HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft EIR 9.22.08
Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2007041085 SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION Prepared for: September 22, 2008 City of Temecula
9191 Towne Centre Drive Suite 340 San Diego, CA 92122 858.638.0900 www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 208485
Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2007041085 SANTA MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION Prepared for: September 22, 2008 City of Temecula
City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation i ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation Page Executive Summary......................
.................................................................................ES-1 1. Introduction..................................................................................................
.............. 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Compliance with CEQA ....................................
.................................................. 1-1 1.3 Environmental Procedures.................................................................................. 1-2 1.4 Areas of
Potential Controversy ........................................................................... 1-3 1.5 Effects Found Not to be Significant..........................................................
........... 1-4 1.6 Potentially Significant Significant Environmental Effects...................................................... 1-7 1.7 Uses of this EIR ..........................................
........................................................ 1-8 2. Project Description ....................................................................................................
2-1 2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Site Description...................................................
................................................ 2-1 2.3 Project Description.............................................................................................. 2-5 2.4 Project
Objectives............................................................................................. 2-13 2.5 Environmental Setting.................................................................
...................... 2-13 2.6 Discretionary Actions and Approvals ................................................................ 2-18 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Measures 3.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 3.1-1 3.2 Biological Resources ......................................
................................................. 3.2-1 3.3 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 3.3-1 3.4 Land
Use and Planning ................................................................................... 3.4-1 3.5 Mineral Resources.......................................................................
.................... 3.5-1 3.6 Public Services and Utilities............................................................................. 3.6-1 3.7 Transportation and Traffic.........................
....................................................... 3.7-1 3.8 Noise ...............................................................................................................
3.8-1 3.9 Recreation ....................................................................................................... 3.9-1 4. Consistency with Regional Plans..................................
........................................... 4-1 4.1 Setting ................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Related
Regulations ........................................................................................... 4-3 4.3 Environmental Impacts before Mitigation................................................
............ 4-3 4.4 Summary of Environmental Effects after Mitigation Measures Are Implemented........................................................... 4-8
Table of Contents Page City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ii ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 5. Mandatory CEQA Topics...............................................................
............................ 5-1 5.1 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
............................................................................. 5-28 5.3 Growth Inducing Impacts .....................................................................................
5-32 5.4 Short-Term Uses versus Long-Term Productivity ................................................ 5-33 5.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project..................................................
.................. 5-33 5.6 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes which would Be involved in the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented...........................................
5-79 6. Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations 6-1 Documents Consulted .......................................................................................
. 6-1 6.2 Organizations and Persons Consulted ............................................................... 6-8 6.3 Documents Preparation Staff......................................................
........................ 6-9 6.4 Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................ 6-10 Appendices A. Notice of Preparation and
Responses to NOP B. Air Quality Analysis C. Traffic Impact Study Report D. Aggregate Resources in the Temecula and Surrounding Inland Empire Areas E. Acoustical Analysis Technical Report
List of Figures ES-1 Regional Map .....................................................................................................ES-2 ES-2 Vicinity Map..........................................
..............................................................ES-3 ES-3 The Santa Margarita Area Annexation ...............................................................ES-5 ES-4 The
Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve ...........................................................ES-6 ES-5 Southwest Area Plan -Land Use Designations..................................................ES-
7 ES-6 Riverside County -Zoning Designations ............................................................ES-8 ES-7 City of Temecula – Proposed General Plan Amendment Land Use Designations............
....................................................................ES-10 ES-8 Proposed Pre-Zoning ......................................................................................ES-11
2-1 Regional Map ....................................................................................................... 2-2 2-2 Vicinity Map..........................................................
................................................ 2-3 2-3 The Santa Margarita Area Annexation ................................................................. 2-2-4 2-4 The Santa Margarita
Ecological Reserve ............................................................. 2-6 2-5 Southwest Area Plan -Land Use Designations....................................................
2-7 2-6 Riverside County -Zoning Designations .............................................................. 2-8 2-7 City of Temecula -Proposed General Plan Amendment Land Use Designations...........
....................................................................... 2-10 2-8 Proposed Pre-Zoning .........................................................................................
2-11 2-9 Proposed Project Land Plan............................................................................... 2-12 3.1-1 Dominant Wind Patterns of the South Coast Air Basin......................
................ 3.1-3 3.1-2 Wind Rose......................................................................................................... 3.1-4 3.1-3 Source Receptor Areas .....................
................................................................ 3.1-9 3.1-4 The Greenhouse Effect ...................................................................................
3.1-16 3.2-1 Aerial Photograph.............................................................................................. 3.2-2 3.2-2 The Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve .......................
................................... 3.2-4
Table of Contents Page City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation iii ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 List of Figures (cont.) 3.2-3 Vegetation Map .........................................
........................................................ 3.2-5 3.2-4 MSHCP Criteria Cells...................................................................................... 3.2-41
3.2-5 MHSCP Narrow Endemic Plan Species Survey Area ..................................... 3.2-43 3.2-6 MSHCP – Criteria Area Species Survey .........................................................
3.2-45 3.2-7 Amphibian Species Survey Areas with Critical Area ....................................... 3.2-46 3.2-8 Burrowing Owl Survey Areas with Criteria Area .....................................
......... 3.2-47 3.2-9 Mammal Species Survey Areas with Criteria Area .......................................... 3.2-49 3.4-1 The Santa Margarita Area Annexation .....................................
......................... 3.4-2 3.4-2 County County of Riverside Southwest Area Plan -Land Use Designations ................ 3.4-4 3.4-3 County of Riverside -Zoning Designations .....................
.................................. 3.4-5 3.4-4 City of Temecula General Plan -Land Use Map ............................................... 3.4-7 3.4-5 Proposed City of Temecula General
Plan Amendment Land Use Designations................................................................................. 3.4-8 3.4-6 County of San Diego General Plan Land Use Map .......................
.................. 3.4-14 3.4-7 Proposed City of Temecula Pre-Zoning .......................................................... 3.4-33 3.4-8 City of Temecula Zoning ..................................
............................................... 3.4-30 3.4-9 County of San Diego Zoning ........................................................................... 3.4-31 3.5-1 Aggregate
Locations in Riverside County ......................................................... 3.5-2 3.5-2 Aggregate Locations in San Diego County........................................................
3.5-5 3.5-3 Aggregate Locations in Imperial County............................................................ 3.5-6 3.5-4 Mineral Resource Zones .....................................................
.............................. 3.5-9 3.7-1 Existing Roadway System................................................................................. 3.7-3 3.7-2 Directional Distribution
of Project Traffic ......................................................... 3.7-14 3.8-1 Effects of Noise on People ................................................................................
3.8-2 3.8-2 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment .............................. 3.8-7 3.8-3 Noise Measurement Locations..............................................................
.......... 3.8-13 3.9-1 Parks and Recreational Facilities ...................................................................... 3.9-2 3.9-2 Parks and Recreational Facilities Descriptions
for Figure 3.9-1 ........................ 3.9-3 5-1 Riverside County General Plan – Southwest Area Plan Land Use Designations..........................................................................
.......... 5-4 5-2 Location of Other Projects within Project Vicinity ................................................. 5-5 5-3 City of Temecula General Plan -Land Use Plan...........................
..................... 5-16 5-4 Alternative 2 Existing County General Plan Residential Only Alternative........... 5-38 5-5 Alternative 3 Existing County General Plan Residential Plus
Surface Mining Alternative............................................................................. 5-44 5-6 Alternative 3 Mine Impact Area .......................................................
