Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOTSP FPEIR 4 21 10.pdfProgram Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2009071049 OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Final April 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 Final April 2010Prepared for The City of Temecula Old Town Specific Plan Amendment i ESA / 209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Old Town Specific Plan Amendment Final Program Environmental Impact Report Page 1. Introduction 1-1 2. Response to Comments 2-1 3. Errata (includes revised figures) 3-1 Appendix A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1-1 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 CHAPTER 1 Introduction This document constitutes the Response to Comments on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) received during the public review period. This response to comments document, in conjunction with the Program DEIR (attached herewith), constitutes the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The Program DEIR public review period ran from March 1, 2010 to April 14, 2010. The Program DEIR was made available for review to the public and public agencies for 45 days to provide comments on the “sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated” (Section 15204 of the State CEQA Guidelines). Written comments were received on or before April 14, 2010. A total of seven (7) comment letters were received from agencies and the public. Copies of the comment letters submitted in response to the Program DEIR can be found in Chapter 2 of this document. These comments were reviewed and incorporated into the Program DEIR where appropriate. This document constitutes a response by the City of Temecula (City) to all comments submitted on the Program DEIR. Requirements for the preparation and disposition of the Response to Comments are provided for in PRC, Division 13, Section 21092.5 and Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15088 of the CEQA Guideline states: (a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the DEIR and shall prepare a written response. The Lead Agency shall respond to comments received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments. (b) The lead agency shall provide a written proposed response to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report. (c) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. (d) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the DEIR or may be a separate section in the FEIR. Where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the DEIR, the Lead Agency should either: (1) 1. Introduction Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1-2 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 Revise the text in the body of the EIR, or (2) Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the response to comments. This Response to Comments document has been organized as follows. • Chapter 1 (Introduction) includes a summary of the public circulation periods for the Program DEIR as well as a summary of relevant State CEQA Guidelines. • Chapter 2 (Response to Comments) consists of direct responses to comments that have been received on both the Program DEIR. • Chapter 3 (Errata Sheets and Revised Figures) • Appendices - The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program can be found in Appendix A of this document. Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-1 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 CHAPTER 2 Response to Comments – Program DEIR Chapter 2 includes responses to all comment letters received on the Program DEIR during the public review period. Comment letters were received from the following agencies and interested parties during the public review period for the Program DEIR: 1. Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians – March 8, 2010 2. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 8 – March 30, 2010 3. Department of Toxic Substances Control – April 8, 2010 4. Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California – April 9, 2010 5. Pechanga Cultural Resources – April 14, 2010 6. Eastern Municipal Water District – April 9, 2010 7. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District – April 19, 2010 Individual comments are bracketed and numbered in the right margin of the comment letters and the responses to the individual comment follow the letter with a corresponding response number. All non-CEQA related comments are noted as such and will be forwarded to the decision makers. 2. Response to Comments – DEIR Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-3 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians 1-1 The comment states that the project area is located outside the existing reservation, but does fall within the bounds of the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Tribal Traditional Use areas. At this time the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians do not have any specific concerns regarding the project and defers to the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians. In response, the comment is noted and no further action is required by the City at this time. 2. Response to Comments – DEIR Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-7 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 California Department of Transportation 2-1 The comment states that based on the analysis of the Program DEIR and the associated traffic study, Caltrans recommends that a merge/diverge analysis be provided for interchanges at I-15/Rancho California Road and I-15/SR-79. In response, a merge/diverge analysis is an extensive evaluation of all ramp configurations, ramp impacts, and requirements of the freeway. The City is currently processing a separate freeway interchange improvement project addressing ramp configurations at the I-15/SR-79 south interchange. Furthermore, since the proposed OTSP project is generating a reduced amount of traffic in comparison to the existing OTSP, these impacts are already covered and accounted for. 2-2 The comment states that based on the analysis of the Program DEIR and the associated traffic study, Caltrans recommends that the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) use consistent calculation factors in all analyses. In response, SIDRA INTERSECTION (an advanced micro-analytical traffic evaluation tool that employs lane-by-lane and vehicle drive cycle models) was used to analyze the roundabout at Front Street; at Mercedes and Front Street; and at Santiago/Mercedes Street. The HCM traffic analysis tool was used for all of the other intersections. This was the most accurate method to analyze potential roundabouts. 2-3 The comment states that based on the analysis of the Program DEIR and the associated traffic study, Caltrans recommends that a heavy vehicle factor be used in all analyses. In response, the factors used and incorporated in the calculations in support of the traffic analysis are the standard factors for the City of Temecula (the City of Temecula standards). Further, the use of heavy vehicles within the OTSP is not anticipated in substantial amounts due to the narrow streets and small roadways that make up the OTSP area. Heavy vehicles are only anticipated within the OTSP area for temporary construction and store deliveries. 2-4 The comment states that based on the analysis of the Program DEIR and the associated traffic study, Caltrans recommends that the TIA uses consistent traffic counts conducted within the same time frame. In response, the same traffic counts used in the approved traffic study associated with the City of Temecula Civic Center project were also used in support of the OTSP Program DEIR traffic impact analysis. These traffic counts were increased by a growth factor to represent existing conditions in 2009 and build-out for the OTSP Program DEIR traffic impact analysis. The City of Temecula recommended that due to the ongoing economic recession and to retain consistency with the previous Temecula Civic Center traffic analysis the previous counts would be used and increased by 1% per year (a total of 3%) to represent the 2009 existing conditions. 