 NB Ramps/SR-79 TS 11.6 B 153.0 F
13. Mercedes Street/Moreno Road CSS 10.0 A 10.7 B
14. Mercedes Street/Main Street CSS 11.3 B 9.3 A
15. Mercedes Street/3rd Street CSS 9.2 A 9.7 A
a TS = Traffic Signal, CSS = Cross Street Stop, AWS = All-Way Stop
b Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 8.0. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of
service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the
delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a signal lane) are shown.
SOURCE: RK Engineers, Inc., 2009
Regulatory Setting
Congestion Management Program Compliance
The purpose of the state-mandated Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to monitor
roadway congestion and assess the overall performance of the region’s transportation system.
Based upon this assessment, the CMP contains specific strategies and improvements to reduce
traffic congestion and improve the performance of a multi-modal transportation system.
Examples of strategies include increased emphasis on public transportation and rideshare
programs, mitigating the impacts of new development, and better coordinating land use and
transportation planning decisions.
Based on the approval of Proposition 111 in 1990, regulations require the preparation,
implementation, and annual updating of a CMP in each of California’s urbanized counties. One
required element of the CMP is a process to evaluate the transportation and traffic impacts of
large projects on the regional transportation system. That process is undertaken by local agencies,
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-7 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
project applicants, and traffic consultants through a transportation impact report usually
conducted as part of the CEQA project review process. Authority for local land use decisions
including project approvals and any required mitigation remains the responsibility of local
jurisdictions.
The criteria for which a project is subject to the regulations set forth in the CMP are determined
by the trip generation potential for the project. Currently, the average daily traffic (ADT)
threshold is 2,400 vehicles or 200 peak hour trips. The proposed project would generate
approximately 78,801 ADT, 4,797 AM peak hour trips, and 7,357 PM peak hour trips. The trip
generation for the proposed project would exceed the CMP threshold, and is therefore subject to
CMP guidelines for traffic impact studies.
Making the Connections: 2008 Regional Transportation Plan
Making the Connections is SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for its member counties.
The RTP focuses on improving the balance between land use and current as well as future
transportation systems. SCAG develops, maintains and updates the RTP on a three-year cycle.
According to the 2008 RTP, I-15 in Riverside County is slated for high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
and Mixed Flow projects.
City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element
The City of Temecula General Plan defines traffic congestion using the same LOS system
described above. The minimum LOS deemed acceptable by the City of Temecula is LOS D.
Goals, policies, and an implementation program in the Circulation Element section of the General
Plan that pertain to this project include the following:
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 reductions and transportation systems management measures to reduce
and limit congestion at intersections and along streets within the City.
Policy 1.5: Require additional right-of-way and impose additional parking restrictions for
approaches to all Principal Intersections to allow for future intersection
improvements and turning movements.
Implementation Program 6: Implement the following procedures and requirements to minimize
the impacts of proposed development projects on the City’s circulation system, and to encourage
increased use of alternative transportation.
• Evaluate development proposals for potential impacts to the transportation and
infrastructure systems.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Traffic and Circulation
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-8 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
• Require mitigation in the form of physical improvements and/or impact fees for significant
impacts prior to or concurrent with project development.
• Require dedication of adequate right-of-way along new roadways to permit pedestrian and
bicycle facilities.
• Require new development to incorporate design features which facilitate transit service and
encourage transit ridership, such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop facilities, efficient
trail systems through projects to transit stops, installation of bike lanes, bikeways, and
bicycle parking, and incorporation of pedestrian walkways that pass through subdivision
boundary walls, as appropriate.
3.9.2 Impact Analysis
Significance Criteria
Based on the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, implementation of the proposed project would have
a significant adverse traffic impact if it would:
• Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, or the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections);
• Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a Level of Service standard established by the
city or county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
• Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risk;
• Substantially increase hazards due to design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment);
• Result in inadequate emergency access;
• Result in inadequate parking capacity; or
• Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks).
According to the City of Temecula’s General Plan, the minimum Level of Service standard for
signalized intersections has been established at LOS D. The City of Temecula has not established or
adopted specific thresholds for significant impacts at intersections. Based on traffic engineering
industry standards, as well as thresholds established by adjacent jurisdictions (i.e., County of
Riverside), the following significance thresholds have been established:
• Intersections increasing from LOS D to LOS E or LOS F as a result of the proposed project
are considered a significant project impact.
• Intersections operating at LOS E or F, where the proposed project increases the vehicle
delay by two seconds or more, are considered a significant project impact.
• A cumulative impact is identified if the intersection is operating at LOS E or F and the
proposed project increases the intersection delay by two seconds or more.
As previously described in this document, Old Town is envisioned to develop as a pedestrian-
friendly, vibrant downtown. The activity that is expected to occur by those biking, walking and
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-9 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
getting around the area requires that the entire right of way in Old Town be oriented toward the
safety and comfort of the pedestrian, while concurrently encouraging the use of transit. These
principles, as well as the anticipated increase in activity in the Old Town area require that the
streets become less automobile-oriented and more pedestrian and people oriented. As a result of
the amendment to the OTSP, streets will no longer be considered for the fast-paced, high-volume
movement of cars, trucks and other motorized vehicles; the concept of a “street” in the OTSP area
will be expanded to include the safe, efficient movement of all pedestrians. Therefore, to facilitate
this concept, the City will accept LOS E and F inside the Old Town Temecula area for
intersections on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North as a result of
development of the proposed project in order to maintain the unique “Main Street” character of
the OTSP area.
Methodology and Assumptions
Project Trip Generation
Traffic generation for the proposed project was calculated using trip rates provided by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation, 8th Edition. The land use
codes for commercial, hotel, residential (apartment), residential (single-family housing), civic,
and office uses were used to determine traffic generation for this project. Table 3.9-4 summarizes
the trip generation estimates. With credit for capture and pedestrian/transit use, the project would
generate approximately 70,046 ADT; 4,263 AM peak hour trips; and 6,540 PM peak hour trips on
a typical weekday. Capture refers to trips that are generated within and stay within the Specific
Plan area and do not have an impact on nearby roadways.
TABLE 3.9-4
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATESa
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Quantity Unitsb Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Commercial 1,043,928 TSF 53,846 1,213 957 2,170 2,419 2,268 4,687
Hotel 499 RM 4,077 169 109 278 155 140 295
Residential (Apartment) 2,377 DU 15,819 239 976 1,215 951 522 1,473
Residential (Single-Family Housing) 31 DU 296 6 17 23 20 11 31
Civic 159,809 TSF 4,320 311 38 349 135 310 445
Office 835,494 TSF 9,199 1,136 158 1,294 209 1,034 1243
Total 87,557 3,074 2,255 5,329 3,889 4,285 8,174
Less 10 Percent Capture Credit -8,756 -307 -226 -533 -389 -429 -817
Less 10 Percent Pedestrian/Transit Credit -8,756 -307 -226 -533 -389 -429 -817
Net Total 70,046 2,459 1,804 4,263 3,111 3,428 6,540
a Trip Rates referenced from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (2008). b TSF = Thousand Square Feet, RM = Room, DU = Dwelling Unit.
SOURCE: RK Engineering, Inc., 2009.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Traffic and Circulation
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-10 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
The proposed project would increase traffic at a lesser rate than the current Specific Plan for the
Old Town area. The existing Specific Plan for the Old Town area would increase traffic by
106,092 ADT, with 5,957 AM peak hour trips and 9,925 PM peak hour trips (see Appendix G for
the trip generation rates for the existing Specific Plan).
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Project trip generation was based on many factors including, among others, the following:
• The location of housing and jobs within the City of Temecula and adjacent cities (Perris,
Murrieta, and Hemet);
• The location of housing and jobs within the County of Riverside and adjacent counties (San
Bernardino, and San Diego); and
• Transportation facility characteristics that impact travel demand (i.e., location of urban
arterials, freeways, and interchanges).
The expansion of Pujol Street and an interchange along I-15 SB Ramps at SR-79 were assumed to
be complete for the Existing Plus Ambient Growth with Proposed Specific Plan Conditions and
the General Plan (Year 2035) Plus Ambient Growth with Proposed Specific Plan Conditions
scenarios, which are the near-term and long-term scenarios considered in the impact analysis,
below. As a result of the Pujol Street expansion that would connect this street to SR-79, 30
percent of the current and future traffic traveling on Old Town Front Street would be redistributed
to Pujol Street.
Trips generated from the proposed project would most likely be from the City of Temecula and
the surrounding areas. It is unlikely that the project would draw a lot of people from outside of
the immediate region. Figure 3.9-3 displays the likely trip distribution patterns for the proposed
project.
Roundabout Analysis
Roundabouts are a form of intersection control commonly used throughout the world and are
gaining increasing momentum throughout the United States. They are circular intersections with
specific design and traffic control features that include yield control of all entering traffic,
channelized approaches, and appropriate geometric curvature to ensure that travel speeds on the
circulatory roadway are typically less than 30 mph.
Along with speed reduction and traffic calming elements of the roundabout, the appeal of the
roundabout lies in the safety principles it employs. A typical two-way intersection has
32 vehicle-to-vehicle conflict points and 24 vehicle-to-pedestrian conflict points. A modern two-
way roundabout has eight vehicle-to-vehicle conflict points and eight vehicle-to-pedestrian
conflict points. Fewer conflict points reduce traffic accidents.
In conjunction with the efforts to decrease cut-through traffic on Old Town Front Street and allow
for a more even traffic distribution, the City of Temecula has also engaged in efforts to expand
Mercedes Street to reach Old Town Front Street on the north end, and the intersection of Old
Town Front Street at First Street/Santiago Road on the south end. This would allow Mercedes
Street to act as another option for northbound and southbound traveling vehicles throughout Old
Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294Figure 3.9-3Future Traffic DistributionSOURCE: RK Engineering Group, Inc., 2010.Legend-10% = Percentage subtracted from the existing counts+10% = Percentage added to the existing countsN
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 Traffic and Circulation Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-12 ESA / D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 This page left intentionally blank
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-13 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Town. Two proposed roundabouts were analyzed for future conditions at the following
intersections1:
• Old Town Front Street at Mercedes Street (Future Extension)
• Old Town Front Street at First Street/Santiago Road/Mercedes Street
The analysis of the two roundabouts listed above was aimed only at obtaining LOS from a traffic
volume perspective, given the designs provided by the City of Temecula staff at the time the
traffic study was prepared. The designs, layouts, angles of approach, directional orientation,
conflict points, internal and external radii measurements, proper signage, pedestrian facilities and
any additional operational characteristics of these proposed roundabouts should be carefully
calculated by a roundabout expert prior to implementation. The analysis shows that they are
feasible and could operate at an acceptable LOS.
As shown in Appendix H of the traffic study (RK Engineering, Inc., Old Town Temecula Specific
Plan Traffic Impact Study, December 16, 2009). Mercedes Street would be extended northbound
to intersect Old Town Front Street. As a result, the existing intersection of Old Town Front Street
at South Moreno Road would be reconfigured. A roundabout would be utilized to control this
future intersection. Also shown in Appendix H of the traffic study is a proposed five-leg
roundabout to connect Mercedes Street to the existing intersection of Old Town Front Street at
First Street/Santiago Road. This would result in a five-leg intersection controlled by a
roundabout.
As shown in Tables 3.9-6 and 3.9-7, the two proposed roundabouts listed above are projected to
operate at an acceptable LOS, when taking into account the average delay at each intersection.
The proposed roundabouts can be successfully implemented as traffic control devices at the
locations shown in Appendix H in the traffic study.
Appendices C and D in the traffic study also include the LOS worksheets for each of the
roundabouts (RK Engineering, Inc., 2009).
Pedestrian Activity
As part of the proposed Specific Plan, the City of Temecula will encourage an increase in
pedestrian activity through Old Town in order to reduce vehicle trips and establish a typical
downtown atmosphere. The primary methods by which the City will encourage pedestrian
activity throughout Old Town are as follows:
• Build an additional pedestrian bridge at 3rd Street over Murrieta Creek that will connect the
Neighborhood Residential District to the Downtown Core and Civic Districts.
• Build a pedestrian bridge across the I-15 freeway at Sixth Street that will connect the
Downtown Core District to the residential neighborhood east of the I-15 freeway.
1 RK Engineering Group utilized the SIDRA Intersection Version 4.0 analysis software to study the proposed
roundabout. SIDRA Intersection Version 4.0 is a software analysis program that can effectively produce a LOS
analysis for roundabouts using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM) methodologies.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Traffic and Circulation
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-14 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
• Expand Sixth Street, Main Street and First Street southwest of Old Town Front Street to
reach Pujol Street and the future Western Bypass. This will allow for an increase in
pedestrian facilities and a denser pedestrian network to connect the land use districts inside
of Old Town.
• Facilitate a comprehensive Specific Plan that will increase the availability of mixed-use
establishments to cater to pedestrians.
• Improve sidewalk facilities inside of Old Town.
Developing a pedestrian network throughout Old Town will reduce vehicular travel and vehicle
cut-through traffic with the expansion of the existing street network. Facilitating a comprehensive
Land Use Element will make it more appealing and safer for pedestrians. By having a wide mix
of land use types, pedestrian travel can be encouraged and vehicle trips reduced.
Existing Plus Ambient Growth with Proposed Specific Plan Conditions
This scenario provides the basis for determining project-specific impacts, mitigation, and
conditions of approval. This scenario adds project traffic to existing traffic conditions plus a 3
percent ambient growth rate. Traffic from cumulative projects in the area has been added to this
scenario as well. Table 3.9-5 gives the estimated traffic from cumulative projects in the vicinity
of the proposed project. Figure 3.9-4 shows the location of the cumulative projects. Cumulative
conditions were determined by adding the traffic generated by other approved/pending projects,
as identified by the City of Temecula Public Works Department. Traffic counts for these projects
were estimated based on trip generation rates from ITE’s Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Besides
the extension of Pujol Street to SR-79, no improvements to the existing intersection traffic
controls and geometrics were assumed or used to determine LOS estimates.
TABLE 3.9-5
CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION
Zone Land Use ITE
Code Quantity Unitsa
Peak Hour
Daily AM PM
In Out In Out
1 SpringHill Suites 310 142 RM 48 31 44 40 1,160
2 Crown Plaza 310 168 RM 56 37 51 46 1,356
Total (All Zones) 104 68 95 86 2,516
a RM = Rooms
SOURCE: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008.
The cumulative project area identified for traffic impacts was determined by the City of Temecula
Public Works Department as noted in Table 3.9-5 below. At the time the traffic impact analysis
was prepared, the SpringHill Suites hotel development (one of the projects included in the
cumulative scenario calculations) was under construction and not operational. However, since
Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294
Figure 3.9-4
Cumulative Projects
SOURCE: RK Engineering Group, Inc., 2010.