................... 5-45 5-7 Alternative 4 ...................................................................................................... 5-61 List of Tables ES-1 EIR Summary
Matrix ........................................................................................ES-20 ES-2 Comparison of Alternatives Matrix............................................................
........ES-37 3.1-1 Air Quality Monitoring Summary – 1997–2006 (SRA 25) ................................ 3.1-10 3.1-2 Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes (years)......................
. 3.1-19 3.1-3 Regional Significance Thresholds ................................................................... 3.1-28 3.1-4 Estimated Daily Construction Emissions ...............................
.......................... 3.1-29 3.1-5 Estimated Daily Project Operation Emissions (summer)................................. 3.1-31 3.1-6 Estimated Daily Project Operation Emissions
(winter) .................................... 3.1-31 3.1-7 Estimated Daily Localized Construction Emissions......................................... 3.1-33 3.1-8 CO Hot Spot Results
....................................................................................... 3.1-35 3.1-9 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions.......................................................
3.1-36
Table of Contents Page City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation iv ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 List of Tables (cont.) 3.1-10 Project-Related Operation Greenhouse Gas
Emissions ................................. 3.1-37 3.1-11 Project Consistency with Applicable California Climate Action Team Report Strategies.........................................................
............................... 3.1-44 3.2-1 Wildlife Species Documented On Site............................................................... 3.2-9 3.2-2 Plant Species Documented On
Site ................................................................ 3.2-14 3.2-3 Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur On Site ..................... 3.2-24 3.2-4
Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur On Site......................... 3.2-26 3.2-5 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Species .................................................................
3.2-42 3.3-1 Cultural Resources within the Project Area ....................................................... 3.3-6 3.3-2 Cultural Resources Impacts and Mitigation Summary..........................
........... 3.3-14 3.4-1 General Plan Land Use Designation Comparison........................................... 3.4-12 3.4-2 Zoning – Comparison of Allowable Land Uses...............................
................. 3.4-34 3.4-3 City of Temecula General Plan: Land Use Policies ......................................... 3.4-15 3.4-4 Riverside County General Plan: Land Use Policies
and SWAP Policies......... 3.4-23 3.5-1 California Mineral Land Classification Diagram............................................... 3.5-11 3.5-2 Surface Mines in Riverside County ..................
............................................... 3.5-13 3.5-3 Surface Mines in San Diego County................................................................ 3.5-16 3.5-4 Estimated
Population ...................................................................................... 3.5-19 3.5-5 Estimated Aggregate Demand Demand ......................................................
.................. 3.5-19 3.6-1 Estimated Construction-Related Solid Waste Generation and Contribution.... 3.6-13 3.6-2 Anticipated Solid Waste Disposal and Contribution..............................
........... 3.6-13 3.7-1 Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Standards ................................................. 3.7-5 3.7-2 City of Temecula Daily Roadway Capacities.........................
............................ 3.7-6 3.7-3 Riverside County Daily Roadway Capacities .................................................... 3.7-7 3.7-4 Existing Level of Service for Study
Intersections (2007) ................................... 3.7-7 3.7-5 Existing Level of Service for Study Roadways (2007) ....................................... 3.7-8 3.7-6 Level of
Service at Build-out Year (2030) Without Project................................. 3.7-8 3.7-7 San Diego County Significance Thresholds ....................................................
3.7-12 3.7-8 Trip Generation Rates ..................................................................................... 3.7-13 3.7-9 Project Trip Generation .........................................
.......................................... 3.7-13 3.7-10 Cumulative Projects ........................................................................................ 3.7-16 3.7-11 Intersection
Level of Service – Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project................. 3.7-18 3.7-12 Roadway Level of Service – Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project .................... 3.7-19 3.7-13
Project-Related Impact Upon Level of Service for Study Area Intersections (AM peak hour) ........................................................................................... 3.7-20
3.7-14 Project-Related Impact Upon Level of Service for Study Area Intersections (PM peak hour) ...........................................................................................
3.7-21 3.7-15 Roadway Segment Operations for Existing, Existing plus Ambient, and Existing plus Ambient plus Project.............................................................. 3.7-22
3.7-16 Intersection Level of Service – Cumulative ..................................................... 3.7-24 3.7-17 Roadway Level of Service – Cumulative ...........................................
.............. 3.7-26 3.7-18 Roadway Level of Service at Build-Out (2030) with Project ............................ 3.7-29 3.8-1 Temecula Land Use /Noise Standards....................................
......................... 3.8-9 3.8-2 County of San Diego Noise Standards............................................................ 3.8-10 3.8-3 Existing Noise Environments at Project
Location ............................................ 3.8-12 3.8-4 Measures of Substantial Increase for Noise Exposure.................................... 3.8-14 3.8-5 Typical Construction
Noise Levels .................................................................. 3.8-16 3.8-6 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment ........................................
3.8-16 3.8-7 Vibration Velocities for Construction Equipment ............................................. 3.8-21 3.8-8 Existing PM Peak-Hour Noise Levels along Selected Roadways....................
3.8-22 3.8-9 Future PM Peak-Hour Noise Levels along Selected Roadways...................... 3.8-23
Table of Contents Page City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation v ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 List of Tables (cont.) 3.8-10 Cumulative Future PM Peak-Hour Noise Levels
along Selected Roadways... 3.8-24 4-1 SCAG Western Riverside County Subregion Forecasts....................................... 4-2 4-2 SCAG Unincorporated Western Riverside County Forecasts
.............................. 4-3 4-3 SCAG City of Temecula Forecasts....................................................................... 4-3 4-4 Consistency with Regional Plans
......................................................................... 4-7 5-1 Distribution of Existing Riverside County Land Use: Cities and Unincorporated Areas..................................
................................... 5-6 5-2 Projected Riverside County General Plan Land Use Acreage at Build-Out.......... 5-7 5-3 Projections at Build-Out by Riverside County General
Plan Area Plan ................ 5-9 5-4 Project-Specific/Riverside County General General Plan Population, Housing and Employment Comparison ..........................................................
.................... 5-10 5-5 Other Projects within The Proposed Project Vicinity .......................................... 5-11 5-6 Riverside County General Plan – Project Site’s Permitted
Uses........................ 5-13 5-7 Temecula General Plan Development Capacity................................................. 5-17 5-8 Comparison of Proposed Project to Existing
County General Plan – Residential-Only Alternative .......................................................................... 5-39 5-9 Comparison of Proposed Project to Existing County
General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative .................................................. 5-43 5-10 Vibration Velocities for Construction Equipment ...............................
................. 5-54 5-11 Trip Generation for Proposed Projects ............................................................... 5-59 5-12 Existing Existing Plus Project Conditions..................
....................................................... 5-59 5-13 Cumulative Conditions ....................................................................................... 5-60 5-14
Build-Out or Horizon Year Conditions (2030) ..................................................... 5-60 5-15 Existing Plus Project Conditions...........................................................
.............. 5-61 5-16 Cumulative Conditions ....................................................................................... 5-61 5-17 Build-Out or Horizon Year Conditions
(2030) ..................................................... 5-62 5-18 Impact of Surface Mining on Regional Traffic Reduction.................................... 5-62 5-19 Comparison
of Proposed Project to Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Alternative ........................................................ 5-65 5-20 Comparison of Alternatives Matrix.....................