2-5 The comment states that based on the analysis of the Program DEIR and the associated traffic study, Caltrans recommends that traffic volumes used in exhibits must be consistent with the counts included in Appendix A. In response, as previously mentioned the same traffic counts used in the approved traffic study associated with the City of Temecula Civic Center project were also used in support of the OTSP Program DEIR traffic impact analysis. These traffic counts were increased to represent existing conditions in 2009 and build-out for 2. Response to Comments – DEIR Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-8 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 the OTSP Program DEIR traffic impact analysis. As such, the Appendix includes the original accounts and the analysis was increased (by a total of 3%) to represent existing conditions in 2009 based on this growth factor. 2-6 The comment states that based on the analysis of the Program DEIR and the associated traffic study, Caltrans recommends that to better identify potential impacts to State facilities, provide traffic analysis scenarios that clearly exhibit exiting, existing + project, existing + project + ambient growth, and existing + project + project + ambient growth + cumulative growth. In response, please refer back to the OTSP Program DEIR traffic impact analysis where this information is shown- Exhibit H (Existing Plus Ambient Growth and Proposed Specific Plan Traffic Volumes) and Exhibit I (General Plan (Year 2035) Plus Proposed Specific Plan Traffic Volumes). These traffic volumes included existing counts plus ambient growth, plus cumulative projects plus the project. 2-7 The comment states that based on the analysis of the Program DEIR and the associated traffic study, Caltrans recommends that mitigation measures to State facilities should be included in the traffic impact analysis. Mitigation identified in the TIA, subsequent environmental documents, and mitigation monitoring reports, should be coordinated with Caltrans to identify and implement the appropriate mitigation. In response, improvements to State facilities are regional responsibilities and are implemented through Caltrans and RCTC, these improvements are not a responsibility of the City. Any development that is approved within the OTSP will contribute to the TUMF Fee Program, which is a regional funding program. 2-8 The comment states that based on the analysis of the Program DEIR and the associated traffic study, Caltrans recommends that identified cumulative impacts to State facilities should be mitigated through participation of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program and/or local development fee programs. In response, the proposed project will participate in any associated approved development impact fees and TUMF fees required to help fund regional transportation improvements. 2-9 The comment states that issuance of a Caltrans Encroachment Permit will be required prior to any construction within the State right-of-way and shall be in compliance to all current design standards, applicable policies, and construction practices with regards to the pedestrian bridge across the I-15 at Sixth Street. In response, the comment is noted. Any construction associated with a pedestrian bridge across the I-15 at Sixth Street within the State right-of- way will include a Caltrans Encroachment Permit in compliance with all current design standards, applicable policies, and construction practices. 2. Response to Comments – DEIR Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-13 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 Department of Toxic Substances Control 3-1 The comment notes that the EIR should identify the current or historic uses in the project area that may have resulted in a release of hazardous wastes/substances, and any known or potentially contaminated sites within the project area. For all identified sites, the EIR should evaluate whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment. In response, as stated in the Initial Study located in Appendix A of the Program DEIR, the Specific Plan area is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. 3-2 The comment states that the EIR should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If necessary, DTSC would require an oversight agreement in order to review such documents. In response, please refer to Response 3-1 above. The western boundary of the Specific Plan area is adjacent to currently undeveloped land which is anticipated to be developed with residential and office uses in the future. Future development projects within the Specific Plan area will be required to be designed to minimize hazards related to wildland areas through site design, building setbacks, building design, and landscaping. Less than significant impacts are anticipates as a result of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. 3-3 The comment states that all environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation for a site should be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. In response, please refer to Responses 3-1 and 3-2 above. 3-4 The comment states that proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by the respective regulatory agencies, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to the new development or any construction. In response, please refer to Response 3-1 above. As stated in the Initial Study located in Appendix A of the Program DEIR, future development within the Specific Plan area will include typical uses associated with commercial office, retail, and residential uses, which do not use hazardous materials beyond those typically used for the these types of commercial and residential uses, such as cleaning supplies. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment does not establish manufacturing land uses districts that might produce hazardous wastes. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated to the public or the environment from the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. It is not anticipated that the project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment resulting in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The operation of construction equipment and machinery for future development projects within the Specific Plan area may emit some hazardous emissions and/or handle some 2. Response to Comments – DEIR Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-14 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 hazardous material; however, these emissions and materials should be of limited quantities and are anticipated to be utilized over a short duration of time. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. 3-5 The comment states that if buildings or other structures, asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas are being planned to be demolished, an investigation should be conducted for the presence of other related hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or produces, mercury, and asbestos containing materials. In response, please refer to Response 3-4 above. Future project construction within the project area will include the appropriate investigations for the presence of other related hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or produces, mercury, and asbestos containing materials. 3-6 The comment states that project construction may require soil excavation or filling in certain areas. Sampling may be required. If soil is contaminated, it must be properly disposed and not simple place in another location onsite. In response, please refer to Response 3-4 above. Future project construction within the project area will properly dispose of any contaminated soil if this is encountered after possible required sampling. 3-7 The comment states that human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the construction or demolition activities. If it is found necessary, a study of the site and a health risk assessment overseen and approved by the appropriate government agency and a qualified health risk assessor should be conducted to determine if there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. In response, as stated in the Initial Study located in Appendix A of the Program DEIR, the Specific Plan area is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed public school, where the potential for hazardous emissions or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste would cause an impact to sensitive receptor sites. 