Legend
SpringHill Suites
Crown Plaza N
1
2
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Traffic and Circulation
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-16 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
completion of the traffic impact analysis and prior to circulation of the Program DEIR, the
SpringHill Suites hotel development, has opened and is currently in operation. As determined by
the traffic impact analysis, the SpringHill Suites hotel was projected to have generated 1,160
daily trips at full occupancy. Therefore, the cumulative traffic impact calculations are based on a
worst-case scenario comparison of the proposed project at build-out to existing conditions.
General Plan (Year 2035) with Proposed Specific Plan Conditions
This scenario adds project traffic to existing traffic conditions plus a 29 percent ambient growth
rate, plus any other traffic accounted for by the General Plan. Traffic from cumulative projects in
the area has been added to this scenario as well. Besides the extension of Pujol Street to SR-79,
no improvements to the existing intersection traffic controls and geometrics were assumed or
used to determine LOS estimates.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 3.9-1: The proposed project would result in impacts to study intersections in
Existing Plus Ambient Growth with Proposed Specific Plan conditions.
In the Existing Plus, Ambient Growth, Plus Proposed Specific Plan condition, nine (9) of the
fourteen (14) intersections studied will operate at acceptable levels of service. The following
intersections will not operate at an acceptable LOS:
• Old Town Front Street/Rancho California Road (LOS F for PM Peak Hour)
• Old Town Front Street/North Moreno Road (LOS E for PM Peak Hour)
• Old Town Front Street/Sixth Street (LOS F for PM Peak Hour)
• Old Town Front Street/Main Street (LOS F for PM Peak Hour)
• Old Town Front Street/Second Street (LOS E for PM Peak Hour)
Table 3.9-6 presents the results of the Existing Plus Ambient Growth with Proposed Specific Plan
conditions intersection analysis.
In order to maintain the unique “Main Street” character of the Old Town area, LOS E and F will
be deemed acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North.
As mentioned earlier, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would increase traffic to a lesser
extent than the existing Specific Plan. Thus, overall traffic congestion in the Old Town area
would be less than what is currently projected.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-17 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.9-6
EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH WITH PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Intersection Controla
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delayb
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
1. Old Town Front Street/Rancho California Road TS 36.9 D 126.5 F
• With Improvements TS 51.2 D 27.1 C
2. Old Town Front Street/North Moreno Road CSS 12.8 C 37.4 E
• With All-Way-Stop Control AWS 17.0 C 83.7 F
• Traffic signal not feasible due to this intersection’s close proximity to Old Town Front Street at Rancho
California Road.
3. Old Town Front Street/Mercedes Street RD 7.8 A 21.0 C
4. Old Town Front Street/6th Street AWS 18.3 C 138.0 F
• With Traffic Signal TS 5.3 A 10.4 B
5. Old Town Front Street/Main Street AWS 21.5 C 71.2 F
• With Traffic Signal TS 11.4 B 13.0 B
6. Old Town Front Street/2nd Street CSS 22.1 C 43.0 E
• With Traffic Signal AWS 13.4 B 25.2 D
7.
Old Town Front Street/1st Street/Santiago
Road/Mercedes Street RD 16.7 B 25.0 C
• See Appendix H in traffic study for design details.
8. Old Town Front Street/SR-79/I-15 SB Ramps TS 32.0 C 25.8 C
9. I-15 SB Ramps/Rancho California Road TS 28.2 C 32.0 C
10. I-15 NB Ramps/Rancho California Road TS 9.2 A 13.1 B
11. I-15 NB Ramps/SR-79 TS 11.5 B 30.9 C
12. Mercedes Street/Moreno Road CSS 10.6 B 13.7 B
13. Mercedes Street/Main Street CSS 17.6 C 19.4 C
14. Mercedes Street/3rd Street CSS 12.3 B 12.4 B
a TS = Traffic Signal, CSS = Cross Street Stop, AWS = All-Way Stop
b Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 8.0. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of
service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the
delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a signal lane) are shown.
SOURCE: RK Engineers, Inc., 2009
Mitigation Measure:
Measure 3.9-1: The project applicant shall incorporate the following features into the
design of the Specific Plan area:
• At the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road provide a
northbound through/right-turn lane combination with a right-turn overlap.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Traffic and Circulation
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-18 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
• Provide subsequent Traffic Impact Analyses, as development occurs, to determine
thresholds for implementation of Roundabouts at the intersections of Old Town Front
Street and First Street/Santiago Road/Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street and
Mercedes Street.
• Provide pedestrian facilities from Old Town Front Street which connect the east and west
neighborhood cores with the Old Town Core District.
In order to maintain the unique “Main Street” character of the Old Town area, LOS E and F will
be deemed acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact 3.9-2: The proposed project would result in impacts to study area intersections in
General Plan Plus Proposed Specific Plan conditions.
In the General Plan Buildout, Plus Proposed Specific Plan condition, eight (8) of the fourteen (14)
intersections studied will operate at acceptable levels of service. The following intersections will
not operate at an acceptable LOS:
• Old Town Front Street/Rancho California Road (LOS F for PM Peak Hour)
• Old Town Front Street/North Moreno Road (LOS F for PM Peak Hour)
• Old Town Front Street/Sixth Street (LOS F for PM Peak Hour)
• Old Town Front Street/Main Street (LOS F for PM Peak Hour)
• Old Town Front Street/Second Street (LOS E for PM Peak Hour)
• I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rancho California Road (LOS F for PM Peak Hour)
Table 3.9-7 presents the results of the General Plan Plus Proposed Specific Plan conditions
intersection analysis.
In order to maintain the unique “Main Street” character of the Old Town area, LOS “E” and “F”
will be deemed acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is expected to increase traffic at build-out. However, the
increase will be significantly lower than projected under the current Specific Plan.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-19 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.9-7
EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH WITH PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Intersection Controla
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delayb
(sec/veh) LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
1. Old Town Front Street/Rancho California Road TS 46.0 D 155.8 F
• With Improvements TS 28.8 C 45.5 D
2. Old Town Front Street/North Moreno Road CSS 13.3 B 46.1 F
• With All-Way-Stop-Control AWS 17.7 C 91.6 F
• Traffic signal not feasible due to this intersection’s close proximity to Old Town Front Street at Rancho
California Road.
3. Old Town Front Street/Mercedes Street RD 7.4 A 20.6 C
4. Old Town Front Street/6th Street AWS 19.4 C 147.8 F
• With Traffic Signal TS 5.4 A 10.3 B
5. Old Town Front Street/Main Street AWS 25.8 D 74.1 F
• With Traffic Signal TS 11.8 B 13.0 B
6. Old Town Front Street/2nd Street CSS 24.0 C 44.8 E
• With All-Way Stop Control AWS 14.0 B 26.0 D
7.
Old Town Front Street/1st Street/Santiago
Road/Mercedes Street RD 23.2 C 50.4 D
• See Appendix H in traffic study for design details.
8. Old Town Front Street/SR-79/I-15 SB Ramps TS 44.9 D 28.6 C
9. I-15 SB Ramps/Rancho California Road TS 43.4 D 56.0 F
• With Improvements 34.6 C 31.5 C
10. I-15 NB Ramps/Rancho California Road TS 9.7 A 16.0 B
11. I-15 NB Ramps/SR-79 TS 11.9 B 51.0 D
12. Mercedes Street/Moreno Road CSS 12.8 B 19.1 C
13. Mercedes Street/Main Street CSS 19.1 C 18.9 C
14. Mercedes Street/3rd Street CSS 12.7 B 12.5 B
a TS = Traffic Signal, CSS = Cross Street Stop, AWS = All-Way Stop
b Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 8.0. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of
service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the
delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a signal lane) are shown.
SOURCE: RK Engineers, Inc., 2009
Mitigation Measures
Measure 3.9-2: The project applicant shall incorporate the following features into the
design of the Specific Plan area:
• At the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road provide a
westbound right-turn overlap.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Traffic and Circulation
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-20 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
• Provide subsequent Traffic Impact Analyses, as development occurs, to determine
thresholds for implementation of Roundabouts at the intersections of Old Town Front
Street and First Street/Santiago Road/Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street and
Mercedes Street.
• Provide pedestrian facilities from Old Town Front Street which connect the east and west
neighborhood cores with the Old Town Core District.
In order to maintain the unique “Main Street” character of the Old Town area, LOS E and F will
be deemed acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact 3.9-3: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in inadequate
vehicular and emergency access.
Primary emergency access to the site would be provided from the fire station located at Mercedes
Street and Sixth Street. Emergency vehicles would access Old Town Front Street from Moreno
Road, Sixth Street, or Mercedes Street to reach project areas. Emergency vehicles would also be
able to access the project site from Santiago Road and SR-79 to the south. The proposed project
would not result in an impact related to vehicular and emergency access.
Mitigation: None required.
Impact 3.9-4: Project implementation would not result in inadequate parking capacity.
Parking in the Old Town area will be based on its district and its use, but residential uses are
required to provide at least one parking space per residential unit. The public view of open
parking lots can detract from the Old Town area. This is especially important in retail areas.
Currently, there is sufficient capacity to handle parking within the OTSP area. Additionally, an
Old Town Parking Structure, located at the corner of Mercedes Street and 3rd Street, has been
developed to address parking needs. The multiple-level parking structure would accommodate a
maximum of 488 vehicles. The parking structure has been developed as part of the Old Town
Temecula Civic Center. As needed, several additional parking strategies could be incorporated
into the Old Town area in the long-term. These additional parking strategies could include time
limits, informational programs, a Parking District, additional parking supply, and parking charges
as determined by the City. More specifically, the City could establish time limits and parking
charges once an area consistently surpassed 85 percent occupancy. The City could also develop
an informational program or Parking District at any time; however, with the recent development
of the Civic Center parking structure/lot, parking needs in the short-term have been met.
Additionally, near-term parking would be supplied through a parking structure located at 2nd
Street (behind the Stampede) and/or the City’s 6th Street surface lot. Additional parking by
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-21 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
residences and hotels will be required according to parking ratios, which will vary by zoning
district and use, as follows:
Downtown Core and Downtown Core /Hotel Overlay District (DTC/HO)
Residential requires 1 parking space per unit; Hotel requires 1 space per room/suite plus ancillary
conference facilities, meeting rooms, ballrooms within the hotel require 1 space per 300 square
feet of gross floor area. General commercial uses (except hotels as stated previously) do not
require parking.
Residential /Limited Mixed Use (R/LMU)
Residential is parked per the Development Code:
TABLE 3.9-8
PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
Description of Use Required Number of Spaces
Residential Uses
Single-family residence 2 enclosed spaces
Duplex, triplexes 2 covered spaces/unit, plus 1 guest space/4 units
Multiple-family residential—3 or fewer bedrooms (12 or
less units)
2—5 units: 2 covered spaces/unit, plus 2 guest spaces
6—12 units: 2 covered spaces/unit plus 3 guest spaces
Multiple-family residential—13 or more units 1 covered parking space plus 0.5 uncovered parking space
for 1 bedroom (or less) units
1 covered parking space plus 1 uncovered parking space
for 2 bedroom units
2 covered parking spaces and 0.5 uncovered parking
space for three bedroom (or more) units plus 1 guest
space/6 units, with a minimum of 4 guest spaces
SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2010.
Hotels in the R/LMU District are parked at the same rate as the DTC/HO as stated above.
Additionally, in the R/LMU district parking is required for all commercial uses and will be
parked according to the Development Code.
Neighborhood Residential District (NR) Zone
Residential uses are required to be parked per the Development Code. Hotels are not permitted in
the NR zone, however Bed and Breakfast establishments are allowed and are required to be
parked at 1 space per room.
Mitigation: None required.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
3.9 Traffic and Circulation
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-22 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 3.9-9
COMMERCIAL USES – RETAIL AND SERVICE
Description of Use Required Number of Spaces
Furniture stores, bulk goods, floor covering, home
improvement
1 space/500 SF of GFA
General retail with less than 25,000 SF-GFA 1 space/300 SF-GFA
General retail with 25,000 SF or greater See shopping center
Hotels and motels 1 space/guest room plus 1 space/10 rooms for guests and
2 spaces for resident manager
Full service hotel 1 space/guest room or suite (ancillary conference rooms,
meeting rooms and ballrooms within the hotel shall be
parked separately at 1 space/300 SF GFA)
Laundromat 1 space/3 washing machines
Plant nurseries 1 space/500 SF indoor GFA, plus 1 space/1,000 SF gross
outdoor retail area
Outdoor sales, including lumberyards, car sales, salvage
yards
1 space/1,000 SF gross outdoor sales area, plus 1
space/300 SF of indoor sales area
Restaurants
Dine-in 1 space/100 SF-GFA, with a minimum of 10 spaces in all
cases
Fast food 1 space/75 SF-GFA, with a minimum of 10 spaces in all
cases
Shopping center (25,000 SF-GFA or
greater)
1 space/300 SF-GFA with the following additions:
Cinemas in shopping centers 1 space/5 seats
Restaurant areas occupying greater than
15 percent of total shopping area GFA
1 space/100 GFA
Medical and dental offices 1 space/200 SF-GFA
Veterinary office 1 space/300 SF-GFA
SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2010
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-1 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
CHAPTER 4
Cumulative Impacts
4.1 Introduction
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR address cumulative impacts of a
project when the project’s incremental effect would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively
considerable” means that “the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects as defined in Section 15130” (Section 15065(c)). A cumulative
effect is not deemed considerable if the effect would be essentially the same whether the proposed
project is implemented or not.
Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines states that “cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” A
cumulative impact is not considered significant if the impact can be mitigated to below the level
of significance through mitigation, including providing improvements and/or contributing funds
through fee-payment programs. The EIR must examine “reasonable options for mitigating or
avoiding any significant cumulative effects of a proposed project” (CEQA Guidelines Sections
15130(a)(3) and 15130(b)(5)).
According to Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of cumulative effects “... need
not provide as great a detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project alone. The
discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.” The evaluation of
cumulative impacts is required by Section 15130 to be based on either:
(A) 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, or (B) a summary of projections 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 effect. Any such planning document shall be referenced
and made available to the public at a location specified by the Lead Agency.
4.2 Cumulative Projects
This analysis considers the impacts of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment (proposed project)
in combination with the potential environmental effects of other projects in the general area.
4. Cumulative Impacts
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-2 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
“Other projects,” also referred to as “cumulative projects,” include recently completed projects,
projects currently under construction, and future projects currently in development. The potential
for projects to have a cumulative impact depends on both geographic location as well as project
schedule.
4.2.1 Geographic Scope
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment project area is located in the southwestern portion of the
City of Temecula (with 2.4 acres to be annexed into the OTSP area). Chapter 4, Cumulative
Impacts, considers the potential cumulative effects of the Specific Plan Amendment in
combination with other identified cumulative development projects. The potential for specific
project-generated impacts to contribute to a significant cumulative impact would occur if the
impacts are located within the same generalized geographic area. This geographic area varies
depending upon the resource area being evaluated (water quality, noise, etc.) and the geographic
extent of the potential impact. For example, the geographic area associated with construction
noise impacts would be limited to areas directly affected by construction noise associated with the
proposed project in conjunction with the identified cumulative projects. In contrast, the
geographic area that could be affected by the proposed project and cumulative construction-
related air emissions would include the entire air basin. Construction impacts associated with
increased noise, dust, erosion, and access limitations tend to be localized and could be
exacerbated if other development or improvement projects occur within proximal locations to the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment area.