................................................. 5-72
City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-1 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose and Scope The purpose of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 4,997-acre Santa Margarita Area Annexation (SMAA) project consisting of 4,443 acres outside of the city of Temecula’s
(City’s) current sphere of influence and 554 acres currently within the City’s sphere of influence, which includes: (1) a General Plan Amendment to add the 4,443 acres of the annexation
area located outside of the City’s current sphere of influence to the City’s General Plan and provide land use designations for that portion of the proposed annexation area; (2) adoption
of a pre-zoning ordinance for the annexation area to implement the General Plan land use designations, which will become effective only if the annexation is approved by the Riverside
County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO); (3) application to LAFCO to extend the City’s sphere of influence to include the portion of the annexation area not already in the City’s
sphere of influence and to approve the proposed annexation. After the City has taken these actions, LAFCO will consider whether to approve the proposed annexation and will rely on this
Environmental Impact Report when considering the proposed annexation. The City is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is responsible for preparation
of this EIR. This EIR is an informational document intended for use by the City decision makers and members of the general public in evaluating the potential environmental effects associated
with the proposed annexation, herein known as SMAA. This study has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000
et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations (CCR), Sections 15000 et seq.). Project Summary Project Location The SMAA project site is comprised of approximately
4,997 acres located in the unincorporated portion of Riverside County, along the northern side of the San Diego-Riverside County line and west of Interstate 15 (I-15) and the city limits
of Temecula (see Figure ES-1). This area is comprised of Riverside County’s portion of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER) and adjacent properties (see Figure ES-2).
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure ES-1 Regional Map SOURCE: County of Riverside, 2007 North Not to Scale
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure ES-2 Vicinity Map SOURCE: Webb Associates North Not to Scale
Executive Summary City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-4 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Site Description The project site consists of approximately 4,997 acres of
publicly and privately owned primarily undeveloped land, most of which is undisturbed natural open space within the SMER. The majority of the area is comprised of steep hills with scattered
outcroppings of granite boulders, sloping in a southwesterly direction with elevations ranging from approximately 530 feet to 2,330 feet above mean sea level (msl). Within the lower
reaches of the project area is the Santa Margarita River which flows year round and some of this flow is fed by the many seasonal drainages in the surrounding hills. Within the entire
4,997-acre project area there are only six occupied dwelling units with two dwelling units occasionally used by the San Diego State University (SDSU) Field Station Program to house researchers.
The remaining privately-held properties, outside of the SMER, are currently vacant. At various locations within the SMER are scientific monitoring stations related to SDSU’s research
programs. The pristine nature of this area has made it a valuable resource for ecological study (see Figure ES-3). The project area includes 718 acres of private property within which
only four lots are developed with single-family homes. Two of the six homes within the project area are part of the SMER and are only occupied by those individuals conducting research.
The other four occupied properties are primarily large ranch estates involved with agriculture or equestrian activities. The SMER is a key part of preserving the entire Santa Margarita
River, one of the last freeflowing rivers in coastal southern California, and its rich ecosystem. The Santa Margarita River officially begins northeast of the project site, at the confluence
of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek at the City limits. The River flows through the Temecula Gorge and ultimately empties into the Ocean through the largely undisturbed lands of Camp
Camp Pendleton. The upper watershed of the Santa Margarita River is thus the combined watersheds of Temecula and Murrieta Creeks (see Figure ES-4). Within the project area 4,284 acres
have a Riverside County General Plan Land Use designation of “Open Space-Conservation Habitat” (OS-CH) while the remaining 713 acres are designated “Rural Mountainous” (RM). The OS-CH
designation applies to public and private lands conserved and managed in accordance with adopted Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and other conservation plans. The
RM designation is for single-family residential uses with a minimum lot size of 10 acres. Within this designation there is an allowance for limited animal keeping, agriculture, recreational
uses, compatible resource development (which may include the commercial extraction of mineral resources with approval of a surface mining permit) and associated uses and governmental
uses. Currently, most of the project area is zoned “Rural Residential” (R-R) which allows a minimum minimum lot size of 0.5 acres. A small area comprised of 118 acres is currently zoned
R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural with a 20-acre minimum lot size). The majority of the private properties currently have a Riverside County Land Use designation of RM (see Figure ES-5
and Figure ES-6).
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure ES-3 The Santa Margarita Area Annexation SOURCE: Air
Photo USA, February 2007 County of Riverside, 2007 North Not to Scale
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure ES-4 The Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve SOURCE: San Diego State University USGS North Not to Scale
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure ES-5 Southwest Area Plan-Land Use Designations SOURCE: Riverside County General Plan, October 2003 North Not to Scale
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure ES-6 Riverside County-Zoning Designations SOURCE: County of Riverside, 2003 North Not to Scale
Executive Summary City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-9 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Project Description The proposed project is (1) a General Plan Amendment
to add 4,443 acres of annexation area located outside of the City’s current sphere of influence to the City’s General Plan and provide land use designations for that portion of the proposed
annexation area; (2) adoption of a prezoning ordinance for the annexation area to implement the General Plan land use designations, which will become effective only if the annexation
is approved by the LAFCO; (3) application to LAFCO to extend the City’s sphere of influence to include the portion of the annexation area not already in the City’s sphere of influence
and to approve the proposed annexation. The proposed SMAA includes the following land use applications: Planning Application PA07-0225 Planning Application PA07-0225 consists of two
components, an amendment to the City of Temecula General Plan (General Plan Amendment) and the pre-zoning of the subject property (Change of Zone) described as follows: • General Plan
Amendment proposing to amend the General Plan’s Land Use Map with land use designations over the 4,443 acres of the subject property located outside of the city of Temecula’s current
sphere of influence. The 477 acres currently designated RM (one dwelling unit per 10 acres (1 DU/10 AC)) in Riverside County will become “Hillside Residential”(HR) (1 DU/10 AC) in the
city, of Temecula 3,961 acres of the 3,966 acres designated OS-CH in the County would be designated “Open Space” (OS) in the City and 5 acres currently designated “OS-CH in the County
will become HR (1 DU/10 AC) in the city of Temecula (see Figure ES-7). • Change of Zone proposing the pre-zoning of approximately 4,997 acres with zoning designations which follow the
same boundaries used for the general plan land use designations including 4,279 acres designated with a zoning district of “Conservation-Santa Margarita” (OS-C-SM); and 718 acres designated
with a zoning district of “Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita” (HR-SM), allowing development of 1 DU/10 AC (see Figure ES-8). The proposed pre-zoning will establish two new zones specifically
for the SMAA through the adoption of the Hillside Development Standards. This zone change proposal will modify the existing range of permitted uses, which now include residential, open
space, and mining to primarily residential and open space uses. Planning Application PA07-0226 • Sphere of Influence Expansion proposing the expansion of the city of Temecula’s sphere
of influence to include that 4,443-acre portion of the 4,997-acre SMAA outside of the city of Temecula’s current sphere of influence, with ultimate approval by the LAFCO. • Annexation
proposing the annexation of the SMAA consisting of approximately 4,997 acres into the city of Temecula, with ultimate approval by the LAFCO (see Figure ES-3).