3-8 The comment states that if is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law. In response, please refer to Response 3-4 above. Future project construction within the project area will manage any potential hazardous wastes in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law. 3-9 The comment states that if during construction/demolition of the project area, the soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. In response, please refer to Response 3-4 above. If soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected during any future project construction/demolition of the project area, construction/demolition in the area will cease and appropriate health and safety procedures will be implemented. 3-10 The comment states that if the site was used for agricultural, livestock or related activities, onsite solids and groundwater might contain pesticides, agricultural chemical, organic waste or other related residue. Proper investigation, and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted under the oversight of and approve by a government agency at the site prior to 2. Response to Comments – DEIR Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-15 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 construction of the project. In response, please refer to Response 3-4 above. Future project construction within the project area will conduct proper investigation, and remedial actions, if necessary, under the oversight of and approval by a government agency at the site prior to construction of the project. 3-11 The comment states that DTSC can provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight Agreement for government agencies that are not responsible parties under CERCLA, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) for private parties. In response, the comment is noted. 2. Response to Comments – DEIR Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-17 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 4-1 The comment states that MWD does not own or operate any facilities or maintain real estate entitlements within the footprint of the proposed project; however, MWD supports increased water conservation efforts and encourages projects to include water conservation measures such as using water efficient fixtures, drought-tolerant landscaping, and use of recycled water to offset increases in water use. In response, the comment is noted and no further action is required by the City at this time. 2. Response to Comments – DEIR Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-29 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 Pechanga Cultural Resources 5-1 The comment states that the Tribe does not believe that the mitigation measures incorporated in the 2010 Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for this project will adequately address all potential impacts of the project on cultural resources. In response, please refer to Chapter 3 of this document for the detailed suggested changes (from the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians) and additions to the proposed language for clarification and specificity. The City will give the Pechanga Tribe the opportunity to further review and comment on such revisions. Description Assumptions Build-Out Estimate Proposed Acreage (square feet) Assumes 25% Lot Coverage (25% of 1,429,204) Assume 1.75 story average. 357,301 sq ft lot coverage x 1.75 stories = 625,277 Assumes average 20 du per acre. Based on 32.81 acres in NR zone. 32.81 acres x 20 units PROPOSED SP: NR ZONE Neighborhood Residential (NR) 32.81 acres NR ZONE TARGET BUILDOUT SCENARIO 1,429,204 sq ft 357,301 sq ft 625,277 sq ft 656 units 625,277 square feet total building area FINAL ASSUMPTION Maximum Build Out: • 656 multi-family units • 625,277 sq ft (maximum total habitable residential area) Description Assumptions Build-Out Estimate Proposed Acreage (square feet) Maximum Lot Coverage (50% of 462,172) Assume existing and approved square footage (138,750 sq ft) plus 20% at senior center/ history museum and children’s museum/theater complex areas (9,059 sq ft) to be final civic build out space 159,809 square feet total building area FINAL ASSUMPTION • Build Out of 159,809 sq ft. PROPOSED SP: OTC ZONE Old Town Civic (OTC) 10.61 acres OTC ZONE BUILD OUT SCENARIO 462,172 sq ft 231,086 sq ft 159,809 sq ft 159,809 sq. feet Description Pertinent Development Standards Assumptions Build-Out Estimate Proposed Acreage (square feet) Assumes 85% lot coverage Maximum lot coverage na – based on build to and setback lines. Assume 85% of 1,509,790 sq ft Assume 30% residential/70% commercial Assume average square footage of residential units at 800 square feet per unit (approximately 50 units per acre) based on existing and approved mixed-use projects in Old Town. Assume parking for residential, trash bin enclosure space and outdoor yard area and outdoor commercial dining or yard area at 30% of lot (per floor) = 384,997 sq ft; (1,283,322 – 384,997 = 898,325 sq ft) Assumes average of 3 stories at build out PROPOSED SP: DTC ZONE Downtown Core (DC) 34.66 acres DTC ZONE RESIDENTIAL BUILD OUT SCENARIO 1,509,790 sq ft 1,283,321 sq ft 1,283,322 sq ft 2,694,976 sq. feet FINAL ASSUMPTION • Commercial Build Out of 1,886,483 sq. feet • Residential Build Out of 808,493 sq. feet (1,011 units) Description Pertinent Development Standards Assumptions Build-Out Estimate Proposed Acreage (square feet) Maximum Lot Coverage (85%) Assumes average of 2.5 stories at build out Assumes ground floor commercial and residential on 2nd and 3rd floors. Based on existing and approved mixed-use projects in Old Town, assume parking, trash bin enclosure space and service areas at 30% of lot (per floor) = 199,718, sq ft; (665,727 – 199,718 = 466,009 sq ft) x 2.5 stories = 1,165,022 sq ft Based on existing and approved mixed-use projects in Old Town, assume 30% of floor space commercial/70% residential Assumes 1,100 sq ft per residential unit PROPOSED SP: RLMU ZONE Residential/Limited Mixed Use (RLMU) 17.98 acres RLMU ZONE BUILD OUT SCENARIO 783,209 sq ft 665,727 sq ft 1,165,022 sq ft FINAL ASSUMPTION • Commercial Build Out: 349,507 sq. ft. • Residential Build Out 815,515 sq ft (741 units) Old Town Specific Plan Proposed Specific Plan Build Out Scenarios Proposed Specific Plan Scenarios: BUILD OUT Commercial = 2,235,990 sq ft Residential = 2,249,285 sq ft / 2,408 units Civic = 15947,809 sq ft TOTAL = 4,645,084 sq ft / 2,408 units Description Assumptions Build-Out Estimate Existing Acreage (square feet) Assume 25% lot coverage (25% of 517,492) Assume 1.75 stories and multi-family. General Plan target density of 10 du per acre. Based on 11.88 acres in MDR zone then 11.88 acres x 10 units EXISTING CONDITIONS: MDR ZONE Medium Density Residential (MDR) 11.88 acres MDR ZONE TARGET BUILDOUT SCENARIO 517,492 sq ft 129,373 sq ft 226,403 sq ft 119 units 226,403 square feet total building area FINAL ASSUMPTION Target Build Out: • 119 units • 226,403 sq ft (maximum total habitable residential area) Description Assumptions Build-Out Estimate Existing Acreage (square feet) Assumes 25% lot coverage (25% of 1,013,206) Assume 1.75-story average General Plan target density of 16.5 du per acre. Based on 23.26 acres in HDR zone then 23.26 acres x 16.5 units EXISTING CONDITIONS: HDR ZONE High Density Residential (HDR) 23.26 acres HDR ZONE TARGET BUILDOUT SCENARIO 1,013,206 sq ft 253,301 sq ft 443,278 sq ft 384 units 443,278 square feet total building area FINAL ASSUMPTION Target Build Out: • 384 multi-family units • 443,278 sq ft (maximum total habitable residential area) Description Assumptions Build-Out Estimate Existing Acreage (square feet) Maximum Lot Coverage (50% of 399,445) Assume existing and approved square footage (138,750) plus 20% at senior center/history museum and children’s museum/theater complex areas (9,059) to be final civic build out sapce 159,809 square feet total building area FINAL ASSUMPTION • Target Build Out of 159,809 sq ft. EXISTING CONDITIONS: OTC ZONE Old Town Civic (OTC) 10.61 acres OTC ZONE TARGET BUILD OUT SCENARIO 462,172 sq ft 231,086 sq ft 159,809 sq ft 159,809 sq. feet Description Pertinent Development Standards Assumptions Build-Out Estimate Existing Acreage (square feet) Maximum Lot Coverage (100%) Required Open Space MINUS 10 foot setback on total perimeter of 15,268 (10ft x 15,268ft = 152,268 sq. feet) Assume 75% commercial/25% residential Assumes average square footage of residential units at 784 square feet per unit and an average of 57 units per acre based on existing and approved mixed-use projects in Old Town. Assume parking for residential, trash bin