The cumulative project area identified for traffic impacts was determined by the City of Temecula
Public Works Department as noted in Table 3.9-5 and Table 4-1. At the time the traffic impact
analysis was prepared, the SpringHill Suites hotel development (one of the projects included in
the cumulative scenario calculations) was under construction and not operational. However, since
completion of the traffic impact analysis and prior to circulation of the Program DEIR, the
SpringHill Suites hotel development has opened and is currently in operation. As determined by
the traffic impact analysis, the SpringHill Suites hotel was projected to have generated 1,160
daily trips at full occupancy. Therefore, the cumulative traffic impact calculations are based on a
worst-case scenario comparison of the proposed project at build-out to existing conditions. The
other cumulative projects identified in Figure 4-1 (Chapter 4), however, have not been accounted
for in the cumulative traffic impact calculations because it is undetermined what specific traffic
impacts each future development within the OTSP area will have at this time. Additionally, the
Pujol Apartments complex was an existing use at the time the traffic impact analysis developed
and impacts have been evaluated as part of existing conditions.
4.2.2 Project Timing
In addition to the geographic scope, cumulative impacts are determined by the timing of the other
projects relative to the proposed project. As noted above, projects considered in this analysis
include those that have recently been completed, are currently under construction, or are in the
planning stages. Schedule is particularly relevant to the consideration of cumulative construction-
related impacts, since construction impacts tend to be relatively short-term. However, for future
4. Cumulative Impacts
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-3 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
projects, construction schedules are often broadly estimated and can be subject to change.
Although the timing of the future projects is likely to fluctuate due to schedule changes or other
unknown factors, this analysis assumes these individual projects would be developed for
implementation through the course of the current planning horizon and could be implemented
concurrently with construction of the proposed project. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment
is anticipated to reach full build-out in approximately 20 to 30 years.
4.2.3 Type of Projects Considered
As described in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR, the majority of impacts associated with
implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment are short-term and related to
construction. Implementation and operation of the Specific Plan Amendment would not
contribute to project-specific or cumulative traffic impacts (when combined with the other
approved/pending projects considered in this analysis as listed in Table 4-1). As discussed in
various EIR sections in Chapter 3, project-specific impacts associated with greenhouse gas
emissions would be significant on the cumulative level.
TABLE 4-1
PLANNED AND APPROVED PROJECTS IN THE PROJECT AREA
Reference
Number
Figure
Reference
Number
Planning
Jurisdiction
Type of
Development
Project Title/
Name Description
1 Figure 3.9-4 City of
Temecula
Hotel Springhill
Suites
Springhill Suites (PA06-0316).
Development is approximately 77,408
sf consisting of 142 rooms.
2 Figure 3.9-4 City of
Temecula
Hotel Crown Plaza Crown Plaza (PA08-0176).
Development is approximately
128,810 sf consisting of 168 rooms.
SOURCE: RK Engineering Group, Inc., December 2009.
Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would contribute to cumulative effects when
considered in combination with impacts of other construction projects in the vicinity. Long-term
cumulative impacts of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in conjunction with the other
projects in the area are assessed as well. Table 4-1 lists current and proposed projects that could
potentially contribute to cumulative impacts within the project area. The other cumulative
projects identified in Figure 4-1, however, have not been accounted for in the cumulative traffic
impact calculations because it is undetermined what specific traffic impacts each future
development within the OTSP area will have at this time. It should be noted that the Pujol
Apartments complex was an existing use at the time the traffic impact analysis was developed
and impacts have been evaluated as part of existing conditions.
P RO J E C T
S I T E
Old Town Front StPROJECT
SITE
Old Town Front St15
Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294
Figure 4-1
Cumulative Project Map
SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2008; City of Temecula, 2009.
0800
Feet
1
Legend
1. SpringHill Suites
3. Pujol Apartments
2. Crown Plaza
4. Star World Center
2
3
4
R a n ch o C a lifo rn ia R d
Ran
c
h
o
C
alif
or
ni
a
R
d
4. Cumulative Impacts
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-5 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
4.3 Description of Cumulative Effects
Aesthetics
Visual Character and Scenic Resources
Within the vicinity of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, surrounding areas contain mixed
residential, business park uses and other commercial land uses. There are no eligible or officially-
designated scenic highways affected by the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. No scenic vistas
have been identified by the City’s General Plan and thus none would be adversely impacted from
developing the proposed project. Furthermore, the aesthetics of Old Town are anticipated to
improve with the implementation of the OTSP standards and design guidelines.
The projects within the area of potential effect for aesthetics as related to the OTSP area are listed
in Table 4-1 would include commercial and residential developments to the north and south of the
project area. Like the proposed modifications to the Specific Plan area, these projects would
represent an orderly, contiguous, and planned extension of the urban limit of the City of
Temecula. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would occur in an area that
has already been altered by existing developments. The intensification of use in the Specific Plan
area would be aesthetically consistent with the character and uses in the surrounding area.
Development was anticipated and detailed within the OTSP that was originally adopted in 1994.
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would be a continuation of existing
land use patterns; therefore, the project’s incremental cumulative aesthetic impact is not
considered to be significant. In addition, individual aesthetics, visual, and light and glare impacts
of the related projects, if any, would be addressed on an individual project basis. Each project
would be subject to planning and zoning requirements, as well as design review by the City of
Temecula, to ensure that project design is consistent with City standards. Where potential impacts
could occur, the City would require appropriate environmental review and analysis and, if
required, mitigate as appropriate. Therefore, the cumulative development would not result in
significant impacts on scenic vistas or the visual character of the area.
Light and Glare
The existing Specific Plan area is partially developed and produces light within the local project
vicinity. Development of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in conjunction with other
cumulative projects would gradually result in an increase in light in the City of Temecula and
may increase ambient lighting in or adjacent to Riverside County. Proposed cumulative
development would also incrementally contribute to cumulative night lighting and daytime glare
and reflective impacts. However, the County has lighting regulations that preclude the use of
excessive or unshielded lighting, or lighting that would spill into neighboring properties.
Temecula adheres to Riverside County’s Light Pollution Ordinance, Ordinance No. 655, which
restricts nighttime lighting for areas within a 15-mile radius and a 45-mile radius of Palomar
Observatory. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment area is located within a 45-mile radius of
the observatory (45-mile Radius Lighting Impact Zone) and is required to comply with Ordinance
4. Cumulative Impacts
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-6 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
No. 655. All planned and approved projects listed in Table 4-1 fall within a 45-mile radius of the
Palomar Observatory and are also required to comply with Ordinance No. 655. The 45-mile
radius encompasses a large portion of Riverside County extending many miles beyond the
Specific Plan area. Since regulations are in place and adherence to these policies is required, no
significant cumulative impact related to lighting or glare is anticipated for the proposed Specific
Plan Amendment.
Air Quality
SCAQMD has set forth methods and significance thresholds for the assessment of a project’s
cumulative operational air quality impacts. The SCAQMD approach for assessing cumulative
impacts is based on the SCAQMD’s AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality
standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal and state Clean Air Acts. This
forecast also takes into account SCAG’s forecasts of future regional growth. As such, the analysis
of cumulative impacts focuses on determining whether the proposed project is consistent with
forecasted future regional growth. Therefore, if all cumulative projects are individually consistent
with the growth assumptions upon which the SCAQMD’s AQMP is based, then future
development would not impede the attainment of ambient air quality standards and a significant
cumulative air quality impact would not occur.
Project construction could violate air quality standards (short-term) during construction.
Construction-related emissions would occur on and off for approximately 30 years. Construction-
related fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level and type of
activity. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would be significant and unavoidable on a
project level for ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions.
Cumulative sources from projects throughout the basin would emit substantial amounts of TACS.
While the total TAC emission from all projects in the region would be significant, the TAC
emissions from the project are minimal for both construction and operations. Therefore, the
project would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact with regard to TACs.
Construction activity associated with other projects in the basin would generally involve the use
of similar equipment and may overlap with the construction schedule of the proposed project.
Though the project creates a significant and unavoidable impact, it is assumed that other project
construction activity would comply with the SCAQMD required mitigation measures, which
would reduce air quality impacts but not eliminate air pollutant emissions completely. This would
be a significant cumulative impact. As such, the mass regional emissions that would occur as a
result of developing the proposed project would be cumulatively considerable.
Global Warming/Climate Change
In 2005, the California governor signed Executive Order S-3-05 that sets forth a series of target
dates for the reduction of statewide emissions of GHG. This order calls for the progressive
reduction of GHGs so that by 2010, GHGs would be at year 2000 levels; by 2020, GHGs would
be at year 1990 levels; and by 2050 GHSs would be 80 percent below year 1990 levels. Since the
4. Cumulative Impacts
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-7 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
passage of Executive Order S-3-05, the California Assembly has passed the California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and CARB approved 37 strategies for GHG reduction and
developed GHG mandatory reporting regulations.
Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 in Section 3.3, the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment project would be considered a major source of greenhouse gases and would exceed
the SCAQMD GHG screening threshold. Consequently, the increase in GHG by the project
places the project in conflict with the goal of the state to reduce up to 169 million metric tons
CO2e/year. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Cultural Resources
The geographic scope of potential cumulative impacts (area of potential affect for cultural
resources) related to cultural resources encompasses the proposed Specific Plan Amendment
project area and immediate vicinity. As described in Section 3.4 Cultural Resources, construction
of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would include demolition activities and some
earthmoving activities that could unearth previously unknown archaeological or paleontological
resources. Cultural sites identified during construction would be recorded. Implementation of
project-specific mitigation measures would minimize this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Other development projects planned for the area could also encounter cultural resources. Each
project would be responsible for recording new sites appropriately. Uncovering archaeological
and paleontological resources generally adds to the regional understanding of the area’s history
and would not result in a cumulatively considerable adverse impact to cultural resources.
Hydrology and Water Quality
As discussed in Section 3.5 Hydrology and Water Quality, the construction of the proposed
Specific Plan Amendment would increase impervious surface and stormwater runoff (given the
annexation of the 2.4 acres). With incorporation of project-specific mitigation measures, the
Specific Plan’s impact on the local drainage system would not be significant. Cumulative projects
could also contribute to increased runoff due to increases in impervious surfaces. Any proposed
development within the OTSP area larger than one acre would have to satisfy all applicable
requirements of the NPDES Program and Chapter 8.24, Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management
and Discharge Controls of the City of Temecula’s Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the City
of Temecula’s Public Works Department.
The related projects could have general construction-related impacts on water quality in the
project area. Construction activities at other project sites could also increase erosion and
subsequent sedimentation. As with the proposed project, all related projects are subject to the
same federal regulations (Clean Water Act), state regulations (Porter Cologne Water Quality
Control Act), and local regulations (SUSMP) that protect water quality and water resources.
These regulations include NPDES permit requirements, stormwater pollution prevention plans,
and post-development stormwater quality and quantity requirements. All of these regulations are
designed to ensure that the incremental effects of individual projects do not cause a substantial
cumulative impact.
4. Cumulative Impacts
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-8 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Therefore, despite the potential for the related projects to alter drainage patterns and runoff
conditions, the adherence to the aforementioned requirements would ensure that they do not result
in cumulatively considerable impacts related to sedimentation, flooding, water quality, drainage
system capacity, flood hazard areas, failure of a levee or dam, seiche, tsunami, or mudflows. The
proposed project with mitigation measures would have a less-than-significant impact. Therefore,
because of these measures, when considered in combination with other developments similarly
bound by the same regulations, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to water quality
and quantity impacts, with proposed mitigation, would not be cumulatively considerable and is
less than significant.
Land Use and Planning
The two other projects planned in the vicinity of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment are both
hotel developments (Table 3.9-5 in Section 3.9). The modifications to the Specific Plan area are
not out of context with the other proposed developments in the general area. Currently, the
Specific Plan area contains a mix of uses, including commercial, residential, public facilities, and
recreational uses. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would replace most of the existing
development with new development that would allow higher density residential and higher
intensity commercial uses along with a limited residential/mixed-use zone. Build-out of the
proposed Specific Plan area would replace existing residences with new multi-family residential
structures and would result in new consolidated locations for commercial and retail uses. The
proposed Specific Plan Amendment would be consistent on an individual level, and therefore on
a cumulative level, with the applicable regulatory policies and plans. The contribution of the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment and the two planned developments would not result in
incompatible uses in an established community, the City or the City’s Sphere of Influence.
Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in conjunction with the other proposed
developments would not have a cumulatively considerable impact. Cumulative impacts are
therefore considered less than significant.
Noise
There are two development projects currently in the planning process located in the vicinity of the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment area. When considered alone, the proposed modifications to
the Specific Plan area would generate noise from construction over the estimated 20- to 30-year
build-out, and from additional traffic in the general area. Noise impacts from cumulative
development in the project area would primarily be the result of construction and increased
vehicle traffic on the local roadway network.
As discussed in Section 3.7 Noise, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment
would result in construction that would generate noise levels in excess of standards. On a project
level, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable after mitigation. When considered
alone, the proposed project would generate noise mainly by adding more traffic to the area. The
traffic associated with operation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would result in a
significant increase in ambient noise levels on nearby roadways that would generate a significant
and unavoidable impact after mitigation. The cumulative interior noise impacts of the project
4. Cumulative Impacts
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-9 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Other anticipated projects would contribute to
noise in the area due to increased traffic volumes. Therefore, the proposed project would result in
cumulatively considerable exterior noise levels along various roadways which would remain a
significant and unavoidable impact.
While there is the potential for the proposed project to contribute to construction noise levels
generated by the cumulative projects listed in Table 3.9-5, the actual schedule and timing of
construction activities is uncertain. The proposed project would coordinate with the appropriate
City departments to avoid conflicts with other projects to the extent possible. Given that the
proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable project-specific impact, the proposed
Specific Plan Amendment’s contribution to cumulative noise impacts would also result in
significant and unavoidable impacts to noise.
Traffic and Transportation
The geographic scope of this impact area lies within the City of Temecula and the County of
Riverside. The roadway network on which construction workers and construction vehicles
(including trucks that would transport equipment and fill material to and from the worksite)
would travel to access the site consists of regional highways and local roadways.
A traffic analysis was conducted for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment project. The traffic
analysis also analyzed future traffic conditions which took into account cumulative projects and
regional growth.