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure ES-7 City of Temecula-Proposed General Plan Amendment Land Use Designations SOURCE: City of Temecula, June 2007, Riverside County
GIS, 2007 North Not to Scale
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure ES-8 Proposed Pre-Zoning SOURCE: City of Temecula, June 2007, Riverside County GIS, 2007 North Not to Scale -sm -sm
Executive Summary City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-12 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Project Objectives A clear statement of project objectives allows for the
analysis of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. A range of reasonable alternatives, both on-and off-site, that would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives,
while avoiding or substantially lessening the significant effects of the project, must be analyzed per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. The City has identified the following planning
objectives for the SMAA: • To integrate the SMAA area into the City’s General Plan, adopting general plan and zoning amendments that establish the general framework for ultimate development
within the study area. • To preserve public lands within the SMAA area in natural open space; while retaining the existing rural residential/agricultural character of privately-owned
lands. • To protect the research value of the SMER by prohibiting incompatible land uses within adjacent properties. Discretionary Actions and Approvals The EIR serves as an informational
document for use by public agencies, the general public, and decision makers. This EIR discusses the impacts of development pursuant to the proposed project and related components and
analyzes project alternatives. This EIR will be used by the city of Temecula and responsible agencies in assessing impacts of the proposed project. The following public officials and
agencies will use this EIR when considering the following actions: City of Temecula Planning Commission 1. Recommendation to the Temecula City Council for Certification of the Final
EIR EA-128. 2. Recommendation to the Temecula City Council regarding approval of Planning Application PA07-0225 consisting of: • General Plan Amendment proposing to update the General
Plan’s Land Use Map with land use designations over the 4,443 acres of the Santa Margarita Annexation Area located outside of the city of Temecula’s current sphere of influence. The
477 acres currently designated RM (1 DU/10 AC) in Riverside County will become HR (1 DU/10 AC) in the city of Temecula, and 3,961 acres of the 3,966 acres designated OS-CH in the County
would be designated OS in the city of Temecula and 5 acres currently designated OS-CH in the County will become HR (1 DU/10 AC) in the city of Temecula. • Change of Zone proposing the
pre-zoning of approximately 4,997 acres with zoning designations which will follow same boundaries used for the general plan land use designations including 4,279 acres with a zoning
district of OS-C-SM; and 718 acres designated with a zoning district of HR-SM, allowing development of 1 DU/10 AC. 3. Recommendation to the Temecula City Council regarding approval of
Planning Application PA07-0226 consisting of:
Executive Summary City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-13 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 • Sphere of Influence Expansion proposing the expansion of the city of Temecula’s
sphere of influence to include that 4,443-acre portion of the 4,997-acre SMAA outside of the City’s current sphere of influence. • Annexation proposing the annexation of the SMAA consisting
of approximately 4,997 acres into the city of Temecula. City of Temecula City Council 1. Certification of the Final EIR EA-128. 2. Approval of Planning Application PA07-0225 consisting
of: • General Plan Amendment proposing to update the General Plan’s Land Use Map with land use designations over the 4,443 acres of the SMAA located outside of the City’s current sphere
of influence. The 477 acres currently designated RM (1 DU/10 AC) in Riverside County will become HR (1 DU/10 AC) in the city of Temecula, and 3,961 acres of the 3,966 acres designated
OS-CH in the County would be designated OS in the City and 5 acres currently designated OS-CH in the County will become HR (1 DU/10 AC) in the city of Temecula. • Change of Zone proposing
the pre-zoning of approximately 4,997 acres with zoning designations which will follow same boundaries used for the general plan land use designations including 4,279 with a zoning district
of OS-C-SM; and 718 acres designated with a zoning district of HR-SM, allowing development of 1 DU/10 AC. 3. Approval of Planning Application PA07-0226 consisting of: • Sphere of Influence
Expansion proposing the expansion of the city of Temecula’s sphere of influence to include that 4,443-acre portion of the 4,997-acre SMAA outside of the City’s current sphere of influence.
• Annexation proposing the annexation of the SMAA consisting of approximately 4,997 acres into the city of Temecula. Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 1. Approval of
Sphere of Influence Expansion expanding the city of Temecula’s sphere of influence to include that 4,443-acre portion of the 4,997-acre SMAA outside of the City’s current sphere of influence.
2. Approval of Annexation of the SMAA consisting of approximately 4,997 acres into the city of Temecula. Environmental Setting Geology and Soils The annexation project site is located
in a southern extension of the Santa Ana Mountains, the northern-most part of the coastal ranges onshore heading south into Baja California. The area makes up the western portion of
the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province that also continues
Executive Summary City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-14 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 east to the Salton Trough. Locally this area drains into the Santa Margarita
and San Luis Rey River Watershed drainages {Note: this area has nothing to do with the Temescal Valley as used in State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) Classifications for the Temescal
Creek drainage. Also this area is a relative highland, not a basin or valley}. This area is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Range province and is dominated by rocks of
the southern California batholith. The multiple intrusives of the batholith have invaded older metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks of Paleozoic through early Cretaceous ages (570
to 98 million years ago). Bodies of these metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks now crop out along the edges of the batholithic rocks and as roof pendants within batholithic rocks.
Rocks of Late Cretaceous through Holocene age (98 million years ago to the present) were deposited over over the eroded surfaces of these older rocks and crop out in the major drainages.
These younger rocks are mostly conglomerates, claystones and sandstones of marine and continental origin. The multiple intrusives of the batholith have invaded older metasedimentary
and metavolcanic rocks of Jurassic through early Cretaceous ages (206 to 98 million years ago). The City is located in a seismically active area of southern California and the Elsinore
fault zone traverses the western part of the City. This fault zone, which is proximal to the eastern boundary of the SMAA, is one of the major southern California faults that in historical
times, has been one of the quietest. The southeastern extension of the Elsinore fault zone, the Laguna Salado fault, ruptured in 1892 in a magnitude 7.0 earthquake, but the main trace
of the Elsinore fault zone has only seen one historical event greater than magnitude 5.2: the magnitude 6.0 earthquake of 1910 near Temescal Valley, which produced no known surface rupture
and did little damage. Microseismic (magnitude 3.0 or less) activity monitoring over the past 40 years indicates that the entire length of the Elsinore fault between Laguna Salada fault
to the south and the Whittier fault to the north shows seismic activity. Other faults surrounding the region include the San Andreas, San Jacinto, San Gabriel, Newport-Inglewood, Sierra
Madre-Santa Susana-Cucamonga, Rose Canyon, Coronado Banks, San Diego Trough, and San Clemente Island faults. The steeper portions of the hills located west of the city of Temecula have
recently been classified as being susceptible to landsliding by the California Geological Society (CGS, 2007). These are areas where previous occurrence of landslide movement, or local
topographic, geologic, geotechnical and subsurface water conditions indicate that a sufficient potential for permanent ground displacement exists such that mitigation measures are appropriate
prior to development. The eastern portion of the annexation area is part of Cieneba-Rock land-Fallbrook association that is characterized by well-drained and somewhat excessively drained
soils. Typically, these soils are very shallow to moderately deep soils in undulating to steep areas and have a surface layer of sandy loam and fine sandy loam on a granitic rock base.
The western portion of the annexation area is identified as being within the Cajalco-Temescal-Las Posas association which is characterized as well-drained soils in undulating to steep
areas. These soils are moderately deep to shallow soils that have a surface layer of fine sandy loam and loam found on gabbro and latiteporphyry.
Executive Summary City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-15 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Air Quality The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air Basin
(SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAB consists of Orange County, the coastal and mountain portions of Los Angeles
County, as well as Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Regional and local air quality within the SCAB is affected by topography, atmospheric inversions, and dominant onshore flows.
Topographic features such as the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains form natural horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. The presence of atmospheric
inversions limits the vertical dispersion of air pollutants. Dominant onshore flow provides the driving mechanism for both air pollution transport and pollutant dispersion. Air pollution
generated in coastal areas is transported east to inland receptors by the onshore flow during the daytime until a natural barrier (the mountains) is confronted, limiting the horizontal
dispersion of pollutants. The result is a gradual degradation of air quality from coastal areas to inland areas, which is most evident with the photochemical pollutants such as ozone
formed under reactions with sunlight. The project site is located within SCAQMD Source Receptor Area (SRA) 26. The most recent published data applicable to SRA 26 indicates that the
baseline air quality conditions in the project area include occasional events of very unhealthful air. However, the frequency of smog alerts has dropped significantly in the last decade.