enclosure space and outdoor dining or yard area at 20% of lot = 274,554 sq ft; (1,372,768 subtract 274,554 = 1,098,214 sq ft) Assume 3 stories EXISTING CONDITIONS: TRC ZONE Tourist Retail Core (TRC) 35.01 acres TRC ZONE TARGET BUILD OUT SCENARIO 1,525,036 sq ft 1,525,036 sq ft 1,372,768 sq ft 3,294,642 sq. feet FINAL ASSUMPTION • Target Commercial Build Out of 2,470,982 sq. feet • Target Residential Build Out of 823,661 sq. feet (1,051 units) Description Pertinent Development Standards Assumptions Build-Out Estimate Existing Acreage (square feet) Maximum Lot Coverage (100%) Required Open Space MINUS 8 foot setback on total perimeter of 15,268 (10ft x 2,245ft = 22,450 sq. feet) Assume 75% commercial/25% residential Assumes predominant uses (75%) are commercial uses that provide a wide range of tourist serving overnight accommodations, with some (25%) senior and mixed-use housing. Assume average square footage of residential units at 784 square feet per unit. Assume parking for residential, trash bin enclosure space and outdoor dining or yard area at 20% of lot = 41,275 ft; (206,374 – 41,275 = 165,099 sq ft) Assume 2 stories EXISTING CONDITIONS: TSR ZONE Tourist Serving Residential (TRS) 5.15 acres TSR ZONE TARGET BUILD OUT SCENARIO 224,334 sq ft 224,334 sq ft 206,374 sq ft 330,198 FINAL ASSUMPTION • Target Commercial Build Out of 247,649 sq. feet • Target Residential Build Out of 82,550 sq. feet (105 units) Description Pertinent Development Standards Assumptions Build-Out Estimate Existing Acreage (square feet) Target Lot Coverage (70%) 2 Story Maximum Assumes that since Old Town CC land use district does not utilize FAR, GP target FAR of 0.30 for the CC zone would not apply and target lot coverage is the same as the maximum (70%) Assumes two stories Building footprint is 173,499 sq ft ; available area for parking, open space or yard area is 74,357 EXISTING CONDITIONS: CC ZONE Community Commercial (CC) 5.69 acres CC ZONE TARGET BUILD OUT SCENARIO 247,856 sq ft 173,499 sq ft 346,998 sq ft 297,428 sq ft FINAL ASSUMPTION • Target Build Out: 346,998 sq ft (Commercial only) Description Pertinent Development Standards Assumptions Build-Out Estimate Existing Acreage (square feet) Maximum Lot Coverage (70%) 3 Story Maximum Assumes that since Old Town HT land use district does not utilize FAR, GP target FAR of 0.30 for the CC zone would not apply and target lot coverage is the same as the maximum (70%) Assumes 2.5 stories Building footprint is 217,713 sq ft ; available area for parking, open space or yard area is 93,305 EXISTING CONDITIONS: HT ZONE Highway Tourist (HT) 7.14 acres HT ZONE TARGET BUILD OUT SCENARIO 311,018 sq ft 217,713 sq ft 653,139 sq ft 653,139 sq ft FINAL ASSUMPTION • Target Build Out: 544,283 square feet (Commercial only) Description Pertinent Development Standards Assumptions Build-Out Estimate Existing Acreage (square feet) Target FAR = 0.30 50 foot maximum height; FAR = 0.30 SC area is not currently within the SP boundary and FAR of 0.30 does apply for the SC zone EXISTING CONDITIONS: SC ZONE Service Commercial (SC) 2.40 acres SC ZONE TARGET BUILD OUT SCENARIO 104,544 sq ft 31,363 sq ft 31,363 sq ft 31,363 sq ft FINAL ASSUMPTION • Target Build Out: 31,363 sq ft (Commercial only) Old Town Specific Plan Existing Specific Plan Build Out Scenarios Existing Specific Plan Scenario: TARGET BUILD OUT Commercial = 3,641,275 sq ft Residential = 1,575,892 sq ft / 1,659 units Civic = 159,809 sq ft TOTAL = 5,376,976 sq ft / 1,659 units Old Town Specific Plan Comparison of Existing SP and Proposed SP Target Build Out Scenarios EXISTING SP BUILD OUT PROPOSED SP BUILD OUT DIFFERENCE Commercial = 3,641,275 sq ft 2,235,990 sq ft -1,405,285 sq ft Residential = 1,575,892 sq ft / 1,659 units 2,249,285 sq ft / 2,408 units +673,393 sq ft / +749 units Civic = 159,809 sq ft 159,809 sq ft +0 sq ft TOTAL = 5,376,976 sq ft / 1,659 units 4,645,084 sq ft / 2,408 units -731,892 sq ft / +749 units 2. Response to Comments – DEIR Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-50 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 Eastern Municipal Water District 6-1 The comment refers the capacity of the existing sewer pipelines along Old Town Front Street, Pujol Street, and First Streets as currently exceeding flow capacity standards and that in order to accommodate sewer collection needs as proposed in the Specific Plan revisions, the existing sewers would need to be improved. The comments further states that temporary impacts on commercial businesses and residences during the construction phase of these improvements and proposed mitigation need to be addressed. In response, the City acknowledges the future need to improve the existing sewer pipelines along Old Town Front Street, Pujol Street, and First Streets. At the time the Notice of Preparation was issued for the OTSP Program DEIR, EMWD acknowledged (per communications with Linda Peters 10/6/09) that their Facilities Planning group was working on a planning study for the OTSP area. At the time, it was anticipated that the sewer lines in the OTSP area were anticipated to be nearing capacity; however, it was later confirmed in EMWD’s 4/14/10 comment letter that these lines currently exceed flow capacity standards. As stated in the OTSP Program DEIR, the OTSP meets the requirements for a Program EIR. Future projects submitted for city review and approval within the Specific Plan area will be reviewed to determine the need for any additional required CEQA compliance documentation. The OTSP Program DEIR 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. Any potential temporary impacts to commercial businesses and residences during the construction phases of future projects will be appropriately addressed (i.e. Traffic Management Plan) by the City as projects are submitted for review and approval within the Specific Plan area. The City recognizes the need for potential infrastructure improvements; however, construction of potential infrastructure improvements has not been scheduled and, as stated in EMWD’s comment letter, “conditioning of new projects is currently being evaluated by the City and EMWD to determine sponsorship and phasing and implementation of sewer conveyance facilities.” Therefore, specific information regarding planning for implementation of infrastructure mitigation is not yet available, but will be assessed in future supplemental CEQA review as previously mentioned. 6-2 The comment notes that EMWD produces only tertiary grade effluent from its reclamation facilities and provides information on the Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). In response, please refer to Chapter 3 for a detailed response to the comments associated with Section 3.8. 2. Response to Comments – DEIR Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-54 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 7-1 The comment states that while the District will not have any involvement in the review or approval of the OTSP Amendment, it is likely that the District could become involved in subsequent projects that would impact a District facility or its rights of way. Under such circumstances, the District would be acting as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. In response, the comment is noted by the City. 7-2 The comment states that it is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that is proposing to carry out the Murrieta Creek Flood Control, Environmental Restoration and Recreation Project (Murrieta Creek Project). The District is the Local Sponsor for the Murrieta Creek Project. Additionally, the Project limits generally extend from the extension of Temecula Parkway, through the OTSP area, up to Tenaja Road. In response, the comment is noted by the City. Please refer to the text Changes in Chapter 3. 7-3 The comment states that any subsequent CEQA documents for specific projects should fully evaluate and address any potential impacts to existing District facilities. Any work that involves District right-of-way, easements or facilities will require an encroachment permit from the District. In most cases, the issuance of an encroachment permit is deemed a discretionary action under CEQA; therefore, encroachment permit applications must be accompanied by appropriate CEQA/Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) documentation together with any regulatory permits necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance. In response, the comment is noted by the City. 7-4 The comment states that subsequent project specific CEQA documents should include a complete MSHCP consistency assessment with all of the necessary supporting documents and provide mitigation, as appropriate, in accordance with all applicable MSHCP requirements. The assessment should address, at a minimum, Sections 3.2, 3.2.