As discussed in Section 3.9 Traffic and Transportation, none of the intersections would operate at
an unacceptable LOS after mitigation. Project impacts will be reduced to a less than significant
level with implementation of proposed mitigation measures such as roundabouts, pedestrian
facilities and accepting LOS E and F for intersections on Old Town Front Street from Second
Street to Moreno Road North. The proposed project would increase traffic at a lesser rate than the
current Specific Plan for the Old Town area. Cumulative conditions were determined by adding
the traffic generated by other approved/pending projects. Traffic counts for these projects were
estimated based on trip generation rates from ITE’s Trip Generation, 8th Edition. The proposed
project would not contribute to cumulative traffic and circulation impacts when considered in
combination with projects listed in Table 3.9-5. Impacts to intersections outside of the OTSP area
would occur on a cumulative basis, as accounted for in the traffic impact analysis, but have
already been addressed by the mitigation measures included as part of this project. Therefore,
cumulative traffic impacts would not be significant.
Utilities and Services
Recreation
Development of the proposed project in conjunction with other cumulative projects would
gradually result in an increased intensity of land use and a corresponding increase in usage of
4. Cumulative Impacts
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-10 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
park and recreational facilities. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment includes the
development of an Open Space corridor which is approximately 25.4 acres (5.7 acres in addition
to what is planned under the approved OTSP) and would offer additional recreational options in
the City of Temecula and surrounding areas. The standard developer mitigation fees for parklands
would be implemented as necessary for all related projects. The proposed Specific Plan
Amendment would not have an individually significant impact on recreational services after
mitigation, and would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution. Therefore, the proposed
Specific Plan Amendment would not have a significant cumulative impact related to recreational
services.
Utilities
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is a continuation of planned urban development in an
area with sufficient existing facilities to provide water, wastewater and solid waste services to the
Specific Plan area and would not require the development of new facilities.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment along with cumulative projects would not result in a
significant use of water as compared to the existing developed uses in the Specific Plan area. The
proposed Specific Plan Amendment would redevelop many existing uses, and therefore future
water demand would be a minimal increase over existing demand. Furthermore, as previously
stated, the SpringHill Suites hotel development has opened and is currently in operation. The
majority of the cumulative projects are on small parcels of land with the exception of the
proposed Pujol Apartments. Although water demand would increase as a result of the 168 room
Crown Plaza Hotel, this increase of this specific type of use would not be considered
cumulatively significant; thus, cumulative impacts to water supply are not considered significant.
In addition, there would be no cumulative impact on wastewater treatment infrastructure as a
result of project implementation.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is within the projected electric load growth for the
general area. SCE’s ability to serve all customers’ loads within this area of the City is in
accordance with SCE’s Design Standards, rules and tariffs, and would be adequate. SCE has a
proposed substation planned for the near future (summer 2010) which would assist in continuing
to meet future electrical demands. SCE completes all work in accordance with the rules and
tariffs as authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission and other governing entities.
Any cumulative impacts related to electric service would be addressed through this process.
As stated in Section 3.8 Utilities and Services, the two landfills which service the project area and
the City of Temecula have existing and substantial future capacity to accept solid waste.
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in conjunction with the cumulative
projects listed in Table 4-1 would not create demands for waste management services that exceed
the capacities of the waste management system. Impacts to solid waste facilities associated with
the proposed Specific Plan Amendment are less than significant.
4. Cumulative Impacts
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-11 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Development of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would offset its limited contribution to
the cumulative impact of area development on these services and utilities. Standard payment of
established developer mitigation fees to address cumulative impacts would be required.
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 5-1 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
CHAPTER 5
Significant Irreversible Environmental
Changes and Growth-Inducing Impacts
5.1 Introduction
According to CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.2 [d]), a project may foster economic or
population growth, or additional housing, either indirectly or directly, in a geographical area if it
meets any one of the following criteria below:
• A project would remove obstacles to population growth.
• Increases in the population resulting from a project may tax existing community service
facilities, causing significant environmental effects.
• A project would encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the
environment.
5.2 Introduction to Growth Inducement Issues
Growth can be induced in different ways: through the elimination of obstacles to growth, or
through the stimulation of economic activity within the region. The discussion of the removal of
obstacles to growth relates directly to the removal of infrastructure limitations (typically through
the provision of additional capacity or supply) or the reduction or elimination of regulatory
constraints on growth that could result in growth unforeseen at the time of project approval.
5.3 Elimination of Obstacles to Growth
The elimination of either physical or regulatory obstacles to growth is considered to be a growth-
inducing effect. A physical obstacle to growth typically involves the lack of public service
infrastructure. The extension of public service infrastructure, including roadways, water mains,
and sewer lines, into areas that are not currently provided with these services would be expected
to support new development. Similarly, the elimination or change to a regulatory obstacle,
including existing growth and development policies, could result in new growth. In the case of
the OTSP amendment, all utilities extended or constructed as part of the project would be
designed to serve only the Old Town area and any expansions of existing utilities would be only
for the pro-rata incremental need of the project.
5. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes and Growth-Inducing Impacts
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 5-2 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
5.4 Economic Effects
Increased demand on secondary markets development (residential or employment generating
uses) typically generates a secondary or indirect demand for other goods and services. The
secondary or economic change can be quantified by an economic multiplier, which is an
economic term used to describe interrelationships among various sectors of the economy. One
aspect of the multiplier effect is the potential catalytic force a project can have on satellite or
follow-up development because it creates a demand or market to be served (e.g., neighborhood
commercial development around residential development).
Increased pressure on land use intensification and unforeseen future development can be spurred
by the construction of certain projects that have the effect of creating unique and currently unmet
market demands, or by creating economic incentive for future projects by substantially increasing
surrounding property values. These types of impacts are most often identified for projects
developed in areas that are currently lacking a full spectrum of economic activity. For example,
newly developing office areas may be lacking in a full range of support commercial uses; this
support commercial demand can cause increased pressure for rezones or general plan
amendments aimed at providing adequate land to accommodate businesses seeking to serve the
unmet demand.
5.5 Growth-Inducing Effects of the Proposed Project -
Elimination of Obstacles to Growth
Build-out under the OTSP amendment would eliminate some existing obstacles to growth. The
standard scenario for eliminating an obstacle to growth involves the extension or provision of
utility or service to an area that was not previously served. RCWD future water projections
calculated the existing Specific Plan area in accordance with the land use designation and current
zoning. Therefore, this additional water demand was incorporated into the RCWD’s future water
projections and would not cause the water provider, RCWD, to significantly increase its water
commitments to supply the project area. Furthermore, with future implementation of recycled
water (used for irrigation of common landscaped areas and the Open Space corridor), the water
demand from the proposed amendment would not require any existing facility to expand water
service to the project area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment
would not result in the need to expand water service facilities or construct new water facilities.
Limited utilities distribution and collection infrastructure currently exists in the OTSP area.
Implementation of the proposed project would include the extension of new and/or additional
water, electrical and natural gas distribution infrastructure, and wastewater and storm drainage
collection infrastructure. Future development in the Specific Plan area would use existing
electricity service provided by SCE. Some extension of service may be necessary into
undeveloped areas and would require assessment at the time of development review. Based on the
current availability of electrical service in portions of the Specific Plan area, extensive
infrastructure is not necessary, and the project would not significantly affect electrical services.
The Specific Plan area is currently served by the Gas Company for natural gas service.
5. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes and Growth-Inducing Impacts
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 5-3 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Development in the Specific Plan area may require an extension of service into undeveloped
areas and would require assessment at the time of development review. Future development in the
project area would not affect the current service provider or natural gas services.
5.6 Increased Demand on Secondary Markets
The proposed project would bring new mixed-use residential, business village, commercial and
recreational uses to the City of Temecula. These uses would bring residents and employees to the
area and could create an economic incentive for future projects by substantially increasing
surrounding property values. In general, an additional dollar spent in the County for these goods
and services is re-spent on additional goods and services (due to the "multiplier" effect).
Therefore, the anticipated increase in spending on secondary and support services could increase
growth pressures in the region.
5.7 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects
Under CEQA, an EIR must analyze the extent to which a project's primary and secondary effects
would commit resources to uses that future generations will probably be unable to reverse [CEQA
Guidelines section 15126.2(c); 15127]. Implementation of the proposed project would result in
the long-term commitment of resources of the project site to urban land use. The proposed project
would likely result in or contribute to the following irreversible environmental changes:
• Conversion of existing undeveloped land to urban land uses, thus precluding other alternate
land uses in the future.
• Increased ambient noise.
• Irreversible commitment of municipal resources to the provision of services and operations
of infrastructure for future urban and suburban development.
• Irreversible consumption of goods and services associated with the future population.
• Increased traffic volumes on existing roadways.
• Degradation of air quality.
• Irreversible consumption of energy and natural resources associated with the future
population.
• Possible demand for and use of goods, services, and resources for this project to the
exclusion of projects in other locations.
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-1 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
CHAPTER 6
Alternatives Analysis
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 CEQA Requirements
According to the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a
proposed project that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, and would avoid
or substantially lessen the proposed project’s significant environmental effects. This alternatives
analysis summarizes the alternatives screening process conducted to identify feasible alternatives
that meet project objectives. As required by CEQA, this analysis first considers which
alternatives can meet most of the basic project objectives, and then to what extent those
remaining alternatives can avoid or reduce the environmental impacts associated with the
proposed project. Information used to select an “environmentally superior alternative,” which
may be the proposed project, is also provided in this chapter.
Section 15126.6(f) of the CEQA Guidelines provides direction on the required alternatives
analysis:
The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that
requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.
The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the
significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only
the ones that the Lead Agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives
of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a
manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making.
The alternatives may include a different type of project, modification of the proposed project, or
suitable alternative project sites. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a
project. Rather, the alternatives must be limited to ones that meet the project objectives, are
feasible, and would avoid or substantially lessen at least one of the significant environmental
effects of the project. “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social,
and technological factors. Section 15126.6(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR:
...must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on
the environment, the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or
its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects
of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the
project objectives, or could be more costly.
5. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-2 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Section 15126.6(d) of the CEQA Guidelines provides further guidance on the extent of
alternatives analysis required:
The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful
evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. A matrix displaying the
major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may be used
to summarize the comparison. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects
in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects
of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the
project as proposed.
The EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives and the
information the Lead Agency relied on when making the selection. It also should identify any
alternatives considered but rejected as infeasible by the Lead Agency during the scoping process
and briefly explain the reasons for the exclusion. Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed
consideration in the EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do
not avoid any significant environmental effects.
Section 15126.6(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines also requires that the No Project Alternative must
be addressed in this analysis. The purpose of evaluating the No Project Alternative is to allow
decision-makers to compare the potential consequences of the proposed project with the
consequences that would occur without implementation of the proposed project.
Finally, an EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project
Alternative may be the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project based on the
minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, the No Project
Alternative must also achieve the project objectives in order to be selected as the environmentally
superior alternative. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(e)(2)) require that if the environmentally
superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall identify an environmentally
superior alternative among other alternatives.
As identified in Section 2.2 of Chapter 2 (Project Objectives), the objectives of the proposed
project are as follows:
• Update the current OTSP to provide enhanced desired services within the plan area to both
City residents and visitors while being compatible with the nearby residential area;
• Respect the history of the OTSP area while fitting with current economics, accommodating
greater density, and encouraging a variety of architectural styles;
• Implement significant new investment in the Old Town area to help promote rapid growth
in Temecula Valley and develop a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use
development;
• Enhance the quality of life of Temecula residents by balancing economic development
objectives with protection of the environment and the health and safety of the community; and
• Promote economic activity within the City to maintain a healthy economy, provide revenue
for high-quality municipal services and infrastructure maintenance and improvements, and
preserve the unique character of Temecula.
6. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-3 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
6.1.2 Review of Significant and Unavoidable
Environmental Impacts
Based on the CEQA Guidelines, several factors need to be considered in determining the range of
alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR and the level of analytical detail that should be provided for
each alternative. These factors include (1) the nature of the significant impacts of the proposed
project; (2) the ability of alternatives to avoid or lessen the significant impacts associated with the
project; (3) the ability of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the project; and (4) the
feasibility of the alternatives. The analysis in this EIR indicates that the project would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to the following:
• Construction air impacts.
• Cumulative air impacts.
• Project operation air impacts
• State goals for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
• Construction noise impacts.
• Traffic noise impacts.
• Cumulative noise impacts.
The alternatives examined in this chapter would substantially lessen at least some of the
significant aesthetic, air quality/GHG, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, land use
and planning, noise, traffic and circulation, public services and utilities, and cumulative impacts
associated with implementation of the proposed project, while still meeting the project objectives.
As the Lead Agency, the City of Temecula will decide whether to proceed with the proposed
project or whether to accept or reject any of the alternatives identified in this chapter. As required
by the CEQA Guidelines, if the City ultimately rejects an alternative, the rationale for the
rejection will be presented in the findings that are required to be made before the City certifies the
EIR and takes action on the project.
6.1.3 Alternatives Not Evaluated in this EIR
An alternative to the OTSP amendment that would result in an overall increase of commercial
building floor space in Old Town and a reduction in residential units will not be analyzed. An
increase in commercial building floor space within the project area would result in a reduction of
shared and private open spaces (open areas for parking, courtyards, and balconies). In addition,
trip generation rates, as indicated in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Guidelines (Trip Generation, 8th Edition)1, are typically greater for commercial
building space uses as compared to residential uses. For example, a strip mall development would
typically produce approximately 42.94 trips per day (TPD)/1,000 square feet. In contrast, a
single-family residence typically generates approximately 9.56 TPD/dwelling unit (DU); a
condominium/townhouse typically generates 6.84 TPD/DU; and a high-rise apartment typically
1 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008.
5. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-4 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
produces about 5.48 TPD/DU. Therefore, an alternative that would increase commercial building
floor space in the OTSP area would also result in an increase in trips generated per day and an
increase in associated noise and air quality impacts.
As previously stated, alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in the EIR if
they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid any significant
environmental effects. Because increasing the commercial building floor space would ultimately
increase traffic, noise and air quality impacts, and would not reduce or avoid any significant
environmental effects compared to the proposed project, this alternative has been eliminated from
further consideration.
As the OTSP is designed to guide the development of the downtown area, an alternative site
would not be appropriate.
Finally, this EIR does not analyze a No Project Alternative with a “freezing of conditions” (i.e.,
no development). The No Project Alternative that is discussed below assumes development with
continuation of existing land use plans into the future, as specified under CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6(a) for analysis of proposed land use plans. Analysis of a “no development”
alternative is more appropriate for specific development projects rather than land use plans.
6.2 Project Alternatives
Two alternative scenarios, representing a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project,
were selected for detailed analysis. The goal for evaluating any of these alternatives is to identify
ways to avoid or lessen the significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the
proposed project, while attaining most of the project objectives.
The following sections provide a general description of each alternative, its ability to meet the
project objectives, and a qualitative discussion of its comparative environmental impacts. As
provided in Section 15126.6(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the significant effects of these alternatives
are identified in less detail than the analysis of the proposed project in Chapter 3 of this EIR.