Ozone (O3) and particulates are the two most significant air quality concerns in the project area. The yearly monitoring records document that prior to 1997, approximately one-third
or more of the days each year experienced a violation of the state hourly ozone standard, with around ten days annually reaching first stage alert levels of 0.20 parts per million (ppm)
for one hour. It is encouraging to note that ozone levels have dropped significantly in the last few years with less than one-fifth of the days each year experiencing a violation of
the state hourly ozone standard since 1997. Locally, no second stage alert (0.35 ppm/hour) has been called by SCAQMD in the last ten years. The California Air Resources Board maintains
records as to the attainment status of air basins throughout the state, under both state and federal criteria. The portion of the SCAB within which the proposed project is located is
designated as a non-attainment area for ozone, PM-10, and PM-2.5 under both state and federal standards. Biological Resources The City is located within the western Riverside County
MSHCP area. The overall biological goal of the MSHCP is to maintain and restore biological diversity and natural ecosystem processes that support diversity in natural areas within western
Riverside County known to support threatened, endangered or key sensitive populations of plant and wildlife species. The MSHCP identifies five geographic locations within the City and
surrounding areas that contain potential regional wildlife corridor linkages, including French Valley, Lower Tucalota Creek, Temecula Creek, Pechanga Creek, and Murrieta Creek. Additionally,
the Santa Ana-Palomar Mountains Linkage straddles the San Diego County Northern Multiple Species Conservation Plan
Executive Summary City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-16 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 and the Riverside County Western MSHCP. This jurisdictional division placed
an artificial boundary directly through the Linkage. The SMAA project site consists of approximately 4,997 acres of primarily undeveloped land and a 5-mile stretch of the protected Santa
Margarita River. The majority of the project area is undisturbed and is in a pristine natural area, of which 4,279 acres within the project boundary has been conserved in the SMER. The
SMER is part of a “Special Linkage Area” designated in the Riverside County MSHCP. The SMER lies in the chaparral/coastal sage and scrub/oak woodland vegetation zone of southern California.
The climate is Mediterranean, with cool wet winters and warm summers moderated by the marine influence of the Pacific Ocean that lies 18 miles (30 km) to the west. Mean annual precipitation
is approximately 15.75 inches and the mean annual temperature about 61.5°F (16.4°C). C). The topography is complex consisting of low hills and intervening drainages. The majority of
the area is comprised of steep hills with scattered outcroppings of granite boulders sloping in a southwesterly direction with elevations ranging from approximately 530 feet to 2,330
feet above mean sea level. The northern portion of the reserve is dominated by the deep gorge of the Santa Margarita River. Most of the project area is covered by low shrub vegetation,
a mosaic of mixed chaparral, chamise chaparral, and coastal sage oak and riparian woodlands are found in the deeper drainages. Sycamore, cottonwood, and willow forests found along the
Santa Margarita River and coast live oak occurs along ephemeral drainages. The upland areas of the reserve support coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral. Some native grasslands
occur in small isolated patches. Orange, avocado and eucalyptus groves are also found throughout the project area. The SDSU Field Station Program for the SMER has conducted significant
research of natural communities found within the reserve. The research has documented the observation of 180 animal species and 331 plant species within the SMER. Additionally, the CDFG
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) identifies 23 sensitive wildlife species and 13 sensitive plant species as occurring within or in proximity to the annexation area. Special status
wildlife species with the potential to occur in the project area are listed in Table 3.2-3. Of the species listed in Table 3.2-3, 20 species are documented to occur on the project site
including least Bell’s vireo and the California gnatcatcher. Special status plant species with the potential to occur in the project area are listed in Table 3.2-4. Of the species listed
in Table 3.2-4, Parry’s tetracoccus (Tetracoccus dioicus), a CNPS species 1B.2 plant, has been documented on the project site. Mineral Resources Riverside County consists predominantly
of igneous and metamorphic rock with some sedimentary units. A variety of rock types exist in the Santa Ana Mountains as potential sources of crushed stone for use as construction aggregate.
The Cretaceous-age Woodson Mountain granodiorite exists more abundantly in the central and northern part of the range, and Bonsall Tonalite exists in contact or amidst metasedimentary
rocks in the southern part of the range. These plutonic rocks represent about 2/3 of the exposed bedrock in the range. In addition there
Executive Summary City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-17 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 are older rocks, intruded by the above mentioned plutonic rocks, present
as roof pendants; these are present predominantly in the Jurassic Bedford Canyon Formation, and metavolcanics of the Jurassic and/or Triassic metavolcanic rocks of the Santiago Peak
Volcanics. There is significant exposure of these sedimentary units in the northernmost part and western flanks of the Santa Ana Mountains. Within the Temescal Valley Area, there are
extensive areas with Cretaceous igneous rock, Jurassic metasedimentary rock (Bedford Canyon Formation) and metavolcanic rocks (Santiago Peak Volcanics). The Cretaceous La Sierra and
Estelle Tonalite are fairly dominant granitic rocks exposed throughout the area, along with significant areas exhibiting smaller areas of Woodson Mountain Granodiorite and undifferentiated
Mesozoic granitic rocks. The granitic rocks can be crushed as aggregate for Portland cement aggregate applications. The outcrops of Jurassic metasedimentary rocks, which cover a significant
area and include quartzites, conglomerates and sandstones, can be used for construction aggregate and sand aggregate-grade for Portland cement concrete applications. The geologic material
within the project area is the Woodson Mountain granodiorite, an igneous intrusive rock that is part of the larger Peninsular Ranges, Late-Cretaceous age batholithic complex. The granodiorite
occurs in many parts of the Fallbrook area. This granodiorite outcrop has considerable area in the northern San Diego County and southern Riverside County area and consists of at least
25 square miles. The County of Riverside General Plan shows that the SMAA is located within Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ), MRZ-3; indicating that available geologic information indicates
that mineral resources are likely to exist, but the significance of the deposit is undetermined (“MRZ-3”-the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available
data). The General Plan, however, recognizes that further exploration work could result in the reclassification of all or part of these areas into the specific localities into MRZ-2
category (“MRZ-2”-adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or there is a high likelihood for their presence and development should be controlled).
Granite Construction Company submitted a petition to the SMGB dated December 18, 2006, for mineral land classification of the proposed Liberty Quarry project located on privately held
land in Riverside County and within the SMAA. In accordance with the “Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands”, the State Geologist reviewed the petition and recommended
acceptance of the petition by the SMGB. At its regular business meeting held on March 8, 2007, the SMGB accepted the petition and instructed the State Geologist to commence the classification
study. The State Geologist subsequently investigated and reclassified a portion of the Temecula 7.5 minute Quadrangle, Riverside County, from MRZ-3a to MRZ-2a for Portland cement concrete
(PCC) aggregate, as documented in California Geological Survey Special Report 200, “Mineral Land Classification of the Granite Construction Company Liberty Quarry Site, Temecula, Riverside
County, California”. On June 14, 2007, the SMGB found that the report had been prepared in accordance with the SMGB’s guidelines and policies, and accepted the report.