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.3.2, 7.5.3 and Appendix C of the MSHCP. The DPEIR should also address the issue of MSHCP compliance under Section 3.6 (Land Use and Planning). In response, the comment is noted by the City. Subsequent project specific CEQA documents will include a MSHCP consistency assessment with all of the necessary supporting documents and mitigation, as appropriate, in accordance with all applicable MSHCP requirements. 7-5 The comment states that the proposed project area is located within the Murrieta Creek Master Drainage Plan (MDP). When fully implemented, the Murrieta Creek MDP facilities will provide flood protection to relieve those areas within the plan of the most serious flooding problems and will provide adequate drainage outlets. Subsequent CEQA analyses should fully evaluate and address potential impacts to master planned facilities within the proposed project area. In response, the comment is noted by the City. Subsequent CEQA analyses will fully evaluate and address potential impacts to master planned facilities within the proposed project area. 2. Response to Comments – DEIR Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-55 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 7-6 The comment states that it is not clear how compliance with MM 3.5-1 would address post-construction stormwater impacts. The utility of the DPEIR could be improved by including a more thoughtful analysis and discussion of post-construction stormwater impacts. In response, the comment is noted by the City. Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 has been revised per the comment, please refer to Chapter 3 for further details. 7-7 The comment states that the DPEIR should include an exhibit showing the limits of FEMA designated Special Flood Hazard Area (100-year) floodplain) and Regulatory Floodway through the project area. In response, the comment is noted by the City. Please refer to Chapter and the newly added Figure 3.5-2. Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3-1 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 CHAPTER 3 Errata This Errata has been prepared in response to additional information that became known subsequent to publication of the Program DEIR for the Old town Specific Plan Amendment which was circulated for a 45 day public review period in compliance with Public Resources Code 21091 from March 1, 2010 to April 14, 2010. The minor modifications to the text of the Program DEIR detailed below reflect clarifications that do not constitute significant new information and do not change any of the ultimate conclusions of the Program DEIR. These minor modifications do not constitute changes to the project or environmental setting nor would they result in a new significant environmental impact. In addition, these minor modifications to the text, as described below, would not cause a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact. Rather, these changes merely clarify portions of the text. The text being added is underlined and the text that is being deleted is in strikeout as indicated below. In addition, Figure 3.9-3 has been revised as it relates to the following Program DEIR text changes; the revised Figure 3.9-3 is located at the end of this Chapter. Also, Figure 3.5-2 has been added in response to comment 7-7. Summary The following changes below are also reflected in the Executive Summary. Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures The following describes additional changes to Chapter 3. Pages 3.4-23, 3.4-25 and 3.4-26, the text and Measures under Impacts 3.4-1, Impact 3.4-3 and Impact 3.4-4 have been revised and amended as follows: 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 a 1-mile radius records search and intensive 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 the 2. Errata Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3-2 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians (Pechanga Tribe).1 The Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to accompany the project archaeologist on the Phase I walkover survey, and shall be given the opportunity to comment on the archaeological report which results from the evaluation. 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 by a Riverside County qualified archaeologist and the Pechanga Tribe, and that recommendations are made for treatment of these resources if found to be significant, in consultation with the appropriate Native American groupsPechanga Tribe. If Phase II archeological evaluations are recommended, the Pechanga Tribe shall consult on all proposed test plans and participate with the project archeologist during testing and evaluation. All such surveys with recommendations shall be completed prior to project approval. Any identified resources shall be avoided if feasible. Ground-disturbing activity in areas which were previously undisturbed, or have been determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe, to be sensitive for cultural resources shall be monitored by a Riverside County qualified archaeologist and Native American Pechanga tribal representative(s). 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 Riverside County qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe 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 groupsthe Pechanga Tribe, 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 groupsthe Pechanga Tribe, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. Sacred and ceremonial items shall not be subject to any scientific analysis. Upon completion of earthmoving activities, the landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c: 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 for projects in areas which were previously undisturbed, or have been determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe pursuant to MM 3.4-1a to be sensitive for cultural resources, at least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the City of Temecula and the Tribe to develop and enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the 1 Pursuant to the City’s General Plan Policy 6.10 and OS-39, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians is specifically identified as the consulting Tribe and therefore the mitigation measures and conditions of approval should also specifically identify the Pechanga Tribe. Errata Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3-3 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 treatment of known cultural resources; appropriate treatment and procedure for inadvertent discoveries; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1d: 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 if inadvertent discoveries of subsurface cultural resources are discovered during grading, the Project Applicant, the Project Archaeologist, and the Pechanga Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. If the project applicant and the Pechanga Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The Planning Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to the City of Temecula City Council. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1e: 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 all sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as preferred mitigation, if feasible. 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 groupsthe Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians for individual projects as specified in Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a above, would ensure that no significant impacts would occur. 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 2. Errata Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3-4 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 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. Page 3.5-1, the following text has been added under the fourth full paragraph: Currently, the Riverside County Flood Control and water Conservation District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is proposing to improve 11 miles of Murrieta Creek (Murrieta Creek Project)… Page 3.5-8, the following text has been added to Mitigation 3.5-1: 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. The project developer shall 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. Page 3.8-6, the following text has been revised and omitted: The EMWD produces only tertiary grade effluent from its reclamation facilities.