Table 6-1 compares the ability of the alternatives to meet the project objectives. Table 6-2
compares the environmental impacts of the alternatives relative to the proposed project.
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative/Reasonably Foreseeable Development (Continuation
of Existing Specific Plan) – Under Alternative 1, the OTSP Amendment would not be pursued
and no associated components identified under the proposed project would be built. This
alternative evaluates the environmental effects of build-out of the Specific Plan area according to
the existing OTSP. Under Alternative 1, the impacts of the proposed project (Specific Plan
Amendment) are compared to the impacts that would occur if the existing OTSP continued to be
implemented in the OTSP area.
6. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-5 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 6-1
ABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Project Objectives Alt. 1: No Project
Alternative
Alt. 2: Increased Residential
and Reduced Commercial
Alternative
Alt.3: Reduced
Residential and Increased
Commercial Alternative
Update the current OTSP to provide
enhanced desired services within the plan
area to both City residents and visitors
while being compatible with the nearby
residential area.
No Yes Yes
Respect the history of the OTSP area
while fitting with current economics,
accommodating greater density and
encouraging a variety of architectural
styles.
No Yes Yes
Implement significant new investment in
the Old Town area to help promote rapid
growth in Temecula Valley and develop a
renewed interest in town centers and
mixed-use development.
No Yes No
Enhance the quality of life of Temecula
residents by balancing economic
development objectives with protection of
the environment and the health and safety
of the community.
No Yes Yes
Promote economic activity within the City
to maintain a healthy economy, provide
revenue for high-quality municipal services
and infrastructure maintenance and
improvements, and preserve the unique
character of Temecula.
No No Yes
SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2010.
Alternative 2: Increased Residential and Reduced Commercial Alternative – With the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment, the mixed-use aspect of the proposed project would result in
an overall reduction in commercial building floor space in Old Town of approximately 1,405,285
square feet as compared to the existing OTSP, and the addition of approximately 749 residential
units as compared to the existing OTSP. The reduction of building floor space can be anticipated
given that residential uses require more open areas for parking, courtyards, balconies, and other
shared and private open spaces than commercial uses.2 In comparison, Alternative 2 would
increase the amount of residential units by 1,100 residential units in comparison to the existing
OTSP and reduce the building floor space for commercial use by 2,000,000 square feet in
comparison to the existing OTSP. Alternative 2 would essentially increase residential
development and decrease commercial development even further than the proposed project. As a
result of the reduced amount of commercial building space under Alternative 2, there would be
fewer trips generated per day and thus a reduction in noise and air quality impacts within the
OTSP area. Alternative 2 would achieve some of the proposed project objectives by updating the
2 Refer to previously discussed trip generation rates as determined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip
Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008.
5. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-6 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 6-2
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVE IMPACTSa
Potential Project Impacts Alt. 1: No Project Alternative
Alt. 2: Increased
Residential and Reduced
Commercial Alternative
Alt.3: Reduced Residential
and Increased Commercial
Alternative
Aesthetics Increased Reduced Reduced
Air Quality Increased Reduced Increased
Global Warming/Climate Change Increased Reduced Increased
Cultural Resources Similar Similar Similar
Hydrology and Water Quality Similar Similar Similar
Land Use and Planning Similar Similar Similar
Noise Increased Reduced Increased
Traffic Increased Reduced Increased
Public Services and Utilities Increased Reduced Reduced
a Definitions:
• Increased = impacts of alternative greater than proposed projects impacts
• Similar = impacts of alternative similar to proposed projects impacts
• Reduced = impacts of alternative less than proposed projects impacts
SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2010.
current OTSP to provide enhanced desired services within the plan area to both City residents and
visitors while being compatible with the nearby residential area; respecting the history of the
OTSP area while fitting with current economics; accommodating greater density and encouraging
a variety of architectural styles; and implementing significant new investment in the Old Town
area to help promote rapid growth in Temecula Valley and develop a renewed interest in town
centers and mixed-use development. However, Alternative 2 would be less focused on promoting
economic activity within the City because residential development would be emphasized.
Therefore, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the project objectives.
Alternative 3: Reduced Residential and Increased Commercial Alternative – Alternative 3
would reduce the commercial square footage by 1,000,000 square feet in comparison to the
existing OTSP and reduce the number of residential units by 659 units in comparison to the
existing OTSP. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in an increase in 405,285 square feet of
commercial space in comparison to the proposed project and 1,408 less residential units in
comparison to the proposed project. Alternative 3 would achieve some of the proposed project
objectives by updating the current OTSP to provide enhanced desired services within the plan
area to both City residents and visitors while being compatible with the nearby residential area
and respecting the history of the OTSP area. Alternative 3 would also encourage a variety of
architectural styles and implement significant new investment in the Old Town area to help
promote rapid growth in Temecula Valley and develop a renewed interest in town centers and
mixed-use development. Alternative 3 would be more focused on promoting economic activity
within the City because residential development would not be emphasized. Alternative 3 would
not, however, encourage development of an increased number of high-quality residential
6. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-7 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
neighborhoods as compared to the existing OTSP and proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 3
would not fully achieve all of the project objectives.
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
The following discusses the impacts associated with the No Project Alternative, Alternative 1, in
comparison to the impacts of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment:
Aesthetics
The proposed amendment to the OTSP is intended to address community concerns related to
building height, building massing, and parking. The application of architectural styles, building
heights, building massing, and building placement within Old Town has resulted in inconsistent
development patterns. The existing Specific Plan lacks some of the language that could produce
more predictable development patterns. The proposed amendments incorporate form-based code
principles into the Specific Plan to more clearly define development regulations, to better
facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and to
encourage mixed-use development within Old Town. These changes are expected to enhance the
visual characteristics of the Old Town area.
Under the No Project Alternative, development would continue under the existing OTSP.
Inconsistent development patterns would continue. The architectural styles, building heights,
building massing, and building placement within the Old Town area would lack aesthetic
consistency.
Alternative 1 would not include a Hotel Overlay area that would allow for hotels of up to eight
stories. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not have the potential for future development of a hotel
that could adversely degrade the visual character of the site and its surroundings. The potential for
significantly taller hotel buildings, allowed by the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan at the
south end of the project site, would not exist under development of the existing Specific Plan
(Alternative 1). As such, Alternative 1 would be less likely to create a new source of substantial
light or glare, which could adversely affect daytime or nighttime views of the area.
Air Quality
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would generate considerably fewer trips than
development under Alternative 1 and thus lower CO emissions from traffic operations. Thus, the
No Project Alternative (Alternative 1) would have greater air quality impacts compared to the
proposed project. However, with development of the proposed project, automobile and truck trips
would still result in significant increases in localized CO concentrations.
Global Warming/Climate Change
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 1 would contribute to global climate change as a
result of emissions of GHGs, primarily CO2, emitted by construction and operational activities.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would have an approximate 1 percent increase in
5. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-8 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
construction emissions compared to Alternative 1, and a 25 percent reduction from the
Alternative 1 build-out emissions. Development under Alternative 1 would not introduce a
mixed-use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment
opportunities. Therefore, development under Alternative 1 would not reduce the community’s
reliance on automobiles, resulting in greater GHG emissions compared to the Specific Plan
Amendment.
Cultural Resources
Previously unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources could exist anywhere within the
Specific Plan area, and may be unearthed during excavation and grading activities for individual
projects. This can occur even in already developed areas, as older buildings are known to have
often been built on top of or within archaeological deposits. As development and redevelopment
would occur under both Alternative 1 and the proposed project, previously undiscovered artifacts
or remains could be uncovered during excavation or construction under both scenarios and
significant impacts could occur. But impacts to cultural resources under both scenarios could be
mitigated to less than significant levels with mitigation.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction of individual projects associated with Alternative 1 and the Specific Plan
Amendment would include grading and other earth moving activities, which would expose onsite
soils to erosion. Any proposed development within the OTSP area larger than 1 acre would have
to satisfy all applicable requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Program and Chapter 8.24, Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge
Controls of the City of Temecula’s Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the City of Temecula’s
Public Works Department. These requirements include the preparation of a Standard Urban
Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SWPPP), containing structural treatment and source control
measures. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that construction-related impacts to
water quality and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant under both
development scenarios.
The incremental increase of development under Alternative 1 as well as the proposed project is
likely to contribute to non-point sources of pollution such as motor oil, fertilizers and pesticides,
human littering, animal waste, and other pollutants typical of developed areas. However,
development projects under both development scenarios would have a responsibility under
NPDES Municipal Permit No. CAS004001 to ensure pollutant loads from the projects do not
exceed total maximum daily loads for downstream receiving waters.
Although build-out of the Old Town area under both Alternative 1 and the proposed project
would incrementally increase, these two scenarios are not anticipated to result in a substantial
depletion of groundwater supplies or substantial interference with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table.
Neither development scenario is anticipated to affect the quantity of groundwater, either though
direct additions or withdrawals, through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability.
6. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-9 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
The OTSP area is developed and served by existing stormwater collection and conveyance
systems which empty into Murrieta Creek. Construction activities associated with development of
Alternative 1 and the proposed project could result in localized changes to drainage patterns.
These changes could increase the amount and rate of discharge into the storm drain system.
Individual projects developed within the OTSP area would include project design features that
would aid in the conveyance of stormwater to existing facilities. All runoff would continue to be
conveyed via streets and gutters to storm drain locations within the Specific Plan area. Impacts
associated with erosion or flooding would be similar under both scenarios.
The majority of the project area has been previously developed. However, build-out of both
Alternative 1 and the proposed project would decrease natural ground cover and increase
impervious surfaces (such as paved areas and buildings). Increased runoff volume and peak
discharge rates could exacerbate downstream drainage problems under both scenarios,
particularly if the capacity of downstream infrastructure is inadequate. Increased detention basin
capacity and improvements and expansion of the storm drainage network would be necessary to
accommodate future storm flows, provide adequate drainage, and control flooding under both
scenarios. Surface water runoff volumes and rates are anticipated to increase when the majority of
the area is paved and developed under both scenarios.
There would be no increased risk or exposure of people to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow under Alternative 1 because the
project site is not located near a coastal area, large body of water, or steep slopes. The project site
is located approximately 23 miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is a sufficient distance to avoid
tsunami impacts under either scenario.
Land Use and Planning
The majority of the project site is zoned SP-5. Unlike the proposed project, Alternative 1 would
not include approximately 2.4 acres located south of First Street, an area currently zoned SC, and
would not remove approximately 2.3 acres from the Specific Plan area. Thus, Alternative 1 would
not require a zoning amendment and would be consistent with the zoning code.
Under Alternative 1, there would be no changes to site planning guidelines, streetscape standards
and guidelines, land use district locations and land use district titles, architectural standards and
guidelines, parking lot guidelines, public art guidelines, paving material guidelines, outdoor
dining/sidewalk furniture guidelines, sign regulations and guidelines, alley guidelines, and
landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan. Unlike the proposed project, Alternative 1 would
not amend the Specific Plan to more effectively implement the applicable goals and policies
established in the General Plan. However, Alternative 1 implementation would not conflict with
the adopted Specific Plan.
Noise
Under both Alternative 1 and the proposed project, noise levels at and near the construction areas
would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of uses of various pieces of
construction equipment. Construction-related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels
5. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-10 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used.
Construction could also occur adjacent to sensitive receptors under both scenarios. Although
construction noise levels under either scenario could be mitigated to reduce impacts, construction
sites are noisy locations with heavy equipment that could substantially affect noise levels for nearby
residents. Therefore, construction noise could at times be a short-term significant and unavoidable
impact of both the proposed project and Alternative 1.
Mixed-use areas are intended under the proposed project and Alternative 1. Noise impacts under
both scenarios would be expected as delivery trucks would be used during on-site commercial
operations and could potentially impact adjacent residents. However, the number of delivery trucks
would depend on the individual businesses.
Under both scenarios, most of the noise would primarily be generated from traffic. Both scenarios
would contribute to an increase in local traffic volumes, resulting in higher noise levels along
local roadways. However, build-out of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would generate
considerably fewer trips and less noise from traffic operations than build-out of the currently
approved Specific Plan under Alternative 1.
Traffic
Development under Alternative 1 (build-out of the existing Specific Plan) would generate
substantially more vehicle trips than the proposed project. The proposed project would increase
traffic at a lesser rate than development under Alternative 1. Specifically, development under
Alternative 1 would increase traffic by 106,092 ADT, with 5,957 AM peak hour trips and 9,925
PM peak hour trips as compared to the proposed project. Which would generate in comparison to
the proposed project, development under Alternative 1 would not place a major emphasis upon
additional pedestrian circulation in the area; therefore, Alternative 1 would not further reduce the
vehicle trips in the area in comparison to the proposed project.
Unlike development of the existing OTSP under Alternative 1, the proposed project would
implement efforts to reduce cut-through traffic on Old Town Front Street and allow for a more
even traffic distribution. Under the proposed project, the City of Temecula would expand
Mercedes Street to reach Old Town Front Street on the north end and the intersection of Old
Town Front Street at First Street/Santiago Road on the south end. In contrast to development
under Alternative 1, the proposed project would propose roundabouts as traffic control devices
within the Old Town area.
Public Services and Utilities
Build-out of the proposed project would replace existing residences with new multi-family
residential structures, and would result in new consolidated locations for commercial and retail uses.
In comparison to build-out of the existing Specific Plan under Alternative 1, the proposed project
would result in an increase in residential population (approximately 1,948 new residents3).
3 749 proposed residential units, multiplied by the City’s average persons per unit of 2.2, totals approximately 1,948
new residents.
6. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-11 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Therefore, Alternative 1 would require a contribution of fewer acres of parkland/open space to
the City’s inventory of park space as compared to the proposed project.
The projected residential square footage at build-out of Alternative 1 is 1,575,892 and the
projected number of units is 1,659.4 Compared to the proposed project residential square footage
of approximately 2,249,285 at build-out and the proposed project number of units at build-out of
approximately 2,408, this is a difference of 673,393 additional square feet of residential and up to
749 additional units.5 Please refer to Table 6-3 below.
TABLE 6-3
BUILD-OUT COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE 1 AND PROPOSED PROJECT
Proposed Project Alt. 1: No Project Alternative
Residential Square Footage (Build-out) 2,249,285 1,575,892
Project Residential Units 2,408 1,659
SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2010.
The proposed project would intensify the land uses within the area (and expanded area proposed),
increasing the demand for water and solid waste services for residential uses. However, the
proposed project would reduce the commercial uses by approximately 700,000 square feet. No
new increase in water for commercial uses is anticipated under the proposed project as compared
to build-out under Alternative 1.
Ability to Meet Project Objectives
The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives (Table 6-1) and would
maintain current conditions, as development would take place under the existing Specific Plan.
Fulfillment of the City’s update to the current OTSP would not occur.