Executive Summary City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-18 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Areas of Potential Controversy In accordance with Section 15123(b)(2) of
the State CEQA Guidelines, areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency including issues raised by agencies and the public shall be identified in the EIR. The following issues were
raised by agencies and the public during the first NOP public comment period. Reference is provided as to where the issue is addressed in this EIR. The thresholds used to determine whether
or not effects are significant are included in the “Thresholds of Significance” section for each topic discussion in this EIR. • Air Quality: – Chapter 3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis
-Section 3.1 Air Quality – Chapter 5.0 Mandatory CEQA Topics – Cumulative Impact Analysis • Biological Resources: – Chapter 3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis -Section 3.2 Biological
Resources – Chapter 5.0 Mandatory CEQA Topics – Cumulative Impact Analysis • Cultural Resources: – Chapter 3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis – Section 3.3 Cultural Resources – Chapter
5.0 Mandatory CEQA Topics – Cumulative Impact Analysis • Land Use and Planning: – Chapter 3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis – Section 3.4 Land Use and Planning – Chapter 5.0 Mandatory
CEQA Topics – Cumulative Impact Analysis • Mineral Resources: – Chapter 3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis – Section 3.5 Mineral Resources o Chapter 5.0 Mandatory CEQA Topics – Cumulative
Impact Analysis • Public Services and Utilities: – Chapter 3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis -Section 3.6 Public Services and Utilities – Chapter 5.0 Mandatory CEQA Topics – Cumulative
Impact Analysis • Traffic Impacts: – Chapter 3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis – Section 3.7 Transportation and Traffic – Chapter 5.0 Mandatory CEQA Topics – Cumulative Impact Analysis
The following two issues were raised by agencies and the public during the revised Notice of Preparation public comment period. These two additional issue areas have been included and
analyzed in this EIR in response to agency/public comments. Reference is provided as to where the issue is addressed in this EIR. The thresholds used to determine whether or not effects
are significant are included in the “Thresholds of Significance” section for each topic discussion in this EIR. • Noise: – Chapter 3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis -Section 3.8 Noise
– Chapter 5.0 Mandatory CEQA Topics – Cumulative Impact Analysis • Recreation: – Chapter 3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis – Section 3.9 Recreation – Chapter 5.0 Mandatory CEQA Topics
– Cumulative Impact Analysis
Executive Summary City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-19 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Environmental Analysis The following table, Table ES-1, EIR Summary Matrix,
provides a summary of impacts related to the proposed project. The table identifies significant environmental impacts resulting from the project pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section
15123(b)(1).
Executive Summary City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-20 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Preliminary − Subject to Revision TABLE ES-1 EIR SUMMARY MATRIX Environmental
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Air Quality Impact 3.1-1: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan. No mitigation required. N/A Impact 3.1-2a: The proposed project could violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation
– non-blasting. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2a: General contractors shall implement a fugitive dust control program pursuant to the provisions of SCAQMD Rule 403. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2b:
All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2c: General contractors shall maintain and
operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues would turn their engines off when
not in use to reduce vehicle emissions. Construction emissions should be phased and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks and discontinued during second-stage smog alerts. Mitigation Measure
3.1-2d: Electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel-or gasoline-powered generators shall be used to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2e: All construction vehicles
shall be prohibited from idling in excess of ten minutes, both on-and off-site. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2f: The Applicant shall utilize coatings and solvents that are consistent with
applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. Less than Significant Impact 3.1-2b: The proposed project could violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation – blasting. No mitigation available. Significant and Unavoidable Impact 3.1-3: The proposed project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Mitigation Measure 3.1-3: Residential uses shall be located at least 500 feet from the edge of the I-15 freeway, consistent with CARB siting
recommendations.
Less than Significant
Executive Summary TABLE ES-1 (continued) EIR SUMMARY MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-21 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Environmental Impact Mitigation
Measures Significance after Mitigation Impact 3.1-4: The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. No mitigation required. N/A Biological
Resources Impact 3.2-1: The proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or the USFWS. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a: Future projects in the annexation area shall pay
a development fee established by the City in Ordinance No. 07-01 to support the financing for the MSHCP and shall conform to the other requirements of the MSHCP including any Additional
Plan Wide Requirements that may apply to areas outside the MSHCP Criteria Areas as outlined in Sections 6.1.2 (Riverine/Riparian, Vernal Pool, and Fairy Shrimp Habitat), Section 6.1.3
(Narrow Endemic Plant Species Surveys), Section 6.3.2 (Criteria Area Species Surveys, which covers additional survey needs and procedures), and Section 6.1.4 (Urban/Wildlands Interface
Requirements) of the Western Riverside MSHCP. Payment of the fee and compliance with all requirements of the MSHCP meets mitigation requirements for the CEQA and NEPA, Federal Endangered
Species Act (FESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Mitigation Measure 3.2-1b: In order to avoid violation of the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code sitepreparation
activities (removal of trees and vegetation) shall be avoided, to the greatest extent possible, during the nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31) of potentially occurring
native and migratory bird species. If site-preparation activities are proposed during the nesting/breeding season (February 1 to August 31), a preactivity field survey shall be conducted
by a qualified biologist to determine whether active nests of species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) or the California Fish and Game Code are present in the construction
zone. If active nests are not located within the project area and appropriate buffer, construction may be conducted during the nesting/breeding season. However, if active nests are located
during the pre-activity field survey, no grading or heavy equipment activity shall take place within at least 500 feet of an active listed species or raptor nest, 300 feet of other sensitive
or protected (under MBTA or California Fish and Game Code) bird nests (non-listed), or within 100 feet of sensitive or protected songbird nests until the nest is no longer active. Less
than Significant Impact 3.2-2: The proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS. Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: See Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a Less than Significant Impact 3.2-3: The proposed project could have
a substantial adverse effect on federally protected Waters of the U.S. and/or wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Mitigation Measure 3.2-3: Potential impacts to
Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State will be reduced to below the level of significance through implementation of one or more of the following measures, which individually or in
combination will reduce potential impacts to below the level of significance: Prior to any activity in the project area subject to the Corps jurisdiction, written documentation shall
be obtained Less than Significant
Executive Summary TABLE ES-1 (continued) EIR SUMMARY MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-22 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Environmental Impact Mitigation
Measures Significance after Mitigation (CWA) (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
from the Corps that no permit would be required for construction activities. Should a permit be required, all the terms and conditions of the Corps permit shall be implemented. Prior
to any activity in the project area subject to CDFG jurisdiction, written documentation shall be obtained from the CDFG that no agreement would be required for construction activities.