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. Errata Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3-5 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 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). Page 3.8-7, the following text has been added and revised on and under Table 3.8-7: 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’s permitted treatment capacity is 18 to treat 13.2 mgd with a current average influent flow of 14.5 mgd. Over the next three (3) years, EMWD will be constructing facilities at the Temecula Valley RWRF to enhance the treatment process reliability and redundancy including solids handling digesters, a secondary clarifier, and effluent storage ponds. Expansion of the Temecula Valley RWRF treatment capacity to 23-mgd is currently under design. However, construction of the expansion project has not been scheduled, subject to service area growth projectionsof 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 EIREMWD, 20052010). The Temecula Valley plant’s ability to accommodate additional wastewater effluent is anticipated due to the fact that a majority of land uses in Old Town are anticipated to 2. Errata Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3-6 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 replace the existing uses proposed by the Specific Plan amendment over a 20-30 year timeframe (build-out). Based upon the incremental development and timeframe of 20-30 years to build-out of the Old Town area, there would be no foreseen impacts to wastewater treatment services, however to ensure that capacity is adequate specific measures are required as detailed below. Page 3.8-7, the following text has been added under the newly added “Measures to Ensure Capacity” heading: Measures to Ensure Capacity To ensure that capacity is adequate the following will be required of future projects within the OTSP area as detailed by the City’s OTSP: • Prior to the construction of any new development project EMWD shall review the plans for consistency with their design criteria. Once approved by the EMWD engineer the applicant shall pay the required connection fee to EMWD prior to the construction of the sewer line. EMWD will determine wastewater treatment capacity to serve a project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. • Prior to the construction the project applicant and/or each subsequent project applicant shall pay its fair share of mitigation fees to EMWD to upgrade the First Street and Pujol Street sewer lines. Pages 3.8-18 and 3.8-19, text within Impact 3.8-3 and the associated Measures have been revised: Impact 3.8-3: The project would notwill require or result in the construction of wastewater conveyancetreatment 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 conveyance services, nor would it and necessitate the alteration of existing facilities to meet treatment capacity expectations. As stated above, 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. 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 Errata Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3-7 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 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 nearingcurrently at 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 will 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. Page 3.9-10, the following text has been revised under the “Roundabout Analysis” heading: 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 may engage in efforts to enhance the intersection of Old Town Front Street/Second Street and the northern Mercedes Street/Moreno Road connection to Old Town Front Street . 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 Town. Two proposed potential future roundabouts were analyzed for future conditions at the following intersections2: • Old Town Front Street at Mercedes Street (Future Extension) in the vicinity of the south loop of Moreno Road • Old Town Front Street at in the vicinity of First Street/Santiago Road/Mercedes Street 2 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. 2. Errata Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3-8 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 The analysis of the two roundabouts listed above was aimed only at obtaining LOS from a traffic volume perspective, given the potential designs concepts 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. However, 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. However, if implemented the design elements of these roundabouts should be carefully calculated by an expert prior to implementation. Appendices C and D in the traffic study also include the LOS worksheets for each of the roundabouts (RK Engineering, Inc., 2009). Errata Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3-9 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 Page 3.9-17, Table 3.9-6 has been revised as follows: TABLE 3.9-6 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH WITH PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Controla 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 2. Errata Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3-10 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 Page 3.9.19, Table 3.9-7 has been revised as follows: TABLE 3.9-7 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH WITH PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Controla 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 Errata Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3-11 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 Pages 3.9-17 and 3.9-18, Measure 3.9-1 and 3.9-2 have been revised as follows: Measure 3.9-1: The project applicant shall incorporate the following 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 land combination with a right-turn overlap. • Provide subsequent Traffic Impact Analyses, as development occurs, to determine thresholds for need and timing for implementation of enhancements to the intersection of Old Town Front Street/Second Street and the northern Mercedes Street connection to Old Town Front Street and/or implementation of Roundabouts at the intersections in the vicinity of Old Town Front Street and First Street/Santiago Road/Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street in the vicinity of the Moreno Road south loop. • 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 and F will be deemed acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North. Pages 3.9-19 and 3.9-20: 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 need and timing for implementation of enhancements to the intersection of Old Town Front Street/Second Street and the northern Mercedes Street/Moreno Road connection to Old Town Front Street and/or implementation of Roundabouts at the north and south entries to Old Town 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 and F will be deemed acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North. Page 4-9, the text under the heading “Traffic and Transportation” has been revised as follows: 2. Errata Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3-12 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 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 enhancements to the intersection of Old Town Front Street/Second Street and the northern Mercedes Street connection to Old Town Front Street and/or roundabouts, pedestrian facilities and accepting LOS E and F at four (4) Specific Plan intersections from Second Street to Sixth Street. 