Alternative 2: Increased Residential and Reduced
Commercial Alternative
The following discusses the impacts associated with Alternative 2 in comparison to the impacts of
the proposed Specific Plan Amendment:
Aesthetics
Implementation of Alternative 2 would further increase residential development over the
proposed project by 25 residential units and by 1,100 residential units above what was
contemplated in the existing OTSP. Alternative 2 would also decrease commercial development
even further than the proposed project by 594,715 square feet and by 2,000,000 square feet from
what was approved in the existing OTSP. This would increase the visual presence of attached
4 Written Communication, City of Temecula, Stuart Fisk, September 3, 2009. 5 Written Communication, City of Temecula, Stuart Fisk, September 3, 2009.
5. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-12 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
residential or mixed-use development of up to three stories in the project area. This district would
be located between the Civic Overlay just west of the I-15 corridor. In addition, there would be an
increase in the allowed ratio of attached and detached three-story residential developments at a
density of up to 35 dwelling units per acre. Typical housing types in this area may include single-
family detached, duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and live/work
units. This land use district would be located along the western side of the project area just west
of the Open Space corridor which contains Murrieta Creek.
Alternative 2 would also reduce commercial building floor space within the Downtown
Core/Hotel Overlay area. This decrease in building floor space would occur along the east edge of
the Open Space corridor which contains Murrieta Creek. This area is defined by multi-story urban
buildings of up to four stories that are intended to accommodate art galleries, museums,
restaurants and small-scale boutique retailers such as gift, specialty food, and antique shops, or
similar retail uses. The residential uses in this area would increase under Alternative 2 and would
not be restricted to the second floor and higher for parcels along Old Town Front Street and Main
Street. Under Alternate 2, the four-story buildings within the Downtown Core, would contain
multiple floors, at a minimum, restricted to residential use. However, visual impacts related to
Alternative 2 would not be greater compared to the proposed project. The building sizing and
placement would be identical regardless of commercial versus residential use.
Air Quality
Alternative 2 Construction Emissions
NOx, ROG, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and CO2 construction emissions were estimated for based on
default crew, truck trip, and equipment. Emissions are based on criteria pollutant emission factors
from URBEMIS 2007. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 6-4 through Table 6-6.
As shown in Table 6-4, construction emissions of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 with construction
under Alternative 2 would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and would therefore be
significant.
The Proposed Specific Plan is shown in Table 6-5 to produce NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 over
the SCAQMD thresholds as well. Table 6-6 shows the difference in emissions levels from the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment minus Alternative 2. As shown in Table 6-6, emissions of
ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 are lower in Alternative 2 versus the Proposed Specific Plan. However,
impacts under Alternative 2 would remain significant and unavoidable even with implementation
of Mitigation Measures 3.2-2a through 3.2-2g as detailed in Section 3.2.
Alternative 2 Operational Emissions
As a result of the reduced amount of commercial building space under Alternative 2, there would
be fewer trips generated per day and thus a reduction in air quality impacts within the OTSP area.
Operational emissions under Alternative 2 would be lower in comparison to the proposed project,
but remain significant and unavoidable as a result of long-term air quality impacts. The proposed
Specific Plan Amendment would generate more vehicle trips than development under Alternative
2 and thus increased CO emissions from traffic operations.
6. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-13 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 6-4
MITIGATED EMISSIONS FROM ALTERNATIVE 2 CONSTRUCTION
(pounds per day)a
Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5b CO2
2010 59 383 522 358 89 78184
2015 44 256 379 351 82 78162
2020 33 163 188 346 78 78151
2025 31 152 238 346 78 78151
2030 30 148 211 346 78 78154
2035 29 146 195 346 78 78157
2040 29 145 185 346 78 78158
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75 100 550 150 55 NA
Significant (Yes or No)? No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
a Project construction emissions estimates for off-road equipment were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for
more details. b PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression,
which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries.
NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available
SOURCE: ESA, 2010.
TABLE 6-5
MITIGATED EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN CONSTRUCTION
(pounds per day)a
Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5b CO2
2010 66 386 599 517 122 87170
2015 50 258 434 510 116 87141
2020 39 164 326 505 112 87128
2025 36 153 266 505 111 87127
2030 35 149 233 505 111 87130
2035 34 147 213 505 111 87134
2040 34 156 201 505 111 87136
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75 100 550 150 55 NA
Significant (Yes or No)? No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
a Project construction emissions estimates for off-road equipment were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for
more details. b PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression,
which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries.
NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available
SOURCE: ESA, 2010.
5. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-14 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 6-6
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MINUS ALTERNATIVE 2 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)a
Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5b CO2
2010 7 3 77 159 33 8986
2015 6 2 55 159 34 8979
2020 6 1 138 159 34 8977
2025 5 1 28 159 33 8976
2030 5 1 22 159 33 8976
2035 5 1 18 159 33 8977
2040 5 11 16 159 33 8978
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75 100 550 150 55 NA
Significant (Yes or No)? No No No Yes No NA
a Project construction emissions estimates for off-road equipment were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for
more details. b PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression,
which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries.
NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available
SOURCE: ESA, 2010.
Operational emissions for mobile and area sources are based on criteria pollutant emission factors
from URBEMIS 2007. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 6-7 through Table 6-9.
As shown in Table 6-7, build-out of the Alternative 2 would exceed all SCAQMD thresholds of
significance and would therefore be significant.
As shown in Table 6-8, the operational emissions with build-out of the existing Specific Plan
would also exceed all SCAQMD thresholds. When the Alternative 2 is compared to the proposed
project, as shown in Table 6-9, a major reduction of all emissions occurs. Though Mitigation
Measures 3.2-3a through 3.2-3d would reduce operational emissions, the impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
TABLE 6-7
ALTERNATIVE 2 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)a
Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2
Area Sources 143 41 29 <1 <1 50,777
Mobile Sources 600 865 7,693 1,408 274 838,577
Total 743 906 7,722 1,409 274 889,354
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55 NA
Significant (Yes or No)? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
a Project emissions estimates were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details.
NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available
SOURCE: ESA, 2010.
6. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-15 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 6-8
PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)a
Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2
Area Sources 146 46 34 <1 <1 57,363
Mobile Sources 763 1,106 9825 1,802 351 1,072,376
Total 908 1,153 9,859 1,802 351 1,129,739
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55 NA
Significant (Yes or No)? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
a Project emissions estimates were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details.
NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available
SOURCE: ESA, 2010.
TABLE 6-9
PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MINUS ALTERNATIVE 2 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)a
Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2
Difference between Total Proposed SP
Emissions and Alternative 2 Emissions 165 247 2,137 393 77 240,385
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55 NA
Significant (Yes or No)? No No No No No No
a Project emissions estimates were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details.
NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available
SOURCE: ESA, 2010.
Global Warming/Climate Change
Implementation of Alternative 2 would involve an increase in residential uses within the OTSP
area and a corresponding reduction in daily traffic trips. Similar to the proposed project,
Alternative 2 would contribute to global climate change as a result of emissions of GHGs,
primarily CO2, emitted by construction and operational activities. However, the proposed Specific
Plan Amendment would have a greater increase in build-out emissions than Alternative 2.
Development under Alternative 2 would introduce a higher density of residential uses as
compared to the proposed project, which would still create a mixed-use environment in which
residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities. This increase in
residential uses would correspond to fewer vehicle trips traveled on a daily basis and thus a
reduction in the community’s reliance on automobiles in comparison to the proposed project,
resulting in fewer GHG emissions.
Proposed project construction GHG emissions would be approximately 9,955 metric tons of
CO2e/yr. The Alternative 2 construction greenhouse gas emissions would be approximately 9,254
metric tons of CO2E/yr. Therefore Alternative 2 would have a 7 percent reduction of construction
emissions compared to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.
5. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-16 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Alternative 2 operational GHG emissions from vehicle trips and space heating would be
approximately 143,145 metric tons of CO2e/yr, and indirect operation emissions from electricity
generation would be approximately 3,760 metric tons of CO2e/yr, totaling 146,905 metric tons of
CO2e/yr. Alternative 2 would be classified as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions (total
emissions would exceed the lower reporting limit, which is 25,000 metric tons of CO2e/yr). The
proposed Specific Plan Amendment build-out operational GHG emissions from vehicle trips and
space heating would be approximately 181,717 metric tons of CO2e/yr, and indirect operation
emissions from electricity generation would be approximately 10,939 metric tons of CO2e/yr,
totaling 192,657 metric tons of CO2e/yr. Therefore Alternative 2 emissions would have a 24
percent reduction compared to the proposed Specific Plan emissions.
When compared to the overall state emissions limit of approximately 427 million metric tons
CO2e/yr, the proposed Specific Plan build-out (146,905 metric tons CO2e/yr) would be 0.08
percent of the state goal. However, since the project would result in GHG emissions that would
exceed the major source threshold (25,000 metric tons CO2e/yr) and the SCAQMD GHG
screening threshold (3,000 metric tons CO2e/yr), the project would potentially conflict with the
state’s ability to meet the AB32 goals. Please refer to Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 in Section 3.3;
however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. For GHG calculations see
Appendix D.
Cultural Resources
Previously unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources could exist anywhere within the
Specific Plan area, and may be unearthed during excavation and grading activities for individual
projects. This can occur even in already developed areas, as older buildings are known to have
often been built on top of or within archaeological deposits. Previously undiscovered artifacts or
remains could still be uncovered during excavation or construction under both scenarios and
significant impacts could occur. But impacts to cultural resources under both scenarios could be
mitigated to less than significant levels with mitigation.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction of individual projects associated with Alternative 2 and the Specific Plan
Amendment would include grading and other earth moving activities, which would expose onsite
soils to erosion. Any proposed development within the OTSP area larger than 1 acre would have
to satisfy all applicable requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Program and Chapter 8.24, Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge
Controls of the City of Temecula’s Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the City of Temecula’s
Public Works Department. These requirements include the preparation of a Standard Urban
Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SWPPP), containing structural treatment and source control
measures applicable to the individual project. Compliance with these requirements would ensure
that construction-related impacts to water quality and waste discharge requirements would be less
than significant under both development scenarios.
The incremental increase of development under Alternative 2 and the proposed project is likely to
contribute to non-point sources of pollution such as motor oil, fertilizers and pesticides, human
6. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-17 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
littering, animal waste, and other pollutants typical of developed areas. However, development
projects under both development scenarios would have a responsibility under NPDES Municipal
Permit No. CAS004001 to ensure pollutant loads from the projects do not exceed total maximum
daily loads for downstream receiving waters.
Although project build-out under Alternative 2 and the proposed project would incrementally
increase, neither of these scenarios are anticipated to result in a substantial depletion of
groundwater supplies or substantial interference with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. Neither
development scenario is anticipated to affect the quantity of groundwater either though direct
additions or withdrawals, interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability.
The OTSP area is developed and served by existing stormwater collection and conveyance
systems which empty into Murrieta Creek. Construction activities associated with development of
Alternative 2 and the proposed project could result in localized changes to drainage patterns.
These changes could increase the amount and rate of discharge into the storm drain system.
Individual projects developed within the OTSP area would include project design features that
would aid in the conveyance of stormwater to existing facilities. All runoff would continue to be
conveyed via streets and gutters to storm drain locations within the Specific Plan area. Impacts
associated with erosion or flooding would remain similar under both scenarios.
The majority of the planning area is developed. However, build-out of both Alternative 2 and the
Specific Plan Amendment would decrease natural ground cover and increase impervious surfaces
(such as paved areas and buildings). Increased runoff volume and peak discharge rates could
exacerbate downstream drainage problems under both scenarios, particularly if the capacity of
downstream infrastructure is inadequate. Increased detention basin capacity and improvements
and expansion of the storm drainage network would be necessary to accommodate future storm
flows, provide adequate drainage, and control flooding under both scenarios. Surface water runoff
volumes and rates are anticipated to increase when the majority of the area is paved and
developed under both scenarios.
There would be no increased risk or exposure of people to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow under Alternative 2 because the
project site is not located near a coastal area, large body of water, or steep slopes. The project site
is located approximately 23 miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is a sufficient distance to avoid
tsunami impacts.
Land Use and Planning
Similar to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, Alternative 2 would also strive to better
facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and to
encourage mixed-use development within Old Town. Alternative 2 would implement many of the
SCAG policies related to high-density, infill development that is pedestrian oriented and
introduce high-density residential uses. This would create a mixed-use environment in which
residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities, reducing the
5. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-18 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
community’s reliance on automobiles. Increasing residential uses under Alternative 2 would not
be inconsistent with the existing General Plan land uses designated for the project site.
Alternative 2 would be consistent with all relevant policies of the City’s General Plan, including
those identified in the Community Design Element.
Similar to the proposed project, the inclusion or annexation of approximately 2.4 acres into the
OTSP are located south of First Street, currently zoned SC, would still be part of Alternative 2.
Thus, the inclusion would require a zoning amendment to reflect the incorporation of the
proposed 2.4 acres into SP-5 zone. Also, Alternative 2 would result in the removal of
approximately 2.3 acres from the Specific Plan, at a location west of the intersection of Sixth
Street and Pujol Street. This would also require a zoning amendment to reflect the exclusion of
these lands from the SP-5 zone.
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would incorporate form-based code principles to
more clearly define development regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development
through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within
Old Town.
Noise
Most of the noise generated by the implementation of Alternative 2 and the proposed Specific
Plan Amendment would primarily be traffic-generated noise. Trip generation rates are typically
greater for commercial building space uses than residential uses. Alternative 2 would involve
increasing the amount of residential units and reducing the overall building floor space for
commercial use in comparison to the proposed project. As a result of the reduced amount of
commercial building space under Alternative 2, there would be fewer trips generated per day and
a reduction in associated noise impacts within the OTSP area compared to the proposed project.
Traffic
Trip generation rates are typically greater for commercial building space uses as compared to
residential uses (see example in Section 6.1.3). Alternative 2 would increase the number of
residential units and reduce the overall building floor space for commercial use in comparison to
the proposed project. As a result of the reduced amount of commercial building space under
Alternative 2, there would be fewer trips generated per day.
Public Services and Utilities
Alternative 2 would increase demand for water and solid waste services for residential uses in the
Specific Plan area. Build-out of Alternative 2 would replace existing residences with new multi-
family residential structures, and would result in new consolidated locations for commercial and
retail uses. Alternative 2 would result in an increase in residential population (approximately
2,003 new residents6). In order to maintain the ratio of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents,
the proposed Specific Plan area, under Alternative 2, would need to contribute 10.02 acres of
parkland/open space to the City’s inventory of park space. There are 538 existing (on ground)
6 Multi-family dwelling unit assumption of 2.2 persons/du.
6. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-19 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
residential units in the existing Specific Plan Area that would require approximately 2.69 acres of
parkland/ open space. Taken together, the total amount of parkland/ open space for existing and
Alternative 2 development would be approximately 12.89 acres (10.2 acres for Alternative 2
residential and 2.69 acres existing residential). There are 26 single-family units along the freeway
that would be removed and replaced with mixed-use development under Alternative 2. Thus, the
actual open space/parkland needed would be less.