Should an agreement be required, all the terms and conditions of the CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be implemented. Prior to any activity in the project area subject to San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board jurisdiction, written documentation shall be obtained from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board that no Waste Discharge Requirement
(WDR) or Section 401 Water Quality Certification permit would be required for construction activities. Should a permit be required, all the terms and conditions of the WDR permit or
Water Quality Certification shall be implemented. Impact 3.2-4: The proposed project could interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Mitigation Measure 3.2-4: See Temecula General Plan Mitigation
Measures. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-1: The City shall require discretionary development proposals in all areas inside or adjacent to sensitive habitat areas, designated critical
habitat, and MSHCP conservation areas and core linkages as defined by the USFWS, the CDFG and the MSHCP, to provide detailed biological assessments to determine the potentially significant
impacts of the project and mitigate significant impacts to a level below significance. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-2: The City shall require the establishment of open space
areas that contain significant water courses, wildlife corridors, and habitats for rare or endangered plant and animal species, with first priority given to the core linkage areas identified
in the MSHCP. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-4: The City will evaluate and pursue the acquisition of areas with high biological resource significance. Such acquisition mechanisms
may include acquiring land by development agreement or gift; dedication of conservation, open space, and scenic easements; joint acquisition with other local agencies; transfer of development
rights; lease purchase agreements; State and federal grants; and impact fees/mitigation banking. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-5: The City shall use the resources of national,
regional, and local conservation organizations, corporations, associations, and benevolent entities to identify and acquire environmentally sensitive lands, and to protect water courses
and wildlife corridors. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-6: The City shall continue to participate in multi-species habitat conservation planning, watershed management planning,
and water resource management planning efforts. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-8: The City will require proponents of future discretionary implementing projects to minimize impacts
to Coastal sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, and non-native grassland consistent with the MSCHP. Such mitigation measures will include, but are not limited
to: on-site preservation, off-site acquisition of mitigation land located within the City and inside MSHCP conservation areas, and habitat restoration of degraded sage scrub vegetation
that increases habitat quality and the biological function of the site. Less than Significant
Executive Summary TABLE ES-1 (continued) EIR SUMMARY MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-23 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Environmental Impact Mitigation
Measures Significance after Mitigation General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-9: The City shall require proponents of future discretionary implementing projects to avoid adverse impacts
to Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest and Water vegetations communities to the maximum extent possible. Mitigation consistent with the MSHCP, and future mitigation ratios established
by the City will be required, including, but not limited to: wetland creation in upland areas, wetland restoration that re-establishes the habitat functions of a former wetland, and
wetland enhancement that improves the self-sustaining habitat functions of an existing wetland. Mitigation measures will be required to achieve “no net loss” of wetland functions and
values General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-10: The City shall review future discretionary implementing projects with development-associated impacts to MSHCP conservation areas for
consistency with the MSHCP reserve and buffer development requirements, and shall require compliance with the following MSHCP Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines: Drainage: Proposed
developments in proximity to MSHCP conservation areas shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements,
to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the MSHCP conservation areas is not altered in an adverse way when compared to existing conditions. Measures shall be
put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into the MSHCP conservation areas. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release
of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within the MSHCP conservation
areas. This can be accomplished using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure
effective operations of runoff control systems. Toxics: Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP conservation area that use chemicals or generate byproducts (such as manure) that
are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge
to the MSHCP conservation area. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues shall be implemented. Lighting: Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP conservation
area to protect species within the MSHCP conservation area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient light levels within the MSHCP
conservation area do not increase. Noise: Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP conservation area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects
of noise on MSHCP conservation area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the
MSHCP conservation area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. Invasives: When approving landscape plans for proposed development adjacent to the
MSHCP conservation area, the City shall require revisions to landscape plans to avoid the use of invasive species defined within the MSHCP for the portions of development adjacent to
the conservation area.
Executive Summary TABLE ES-1 (continued) EIR SUMMARY MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-24 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Environmental Impact Mitigation
Measures Significance after Mitigation Barriers: Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate in individual project designs
to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping in the conservation area. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders,
fencing, walls, signage and/or other appropriate mechanisms. Grading/Land Development: Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP conservation
area. Impact 3.2-5: The proposed project could conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan. Mitigation Measure
3.2-5a: See Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a. Mitigation Measure 3.2-5b: Pursuant to the Western Riverside County MSHCP, within 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, future development
projects in the project area shall conduct a pre-construction presence/absence survey for the burrowing owl shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and the results of this presence/absence
survey shall be provided in writing to the city of Temecula. If it is determined that the project site is occupied by the burrowing owl, take of "active" nests shall be avoided. However,
when the Burrowing Owl is present, active relocation outside of the nesting season (March 1 through August 15) by a qualified biologist shall be required. The City of Temecula shall
be consulted to determine appropriate translocation sites. Occupation of this species on the project site may result in the need to revise grading plans so that take of "active" nests
is avoided or alternatively, a grading permit may be issued once the species has been actively relocated. Less than Significant Cultural Resources Impact 3.3-1: Project construction
could adversely impact unknown cultural resources, including unique archaeological resources and historic resources. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1a: All areas not previously assessed for
cultural resources within the 718 acres to be designated as HR-SM must be assessed by a qualified archaeologist prior to the approval of Hillside Development Plans, and in consultation
with local Native Tribes. Should any future change in land use designation for areas designated by the current project as “Conservation” must also be assessed for cultural resources
prior to the approval of development plans and in consultation with local Native Tribes. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1b: During construction should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural
resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist will be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, the project proponent and the the archaeologist will determine, and in consultation with local Native Tribes,
appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. The project proponent (as applicable) will make the final determination. All significant cultural materials recovered
will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional
standards. Less than Significant Impact 3.3-2: The proposed project could adversely affect known cultural resources, including unique archaeological resources and historic resources.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: CA-RIV-4264, P33-14892, P33-14893, P33-14894, and the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District should be avoided and preserved. If avoidance is not feasible,
further investigation of these resources by a qualified archaeologist will be required to determine the significance of these resources that have not been fully evaluated. The qualified
archaeologist archaeologist shall prepare a report evaluating each known cultural resource, noting the significance determination of the resource. The report will determine whether additional
evaluation would be required prior to the alteration or destruction of each resource. A Cultural Less than Significant.
Executive Summary TABLE ES-1 (continued) EIR SUMMARY MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-25 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Environmental Impact Mitigation
Measures Significance after Mitigation Resource Treatment Plan should be developed for identified significant cultural resources, particularly the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District,
in consultation with local Native American Tribes and a qualified archaeologist, prior to the commencement of any future development within the current project area. Impact 3.3-3: The
proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change to areas of traditional cultural significance to local Native American individuals and groups, as defined by Senate Bill 18.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Consultation will occur with the Pechanga Tribe and other local Native American groups regarding any future development to occur within the project area. A
Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement should be developed by a qualified archaeologist on behalf behalf of the project proponent and in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe, as well
as other local Native American groups. This agreement will address and detail the treatment and disposition of areas of traditional tribal significance, cultural resources, and human
remains that may be potentially impacted. Provisions for Tribal monitors will also be addressed in the Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. If agreement with the Tribes cannot be
reached, the project proponent will determine the required treatment. Less than Significant Impact 3.3-4: The project could result in damage to previously unidentified human remains.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: 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, the the project proponent will contact the NAHC, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by
AB 2641) and the Most Likely Descendant will be identified. The Most Likely Descendant is required to make recommendations for the treatment of any human remains. Less than Significant
Impact 3.3-5: The proposed project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, or site, or unique geologic feature. Mitigation Measure 3.3-5: 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 project proponent 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 project proponent for review and approval prior to implementation. Less