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. Therefore, cumulative traffic impacts would not be significant. Page 6-10, the text under the heading “Traffic” has been revised as follows: Traffic Development under alternative 1 (build-out of the existing Specific Plan) would generate substantially more vehicle trips that 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 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, based on need as determined by future Traffic Impact Analyses, the City of Temecula would expand Mercedes Street to reach Old Town Front Street on the north end Old Town Front Street/Mercedes Street connection at Old Town Front Street, north of the Gateway Arch, Errata Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3-13 ESA / D209294 Final Program Environmental Impact Report April 2010 may be enhanced. Additionally, the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Second Street may be enhanced. and the intersection of Old Town Front Street at First Street/Santiago Road on the south end. In contrast to development under Alternative 1, based on need as determined by future Traffic Impact Analyses, the proposed project would propose may utilize roundabouts as traffic control devices within the Old Town area. Program Environmental Impact Report Appendices From Appendix G (Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Report), remove Appendix H (Roundabout Information). Future traffic impact analyses will determine whether these roundabouts will be utilized, and if they are an engineer will design them and their exact location and configuration will be determined at that time. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Revisions to the Final Program EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program reflect the above changes to mitigation measures described above and will not be repeated. Legend 100 -Year Floodplain R a n c h o C a lifo rn ia R d M o re n o R d Sixth StFifth S tFourth S tM ain StOl d T o w n F r o n t S t P u j o ls S t Third S tMore n o R d Sixth St Fift h St Fourt h St Mai n St Ol d T ow n F r o n t S t P u j o l s S t Thir d St Ranc h o C ali f o r ni a R d Second S tSec ond St First S tFirst St 15 0500 Feet Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294 Figure 3.5-2 FEMA Floodplain Map SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2009. Appendix A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1 ESA / D209294 MMRP April 2010 OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Agency Action Indicating Compliance Initials Date Remarks Aesthetics 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. Pre-Construction / Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Building Permit, review of plans, field verification and sign-off by City of Temecula Air Quality Measure 3.2-2a: The applicant shall ensure that a fugitive dust Pre-Construction SCAQMD City of Issuance of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2 ESA / D209294 MMRP April 2010 Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Agency Action Indicating Compliance Initials Date Remarks 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: • During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, maintain equipment engines in proper tune. • After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation: • Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind. • Spread soil binders. • Implement street sweeping as necessary. • During construction: • Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site. • Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. • Use low sulfur fuel (0.05 percent by weight) for construction equipment. • Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. Measure 3.2-2c: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the following. • Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize daily emissions. • Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. • Treat unattended construction areas with water (disturbed lands which have been, or are expected to be, unused for four or more consecutive days). • Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites. • Install vehicle wheel-washers before the roadway entrance at construction sites. • Wash off trucks leaving the site. • Require all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose / Construction Temecula Building Official or other Designee Grading Permit and field verification and sign-off by City of Temecula Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3 ESA / D209294 MMRP April 2010 Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Agency Action Indicating Compliance Initials Date Remarks 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. • Use vegetative stabilization, whenever possible, to control soil erosion from stormwater, especially on super pads. • Require enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage piles of sand, dirt, or other aggregate materials. • Control off-road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads, consistent with City standards. • Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators. Measure 3.2-2d: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall be 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: • Provision of rideshare incentives. • Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel. • Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference. • Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. • Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary. Measure 3.2-2g: Prior to the building/construction operations, applicant and individual contractors shall commit in writing to the following: • Scheduling receipt of construction materials to peak travel periods (i.e., 7:30 – 8:30 AM and 4:00 – 6:00 PM); • Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity; and • Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4 ESA / D209294 MMRP April 2010 Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Agency Action Indicating Compliance Initials Date Remarks 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. Pre-Construction / Construction SCAQMD City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and field verification and sign-off by City of Temecula Global Warming/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. Pre-Construction / Construction SCAQMD City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and field verification and sign-off by City of Temecula Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 5 ESA / D209294 MMRP April 2010 Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Agency Action Indicating Compliance Initials Date Remarks 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. • 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 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6 ESA / D209294 MMRP April 2010 Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Agency Action Indicating Compliance Initials Date Remarks 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.) *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). Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7 ESA / D209294 MMRP April 2010 Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Agency Action Indicating Compliance Initials Date Remarks • 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. Cultural Resources 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 a 1-mile radius records search and intensive archaeological survey) for archaeological resources on a project-specific basis prior to the Pre-Construction Riverside County qualified archaeologist and Pechanga tribal Riverside County qualified archaeologist and Pechanga tribal City of Temecula Project Approval Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 8 ESA / D209294 MMRP April 2010 Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Agency Action Indicating Compliance Initials Date Remarks City’s approval of project plans. The survey shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians (Pechanga Tribe).1 The Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to accompany the project archaeologist on the Phase I walkover survey, and shall be given the opportunity to comment on the archaeological report which results from the evaluation. If 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 by a Riverside County qualified archaeologist and the Pechanga Tribe, and that recommendations are made for treatment of these resources, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe. If Phase II archeological evaluations are recommended, the Pechanga Tribe shall consult on all proposed test plans and participate with the project archeologist during testing and evaluation. All such surveys with recommendations shall be completed prior to project approval. Any identified resources shall be avoided if feasible. Ground-disturbing activity in areas which were previously undisturbed, or have been determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe, to be sensitive for cultural resources shall be monitored by a Riverside County qualified archaeologist and Pechanga tribal representative(s). representative(s) representative(s) 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 Riverside County qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe 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 the Pechanga Tribe, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. All cultural materials recovered will be, as necessary and in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe, subject to scientific analysis, and documentation according to current professional standards. Sacred and ceremonial items shall not be subject to any scientific analysis. Upon completion of earthmoving activities, the landowner shall relinquish Construction City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Verification by City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe 1 Pursuant to the City’s General Plan Policy 6.10 and OS-39, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians is specifically identified as the consulting Tribe and therefore the mitigation measures and conditions of approval should also specifically identify the Pechanga Tribe. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 9 ESA / D209294 MMRP April 2010 Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Agency Action Indicating Compliance Initials Date Remarks ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1c: 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 for projects in areas which were previously undisturbed, or have been determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe pursuant to MM 3.4-1a to be sensitive for cultural resources, at least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the City of Temecula and the Tribe to develop and enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources; appropriate treatment and procedure for inadvertent discoveries; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. Construction City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Verification by City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Mitigation Measure 3.4-1d: 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 if inadvertent discoveries of subsurface cultural resources are discovered during grading, the Project Applicant, the Project Archaeologist, and the Pechanga Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. If the project applicant and the Pechanga Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The Planning Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to the City of Temecula City Council. Construction City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Verification by City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Tribe Mitigation Measure 3.4-1e: 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 all sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as preferred Construction City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga City of Temecula in consultation with Pechanga Verification by City of Temecula in consultation Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 10 ESA / D209294 MMRP April 2010 Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Agency Action Indicating Compliance Initials Date Remarks mitigation, if feasible. Tribe Tribe with Pechanga Tribe 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. Pre-Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Verification by City of Temecula 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 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. Per Public Resources Code 5097.98, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural Construction City of Temecula in consultation with Riverside County Coroner and Native American Heritage Commission City of Temecula in consultation with Riverside County Coroner and Native American Heritage Commission Verification by City of Temecula in consultation with Riverside County Coroner and Native American Heritage Commission Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 11 ESA / D209294 MMRP April 2010 Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Agency Action Indicating Compliance Initials Date Remarks 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. 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. Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Verification by City of Temecula Hydrology 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. The project developer shall 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. Pre-Construction / Construction/ Post-Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Building Permit, review of plans, field verification and sign-off by City of Temecula Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 12 ESA / D209294 MMRP April 2010 Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Agency Action Indicating Compliance Initials Date Remarks Noise 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: • 6:30 PM to 6:30 AM, Monday through Friday. • Before 7:00 AM or after 6:30 PM, Saturday. • At any time on Sunday or any nationally recognized holiday. Measure 3.7-1b: The applicant shall ensure that all construction equipment 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. Pre-Construction / Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and field verification and sign-off by City of Temecula 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. Pre-Construction / Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and field verification and sign-off by City of Temecula Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 13 ESA / D209294 MMRP April 2010 Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Agency Action Indicating Compliance Initials Date Remarks 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. Pre-Construction / Construction / Post-Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Grading Permit and field verification and sign-off by City of Temecula 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. Pre-Construction / Construction / Post-Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Utilities and Services 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. Pre-Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Building Permit, and sign-off by City of Temecula 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 Pre-Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Building Permit, and sign-off by City of Temecula Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 14 ESA / D209294 MMRP April 2010 Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Agency Action Indicating Compliance Initials Date Remarks sewer lines. 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. Pre-Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Building Official or other Designee Issuance of Building Permit, review of plans, field verification and sign-off by City of Temecula Traffic and Transportation Measure 3.9-1: The project applicant shall incorporate the following features into the design of the Specific Plan area: o 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. o Provide subsequent Traffic Impact Analyses, as development occurs, to determine need and timing for implementation of enhancements to the intersection of Old Town Front Street/Second Street and the northern Mercedes Street connection to Old Town Front Street and/or implementation of Roundabouts in the vicinity of Old Town Front Street and First Street/Santiago Road and Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street in the vicinity of the Moreno Road south loop. o 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. Pre-Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 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 Pre-Construction City of Temecula City of Temecula Engineer or other Designee Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 15 ESA / D209294 MMRP April 2010 Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Responsible Monitoring Agency Action Indicating Compliance Initials Date Remarks Rancho California Road provide a westbound right-turn overlap. • Provide subsequent Traffic Impact Analyses, as development occurs, to determine need and timing for implementation of enhancements to the intersection of Old Town Front Street/Second Street and the northern Mercedes Street/Moreno Road connection to Old Town Front Street and/or implementation of Roundabouts at the north and south entries to Old Town. • 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.