As stated in the City’s General Plan, 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; as such, although the open space corridor
associated with Alternative 2 would be increased by 5.7 acres, this area would not contribute
towards the parks and recreational facilities requirement. Within the OTSP area, the Sam Hicks
Memorial Park would provide 2 acres of parkland and the Civic Center Plaza would contribute
.45 acres of recreational facilities towards this requirement. However, there would still be a need
for the contribution of 7.29 acres of parks and recreational facilities into the City’s inventory of
park space as a result of Alternative 2. Although the additional open space provided by
Alternative 2 would not contribute towards the parks and recreational facilities requirement, this
additional open space area would still have a beneficial affect on the City an OTSP area. Overall,
due to the improvements proposed by Alternative 2 (improved landscaping and walkways, etc.)
and implementation of the Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-3 listed in Section 3.8, impacts
would be less than significant. Furthermore, all development projects must contribute their fair
share to the maintenance or provision of public services through payment of the City’s
Development Impact Fee.
Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative 2 would achieve some of the proposed project objectives by updating the current
OTSP to provide enhanced desired services within the plan area to both City residents and
visitors while being compatible with the nearby residential area; respecting the history of the
OTSP area while fitting with current economics, accommodating greater density and encouraging
a variety of architectural styles; and implementing significant new investment in the Old Town
area to help promote rapid growth in Temecula Valley and develop a renewed interest in town
centers and mixed-use development. However, Alternative 2 would be less focused on promoting
economic activity within the City to maintain a healthy economy, as residential development
would be emphasized. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the project
objectives (see Table 6-1).
Alternative 3: Reduced Residential and Increased
Commercial Alternative
The following discusses the impacts associated with Alternative 3 in comparison to the impacts of
the proposed Specific Plan Amendment:
5. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-20 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Aesthetics
Implementation of Alternative 3 would decrease the residential living space within the
Residential/Limited Mixed Uses Districts and Neighborhood Residential District and increase
commercial building space located on the southern portion of the OTSP area and throughout the
eastern side of the open space corridor. This would decrease the visual presence of attached
residential or mixed-use development of up to three stories in the project area and increase the
visual presence of retail, office, and service-type commercial uses. There would be a decrease in
the allowed ratio of attached and detached three-story residential developments at a density of up
to 35 dwelling units per acre. The visual presence of residential uses that are permitted in the
Downtown Core District that are restricted to the second floor and higher for parcels along Old
Town Front Steet and Main Street would be reduced under Alternative 3. In addition, the visual
presence of residential uses within the Residential/Limited Mixed Use District that would occur
above the first floor (first floor would accommodate commercial uses) would be reduced as well.
Alternative 3 would increase building floor space within the Downtown Core/Hotel Overlay area.
This increase in building floor space would occur along the east edge of the Open Space corridor
which contains Murrieta Creek. This area is defined by multi-story urban buildings of up to four
stories that are intended to accommodate art galleries, museums, restaurants and small-scale
boutique retailers such as gift, specialty food, and antique shops, or similar retail uses. As stated
under Alternative 2, the visual impacts (as they relate to Alternative 3) would not be greater
compared to the proposed project. The building sizing and placement would be identical
regardless of commercial versus residential use.
Air Quality
Alternative 3 Construction Emissions
NOx, ROG, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and CO2 construction emissions were estimated for based on
default crew, truck trip, and equipment. Emissions are based on criteria pollutant emission factors
from URBEMIS 2007. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 6-10 through
Table 6-12. As shown in Table 6-10, construction emissions of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5
with construction under Alternative 2 would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and
would therefore be significant.
The Proposed Specific Plan is shown in Table 6-11 to produce NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 over
the SCAQMD thresholds as well. Table 6-12 shows the difference in emissions levels from the
proposed Specific Plan Amendment minus Alternative 2. As shown in Table 6-12, emissions of
ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 are lower in Alternative 3 versus the Proposed Specific Plan. However,
impacts under Alternative 3 would remain significant and unavoidable even with implementation
of Mitigation Measures 3.2-2a through 3.2-2g found in Section 3.2.
Alternative 3 Operational Emissions
As a result of the increased amount of commercial building space under Alternative 2, there
would be more trips generated per day and thus an increase in air quality impacts within the
OTSP area. Operational emissions under Alternative 3 would be higher in comparison to the
proposed project, and would be significant and unavoidable as a result of long term air quality
impacts. Alternative 2 would generate more vehicle trips than development under the proposed
Specific Plan Amendment and thus increased CO emissions from traffic operations.
6. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-21 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 6-10
MITIGATED EMISSIONS FROM ALTERNATIVE 3 CONSTRUCTION
(pounds per day)a
Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5b CO2
2010 57 355 461 374 91 68620
2015 43 241 338 369 86 68600
2020 33 154 259 364 82 68591
2025 31 146 217 364 81 68590
2030 30 143 194 364 81 68592
2035 30 141 180 364 81 68595
2040 30 141 172 357 81 68596
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75 100 550 150 55 NA
Significant (Yes or No)? No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
a Project construction emissions estimates for off-road equipment were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for
more details. b PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression,
which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries.
NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available
SOURCE: ESA, 2010.
TABLE 6-11
MITIGATED EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN CONSTRUCTION
(pounds per day)a
Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5b CO2
2010 66 386 599 517 122 87170
2015 50 258 434 510 116 87141
2020 39 164 326 505 112 87128
2025 36 153 266 505 111 87127
2030 35 149 233 505 111 87130
2035 34 147 213 505 111 87134
2040 34 156 201 505 111 87136
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75 100 550 150 55 NA
Significant (Yes or No)? No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
a Project construction emissions estimates for off-road equipment were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for
more details. b PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression,
which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries.
NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available
SOURCE: ESA, 2010.
5. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-22 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 6-12
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MINUS ALTERNATIVE 3 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)a
Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5b CO2
2010 9 31 138 143 31 18550
2015 7 17 96 141 30 18541
2020 6 10 67 141 30 18537
2025 5 7 49 141 30 18537
2030 5 6 39 141 30 18538
2035 4 6 33 141 30 18539
2040 4 15 29 148 30 18540
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75 100 550 150 55 NA
Significant (Yes or No)? No No No Yes No NA
a Project construction emissions estimates for off-road equipment were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for
more details. b PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression,
which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries.
NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available
SOURCE: ESA, 2010.
Operational emissions for mobile and area sources are based on criteria pollutant emission factors
from URBEMIS 2007. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 6-13 through
Table 6-15. As shown in Table 6-13, build-out of the Alternative 3 would exceed all SCAQMD
thresholds of significance and would therefore be significant and unavoidable.
As shown in Table 6-14, the operational emissions with build-out of the existing Specific Plan
would also exceed all SCAQMD thresholds. When the Alternative 3 is compared to the proposed
project, as shown in Table 6-15, the proposed project would produce less operational emissions.
Though Mitigation Measures 3.2-3a through 3.2-3d would reduce operational emissions, the
impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
TABLE 6-13
ALTERNATIVE 3 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)a
Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2
Area Sources 72 36 31 <1 <1 44,442
Mobile Sources 806 1,185 10,487 1,930 376 1,147,840
Total 878 1,222 10,518 1,930 376 1,192,282
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55 NA
Significant (Yes or No)? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
a Project emissions estimates were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details.
NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available
SOURCE: ESA, 2010.
6. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-23 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
TABLE 6-14
PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)a
Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2
Area Sources 146 46 34 <1 <1 57,363
Mobile Sources 763 1,106 9825 1,802 351 1,072,376
Total 908 1,153 9,859 1,802 351 1,129,739
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55 NA
Significant (Yes or No)? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
a Project emissions estimates were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details.
NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available
SOURCE: ESA, 2010.
TABLE 6-15
PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MINUS ALTERNATIVE 2 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)a
Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2
Difference between Total Proposed SP
Emissions and Alternative 2 Emissions 30 -69 -659 -128 -25 -62,543
SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55 NA
Significant (Yes or No)? No No No No No No
a Project emissions estimates were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details.
NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available
SOURCE: ESA, 2010.
Global Warming/Climate Change
Implementation of Alternative 3 would involve a decrease in residential uses and an increase of
commercial development within the OTSP area and a corresponding increase in daily traffic trips.
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would contribute to global climate change as a
result of emissions of GHGs, primarily CO2, emitted by construction and operational activities.
However, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would have a smaller increase in build-out
emissions than Alternative 3. Development under Alternative 3 would introduce a higher density
of residential uses as compared to the proposed project, which would still create a mixed-use
environment in which residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment
opportunities. This increase in residential uses would correspond to fewer vehicle trips traveled
on a daily basis and thus a reduction in the community’s reliance on automobiles in comparison
to the proposed project, resulting in fewer GHG emissions.
Proposed project construction GHG emissions would be approximately 9,955 metric tons of
CO2e/yr. The Alternative 3 construction greenhouse gas emissions would be approximately 8,154
5. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-24 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
metric tons of CO2E/yr. Therefore Alternative 3 would have an 18 percent reduction of
construction emissions compared to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.
Alternative 3 operational GHG emissions from vehicle trips and space heating would be
approximately 191,509 metric tons of CO2e/yr, and indirect operation emissions from electricity
generation would be approximately 1,842 metric tons of CO2e/yr, totaling 193,351 metric tons of
CO2e/yr. Alternative 3 would be classified as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions (total
emissions would exceed the lower reporting limit, which is 25,000 metric tons of CO2e/yr). The
proposed Specific Plan Amendment build-out operational GHG emissions from vehicle trips and
space heating would be approximately 181,717 metric tons of CO2e/yr, and indirect operation
emissions from electricity generation would be approximately 10,939 metric tons of CO2e/yr,
totaling 192,657 metric tons of CO2e/yr. Therefore Alternative 2 emissions would have a 4%
percent increase compared to the proposed Specific Plan emissions.
When compared to the overall state emissions limit of approximately 427 million metric tons
CO2e/yr, the proposed Specific Plan build-out (146,905 metric tons CO2e/yr) would be 0.1
percent of the state goal. However, since the project would result in GHG emissions that would
exceed the major source threshold (25,000 metric tons CO2e/yr) and the SCAQMD GHG
screening threshold (3,000 metric tons CO2e/yr), the project would potentially conflict with the
state’s ability to meet the AB32 goals. Please refer to Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 in Section 3.3;
however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. For GHG calculations see
Appendix D.
Cultural Resources
Previously unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources could exist anywhere within the
Specific Plan area, and may be unearthed during excavation and grading activities for individual
projects. This can occur even in already developed areas, as older buildings are known to have
often been built on top of or within archaeological deposits. Previously undiscovered artifacts or
remains could still be uncovered during excavation or construction under both scenarios and
significant impacts could occur. But impacts to cultural resources under both scenarios could be
mitigated to less than significant levels with mitigation.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction of individual projects associated with Alternative 3 and the Specific Plan
Amendment would include grading and other earth moving activities, which would expose onsite
soils to erosion. Any proposed development within the OTSP area larger than 1 acre would have
to satisfy all applicable requirements of the NPDES Program and Chapter 8.34,
Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls of the City of Temecula’s
Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the City of Temecula’s Public Works Department. These
requirements include the preparation of a SWPPP, containing structural treatment and source
control measures applicable to the individual project. Compliance with these requirements would
ensure that construction-related impacts to water quality and waste discharge requirements would
be less than significant under both development scenarios.
6. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-25 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
The incremental increase of commercial and residential development under Alternative 3 and the
proposed project is likely to contribute to non-point sources of pollution such as motor oil,
fertilizers and pesticides, human littering, animal waste, and other pollutants typical of developed
areas. However, development projects under both development scenarios would have a
responsibility under NPDES Municipal Permit No. CAS004001 to ensure pollutant loads from
the projects do not exceed total maximum daily loads for downstream receiving waters.
Although project build-out under Alternative 3 and the proposed project would incrementally
increase, neither of these scenarios are anticipated to result in a substantial depletion of
groundwater supplies or substantial interference with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. Neither
development scenario is anticipated to affect the quantity of groundwater either though direct
additions or withdrawals, interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability.
The OTSP area is developed and served by existing stormwater collection and conveyance
systems which empty into Murrieta Creek. Construction activities associated with development of
Alternative 3 and the proposed project could result in localized changes to drainage patterns.
These changes could increase the amount and rate of discharge into the storm drain system.
Individual projects developed within the OTSP area would include project design features that
would aid in the conveyance of stormwater to existing facilities. All runoff would continue to be
conveyed via streets and gutters to storm drain locations within the Specific Plan area. Impacts
associated with erosion or flooding would remain similar under both scenarios.
The majority of the planning area is developed. However, build-out of both Alternative 3 and the
Specific Plan Amendment would decrease natural ground cover and increase impervious surfaces
(such as paved areas and buildings). Increased runoff volume and peak discharge rates could
exacerbate downstream drainage problems under both scenarios, particularly if the capacity of
downstream infrastructure is inadequate. Increased detention basin capacity and improvements
and expansion of the storm drainage network would be necessary to accommodate future storm
flows, provide adequate drainage, and control flooding under both scenarios. Surface water runoff
volumes and rates are anticipated to increase when the majority of the area is paved and
developed under both scenarios.
There would be no increased risk or exposure of people to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow under Alternative 3 because the
project site is not located near a coastal area, large body of water, or steep slopes. The project site
is located approximately 33 miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is a sufficient distance to avoid
tsunami impacts.
Land Use and Planning
Similar to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, Alternative 3 would also strive to better
facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and to
encourage mixed-use development within Old Town. Alternative 3 would implement many of the
SCAG policies related to high-density, infill development that is pedestrian oriented and
5. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-26 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
introduce high-density residential uses. This would create a mixed-use environment in which
residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities, reducing the
community’s reliance on automobiles. Decreasing residential uses under Alternative 3 would not
be inconsistent with the existing General Plan land uses designated for the project site.
Alternative 3 would be consistent with all relevant policies of the City’s General Plan, including
those identified in the Community Design Element.
Similar to the proposed project, the inclusion or annexation of approximately 2.4 acres into the
OTSP are located south of First Street, currently zoned SC, would still be part of Alternative 3.
Thus, the inclusion would require a zoning amendment to reflect the incorporation of the
proposed 3.4 acres into SP-5 zone. Also, Alternative 3 would result in the removal of
approximately 2.3 acres from the Specific Plan, at a location west of the intersection of Sixth
Street and Pujol Street. This would also require a zoning amendment to reflect the exclusion of
these lands from the SP-5 zone.
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would incorporate form-based code principles to
more clearly define development regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development
through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within
Old Town.
Noise
Most of the noise generated by the implementation of Alternative 3 and the proposed Specific
Plan Amendment would primarily be traffic-generated noise. Trip generation rates are typically
greater for commercial building space uses than residential uses. Alternative 3 would involve
decreasing the amount of residential units and increasing the building floor space for commercial
use in comparison to the proposed project. As a result of the increased amount of commercial
building space under Alternative 3, there would be increased trips generated per day and an
increase in associated noise impacts within the OTSP area compared to the proposed project.
Traffic
Trip generation rates are typically greater for commercial building space uses as compared to
residential uses (see example in Section 6.1.3). Alternative 3 would decrease the number of
residential units and increase the building floor space for commercial use in comparison to the
proposed project. As a result of the increased amount of commercial building space under
Alternative 3, there would be increased trips generated per day.
Public Services and Utilities
Alternative 3 would increase the demand for water and solid waste services for commercial uses
in the Specific Plan area. Build-out of Alternative 3 would replace existing residences with new
multi-family residential structures, and would result in new consolidated locations for commercial
and retail uses. Alternative 3 would result in a decrease in residential population compared to the
proposed project and approved OTSP. Therefore, in comparison, Alternative 3 would not increase
6. Alternatives
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-27 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
the need for the contribution of parks and recreational facilities into the City’s inventory of park
space as fewer residences in the area would place a demand of recreational park uses.
Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative 3 would achieve some of the proposed project objectives by updating the current
OTSP to provide enhanced desired services within the plan area to both City residents and
visitors while being compatible with the nearby residential area and respecting the history of the
OTSP area. Alternative 3 would also encourage a variety of architectural styles and implement
significant new investment in the Old Town area to help promote rapid growth in Temecula
Valley and develop a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use development. Alternative 3
would be more focused on promoting economic activity within the City because residential
development would not be emphasized. Alternative 3 would not, however, encourage
development of an increased number of high-quality residential neighborhoods as compared to
the existing OTSP and proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not fully achieve all of
the project objectives.
6.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2), requires the identification of the environmentally
superior alternative. Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the proposed project
based on the minimization of environmental impacts; specifically, development under Alternative
2 would result in a reduction of traffic, air and noise impacts. However, Alternative 2 would be
less focused on promoting economic activity within the City because residential development
would be emphasized. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the project
objectives.
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-1 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
CHAPTER 7
Acronyms, References and List of Preparers
7.1 Acronyms
AB Assembly Bill
AB 1740 Ducheny Bill
AC Acres
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AF Acre-feet
AMSL above mean sea level
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CETAP Community Environment Transportation Acceptability Process
CFCs chlorofluorocarbons
7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-2 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CHP California Highway Patrol
City City of Temecula
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2/yr tons of carbon dioxide per year
CO2E carbon dioxide equivalent
CTR California Toxics rule
CUP Conditional Use Permit
CWA Clean Water Act
DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan
dB Decibels
dBA A-Weighted Decibels
DIF Developer Impact Fees
DNL 24-hour Day and Night A-weighted Noise Exposure Level
DPM diesel particulate matter
DWR Department of Water Resources
EDU Equivalent Dwelling Units
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMWD Eastern Municipal Water District
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-3 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
FCAAA Federal Clean Air Act Amendments
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
FIP Federal Implementation Plan
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
ft feet
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GPD Gallons Per Day
GPM Gallons Per Minute
GCP General Construction Permit
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GISP General Industrial Storm Water Permit
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HCM2000 Highway Capacity Manual
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
HDR High Density
HOV High Occupancy Vehicle
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
Hz Hertz
I-15 Interstate 15
I-215 Interstate 215
IESNA Illumination Engineering Society of North America
7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-4 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
L50 median sound level
L90 noise level that is equaled or exceeded 90 percent of the specified time period
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LCP Local Coastal Program
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Ldn ambient noise level without project
LDR Low Density
Leq equivalent sound level
LF linear feet
Lmax Instantaneous maximum noise level
LOS Level of Service
MDR Medium Density
MG Million Gallon
MG/L Milligrams per liter
MH Mobile Homes
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMTCO2E million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MPH miles per hour
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MS4 Permit Municipal Separate Storm-Sewer permit
MT metric tons
MWD Metropolitan Water District
N2O nitrous oxide
7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-5 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Statements
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NB northbound
NEPA National Environmental Protection Act
NOI Notice of Intent
NOP Notice of Preparation
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPS nonpoint source
O3 ozone
Ordinance 655 Palomar Lighting Ordinance
OTSP Old Town Specific Plan
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Pb lead
PFCs perflourocarbons
PM particulate matter
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategies
RCIP Riverside County Integrated Plan
RCPG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCWD Rancho California Water District
7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-6 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
RMS root mean square
ROC reactive organic compounds
ROG reactive organic gases
ROWD Report of Waste Discharge
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Southbound
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCH State Clearinghouse
SCE Southern California Edison
SCIC South Coastal Information Center
SDAB San Diego Air Basin
SDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
sf square feet
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Areas
SIP State Implementation Plan
SR-79 State Route 79
SWMP Storm Water Management Plan
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-7 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
Title 24 California Standards Code
TAC toxic air contaminants
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TLMA Transportation and Land Management Agency
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads
TPO Traffic Phasing Ordinance
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSF total square footage
TTM Tentative Tract Map
TUMF Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee
UBC Uniform Building Code
μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
V/C Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
VHDR Very High Density
WDR Waste Discharge Requirement
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments
yr per year
7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-8 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
7.2 References
Bean, Lowell John, and Florence C. Shipek, “Luiseño”, In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer,
pp. 550-563, Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general
editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1978.
Byrd, Brian F., and L. Mark Raab, “Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New
Millennium”, in California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by
Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp 215-227, 2007.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2008. CEQA and Climate
Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to
the California Environmental Quality Act.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2000. Risk Reduction Plan for Diesel-Fueled Engines
and Vehicles, September 2000.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2001. ARB Fact Sheet: Air Pollution Sources, Effects
and Control, http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/fs2/fs2.htm. Updated
December 2005.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2002. Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates. May 3, 2002.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook:
A Community Health Perspective, April 2005.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2007b. Ambient Air Quality Standards, available at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/aaqs2.pdf, February 22, 2007.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2007c. Area Designation Maps, available at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm, page updated June 28, 2007.
California Air Resources Board, December 6, 2007. Mandatory Reporting of California
greenhouse gas Emissions, Presentation in El Monte, California.
California Air Resources Board, June 2008a. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan, a framework
for change.
California Air Resources Board, October 2008b. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan, a
framework for change.
California Air Resources Board, October 2008c. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal on
Recommended Approaches for setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse
Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act.
California Department of Finance, http://www.dof.ca.gov/budget, accessed on September 7, 2009.
California Department of Housing and Community Development, Redevelopment Law Contained
in California Health and Safety Code, http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/rda/rdalaw.html,
accessed September 7, 2009.
7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-9 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Planning Zoning and Development
Laws, The Planning and Zoning Law, http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/pzd/2000/
pzd2000_web/pzd2000_plan4.html#anchor752866, accessed September 7, 2009.
California Integrated Waste Management Board (2009a), Facility Site Summary: El Sobrante
Landfill, accessed at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS/33-AA-0217/Detail/ , on September
2, 2009.
California Integrated Waste Management Board (2009b), Facility Site Summary: Badland
Sanitary Landfill, accessed at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS/33-AA-0006/Detail/ , on
September 2, 2009.
Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement, 1998.
City of Temecula (2005), Temecula General Plan, April 2005. (Available at the City of Temecula
Planning Department) accessed at
www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm
City of Temecula Draft General Plan EIR, December 2004.
City of Temecula General Plan Update EIR, 2005.
City of Temecula Internet Site. (Available on the Internet on January 10, 2008 at
http://www.cityoftemecula.org)
City of Temecula, Development Impact Fees, available on-line at
http://www.cityoftemecula.org/NR/rdonlyres/D617E197-5006-4C57-A7B6-
CD73ADF01436/0/200708DIFfees.pdf
City of Temecula, Municipal Code, October 2007.
City of Temecula, Municipal Code, October 2007.
City of Temecula, Old Town Specific Plan, Design Guidelines (Draft) June 4, 2009.
City of Temecula, Parks and Recreational Facilities (2009a), accessed at
http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Residents/Parks_and_Facilities/SkatePark.htm ,
on September 1, 2009.
City of Temecula, Parks and Recreational Facilities (2009b), accessed at
http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Residents/Parks_and_Facilities/PalaCommunityP
ark.htm , on September 1, 2009.
City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan Land Use Map, Adopted April 12, 2005, Map
Prepared February 1, 2007. (Available at the City of Temecula Planning Department,
43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, or on the Internet September 7, 2009 at
www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm)
City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan Land Use Map, Adopted April 12, 2005, Map
Prepared February 1, 2007. (Available at the City of Temecula Planning Department)
accessed at www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/
Zoning/generalplan.htm
7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-10 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan, April 2005. (Available at the City of Temecula
Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, or on the Internet on
January 10, 2008 at www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/
Zoning/generalplan.htm)
City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan, April 2005. (Available at the City of Temecula
Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, or on the Internet on
September 7, 2009 at www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/
Zoning/generalplan.htm)
City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan. Available for review at the City of Temecula
Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 or on the Internet at
www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm.,
2008.
City of Temecula, Temecula Southwest California at a Glance (2006), accessed online at
www.cityoftemecula.org.
City of Temecula, The History of Temecula. Available for review on the City of Temecula
Internet site at www.cityoftemecula.org/temecula/visitors/about/history. Accessed on
February 8, 2009.
City of Temecula, Zoning Code, http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/
CommDev/Zoning/zoningclassifications.htm, accessed online, September 7, 2009.
Cunniff, Patrick, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977.
Department of Water Resources Internet Site. (Available on the internet on September 21, 2009 at
http://www.water.ca.gov)
Dockery and Pope, Health Effects of Fine Particulate Air Pollution: Lines that Connect, 2006
Eastern Information Center California Historical Resources Information System, Cultural
Resources Records Search for the Temecula Old Town Specific Plan Amendment, RS#
EIC-RIV-ST-523. (The results of this records search are considered to be confidential by
the Eastern Information Center and are on file at the City of Temecula Planning
Department. They are only available for review by qualified archaeologists.)
Eastern Municipal Water District (2000). EMWD 2000 Urban Water Management Plan.
December 31, 2000.
Eastern Municipal Water District (2005), 2005 Urban Water Management Plan.
Eastern Municipal Water District (2006), Sanitary Sewer System Planning & Design Principle
Guidelines Criteria, Updated February 9, 1993, Revised September 1, 2006.
Eastern Municipal Water District (2007), Strategic Plan, 2007
Eastern Municipal Water District (2009a), History, accessed at
http://www.emwd.org/emwd/history.html on August 19, 2009.
Eastern Municipal Water District (2009b), Regional Water Reclamation Facilities, accessed at
http://www.emwd.org/news/Insights/insights_temecula.pdf, on September 1, 2009.
7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-11 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006.
Governors Office of Planning and Research, January 8, 2009. Preliminary Draft CEQA Guideline
Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Public Workshop Announcement.
Governors Office of Planning and Research, June 19, 2008. Technical Advisory, CEQA and
Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Review.
Horne, Melinda C., and Dennis P. McDougall, Cultural Resources study for the City of Riverside
General Plan 2025 Update Program EIR, Prepared for Cotton Bridges and Associates
Urban and Environmental Consultants, on behalf of the City of Riverside Planning
Department, Prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc., 2003
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. http://www.iesna.org/about/
what_is_iesna.cfm, accessed online February 20, 2008 and October 2, 2009.
Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008.
King, Thomas, National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for Murreita Creek
Archaeological Area, on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California,
Riverside, 1972.
Mason, Roger D., Results of Archaeological Test Programs at CA-RIV-1022, CA-RIV-3331, and
CA-RIV-3332H, Cottonwood Hills Project Area, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County,
CA, Prepared by Chambers Group, 1999.
Moratto, Michael, California Archaeology, Coyote Press, Salinas, California, 1984.
Rancho California Water District (2005a), 2005 Update of the Urban Water Management Plan,
December 2005.
Rancho California Water District (2005b), About Us, https://www.ranchowater.com/about.aspx
accessed on August 19, 2009.
Rancho California Water District (2007), Water System Facility Requirements and Design
Guidelines, 2007.
Rancho California Water District, Frequently Asked Questions,
https://www.ranchowater.com/faq.aspx, accessed on August 19, 2009.
Reynolds, Robert E. Paleontological Resources Assessment, South Coast Winery, Rancho
California, Riverside County, California, LSA Associates, Inc., 2007.
Reynolds, Robert, R.L. Reynolds, and A.F. Pajak III. Blancan, Irvingtonian, and Rancholabrean
Land Mammal Age Faunas from Western Riverside County, California. San Bernardino
County Museum Association Quarterly 39(3):37-40. 1991.
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Internet Site. (Available on the
internet on September 25, 2009 at http://www.floodcontrol.co.riverside.ca.us)
RK Engineering, Inc., Old Town Temecula Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study, December 16, 2009.
7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-12 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,
April 1993.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2005a. Risk Assessment Procedures
for Rules 1401 and 212, revised July 2005.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2005b. Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust,
June 3, 2005.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), December 2008. Interim CEQA GHG
Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans.
Southern California Association of Governments, 2004 Regional Transportation Plan:
Destination 2030, April 2004.
Southern California Association of Governments, Compass Blueprint,
http://www.compassblueprint.org, accessed September 7, 2009
Southern California Association of Governments, Draft Regional Comprehensive Plan and
Guide, 2008.
Southern California Edison (2009), Current Projects-Triton Substation Project, accessed at
http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/Transmission/CurrentProjects/Triton/ , on
September 2, 2009
State of California, Department of Justice, 2008. The California Environmental Quality Act:
Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. Available at:
http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf. Updated December 9,
2008 and accessed September 30, 2009.
Stuart Fisk (2009), City of Temecula Written Communication, September 3, 2009.
Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Washington
DC, 2000.
U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, accessed at http://www.factfinder.census.gov
accessed on September 1, 2009 and October 5, 2009.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1995. National Register Bulletin 15: How
to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, DC: National Park
Service.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations,
Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971.
Wallace, W. J., “A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology”,
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214–230, 1955
Warren C. N. 2004. “The Desert Region” in California Archaeology. By M. J. Moratto. Coyote
Press: Salinas, California. Reprinted from 1984, Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-13 ESA / D209294
Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010
7.3 List of Preparers
Lead Agency – City of Temecula
Bob Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Dan York, Deputy Director of Public Works
Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment
Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner
Consultants to the Lead Agency
RK Engineering Group, Inc. (Traffic Engineers)
Robert Kahn, Principal
Rogier Goedecke, Vice President-Operations
Sorin Boer, Senior Engineer
Environmental Science Associates (EIR Preparers)
Eric Ruby, Project Director
Christopher Knopp, Project Manager
Paul Miller, Project Manager
Christa Hudson, Senior Associate
Donald Ambroziak, Associate
Rebecca Skaggs, Associate
Cristiana Piraino, Associate
Gus JaFolla, Publishing Coordination