than Significant Land Use and Planning Impact 3.4-1: Project implementation would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) No mitigation required. N/A
Executive Summary TABLE ES-1 (continued) EIR SUMMARY MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-26 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Environmental Impact Mitigation
Measures Significance after Mitigation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Mineral Resources Impact 3.5-1: The proposed project would not result
in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. No mitigation available. Significant and Unavoidable Impact
3.5-2: The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan. No mitigation required. N/A Public Services and Utilities Impact 3.6-1: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered fire facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire service facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire services. Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Although the proposed project’s
impacts upon fire services are less than significant, development in the project area will be required to comply with City DIF for the payment of fire mitigation fees. Fees collected
through the development of single-family detached homes will be utilized to upgrade or develop new fire facilities and could total approximately $46,533.69 (81 du @$574.49 per single-family
detached dwelling unit). Less than Significant Impact 3.6-2: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered police facilities, or the need for new or physically altered sheriff facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Although the proposed project’s impacts upon police services are less than significant; development within
the project area will be required to pay the DIF. Fees collected through the development of single-family detached homes will be utilized to upgrade or develop new police facilities
and could total approximately $19,593.90 (81 dwelling unit @$241.90 per single-family detached dwelling unit). Less than Significant
Executive Summary TABLE ES-1 (continued) EIR SUMMARY MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-27 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Environmental Impact Mitigation
Measures Significance after Mitigation performance objectives for police protection services. Impact 3.6-3: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, or the need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for school services. No mitigation required. N/A Impact 3.6-4:
The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities, or the need for new or physically
altered park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for park services. No mitigation required. N/A Impact 3.6-5: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services. No mitigation required. N/A
Executive Summary TABLE ES-1 (continued) EIR SUMMARY MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-28 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Environmental Impact Mitigation
Measures Significance after Mitigation Impact 3.6-6: The project would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects. No mitigation required. N/A Impact 3.6-7: Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or require new or expanded entitlements. No mitigation required. Impact 3.6-8: The proposed project would not require or result in the construction
of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects. No mitigation required. N/A Impact
3.6-9: The proposed project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may service the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. No mitigation required. N/A Impact 3.6-10: The proposed project would be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. No mitigation required. N/A Impact 3.6-11: The proposed project would comply with federal, state,
and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes (including the County Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). No mitigation required. N/A
Executive Summary TABLE ES-1 (continued) EIR SUMMARY MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-29 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Environmental Impact Mitigation
Measures Significance after Mitigation Impact 3.6-12: The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities, or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects. No mitigation required. N/A Impact 3.6-13: The proposed project would not require or result in the
construction of new electrical, gas, and communications facilities or the expansion of existing facilities; where the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
No mitigation required. N/A Transportation and Traffic Impact 3.7-1: The addition of project traffic adds more than 5 vehicles to a critical movement at the I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow
Valley W Blvd intersection when the intersection operates at level of service (LOS) F. Based Based on significance criteria used by the County of San Diego, a significant impact occurs.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: This impact can be mitigated by installing stop signs on all approaches at this intersection. Although this mitigation measure, is technically (physically)
feasible, implementation will require approval of other agencies including California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and San Diego County. Because the intersection is within
the jurisdiction of San Diego County and because no improvement can be made without the approval of Caltrans, the City cannot ensure that the improvements will be made in a timely manner
to mitigate the impact of the project on this intersection. Therefore, although the City will undertake all reasonable steps to coordinate with San Diego County and Caltrans to install
the improvements, the project's cumulative impacts on this intersection are significant and unavoidable. Significant and Unavoidable Impact 3.7-2: The addition of project traffic adds
more than 5 vehicles to a critical movement at the I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W Blvd intersection when the intersection operates at LOS F. Based on significance criteria used
by the County of San Diego, a significant impact occurs. An impact was also identified in the Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Scenario. Mitigation Measure 3.7-2: See Mitigation Measure
3.7-1. Significant and Unavoidable
Executive Summary TABLE ES-1 (continued) EIR SUMMARY MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-30 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Environmental Impact Mitigation
Measures Significance after Mitigation Impact 3.7-3: The project contributes traffic to several segments of I-15 within Riverside County which are projected to exceed the target LOS.
All of these roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS F with volume to capacity (V/C) ratios ranging from 1.15 to 1.41. These roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS
F, regardless of whether
project traffic uses this facility or not. This LOS F conditions occurs not because of project trips but because of existing traffic travel on I-15, the projected growth in regional
travel because of development outside of the city of Temecula, and the addition of traffic from Cumulative Projects. Mitigation Measure 3.7-3: Based on our review of available documents,
no plans currently exist to widen I-15, which would be required to improve operations. Therefore, it would not be feasible to mitigate the project impacts on the segments of I-15. Additionally,
if there were feasible mitigation measures, they would require the concurrence of both Caltrans and Riverside County to be implemented. As such, the city of Temecula would not be able
to guarantee the implementation of any mitigation measures, even if any mitigation measures were feasible. Given the above considerations, we can conclude that the necessary mitigation
measures are not feasible and are outside the jurisdiction of the city of Temecula, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Significant and Unavoidable Impact 3.7-4: The
project contributes traffic to Rainbow Canyon Road which is projected to exceed the target LOS. This roadway segment is projected to operate at a V/C ratio of 1.12 which is indicative
of LOS F operations. Mitigation Measure 3.7-4: The Riverside County General Plan anticipates that Rainbow Canyon Road would be widened from two to four lanes at some point point in the
future with the Build-out of the Riverside County General Plan land uses. With this widening the roadway would operate at an acceptable LOS. As this widening is anticipated to occur
by the Riverside County General Plan, it can be considered to be a feasible mitigation measure. There are several barriers to the timely implementation of this mitigation measure; however.
First, this improvement is not funded by the regional traffic fee program (TUMF) and there does not appear to be available funding for this improvement based on our review of available
documents. While the project could make a contribution to the widening of this improvement, there is no guarantee that the contribution would ensure the timely implementation of the
widening. In addition, this improvement would be partially implemented by Riverside County instead of entirely by the city of Temecula. As such, the city of Temecula would not be able
to guarantee that this mitigation measure is implemented in a timely fashion. Given the the above considerations, we can conclude that this widening is feasible but outside the jurisdiction
of the city of Temecula and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Significant and Unavoidable Impact 3.7-5: The project contributes traffic to several segments of I-15
within Riverside County which are projected to exceed the target LOS. All of these roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS F with V/C ratios ranging from 1.34 to 1.54. Mitigation
Measure 3.7-5: See Mitigation Measure 3.7-4. Significant and Unavoidable
Executive Summary TABLE ES-1 (continued) EIR SUMMARY MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-31 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Environmental Impact Mitigation
Measures Significance after Mitigation Impact 3.7-6: The project contributes traffic to Rainbow Canyon Road which is projected to exceed the target LOS. This roadway segment is projected
to operate at a V/C ratio of 1.12 which is indicative of LOS F operations. Mitigation Measure 3.7-6: See Mitigation Measure 3.7-5. Significant and Unavoidable Noise Impact 3.8-1: Project
construction could expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of the applicable city of Temecula or County of San Diego noise standards. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1a: The applicant
shall ensure, as specified in the San Diego County Code, and the City noise ordinance, that no construction may occur during the following hours: 6:30 pm – 7:00 am, Monday through Saturday.
At any time on Sunday or any legal holiday. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1b: The applicant shall ensure that all construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers. Mitigation Measure
3.8-1c: The applicant shall ensure that all construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1d: The applicant shall ensure
that all signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include permitted construction days and hours, a contact number for the job site, and a contact number for the City Building
and Safety Department project manager, in the event daytime noise exceeds 65dBA at the exterior of the residences. In that event the City shall have the right to require limiting the
number of noisy pieces of equipment used at one time so that the noise level is reduced to the permissible level. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1e: Implement “quiet” pile-driving technology
(such as pre-drilling of piles and the use of more than one pile driver to shorten the total pile driving duration), where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements
and conditions. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1f: A blasting plan for construction must be prepared and followed that includes the following: 1) The Blasting Plan must meet the approval of
the appropriate City department with jurisdiction over the project and blasting. 2) Primary components of the Blasting Plan shall include: a) Identification of blast officer; b) Scaled
drawings of blast locations, and neighboring buildings, streets, or other locations which could be inhabited; Significant and Unavoidable
Executive Summary TABLE ES-1 (continued) EIR SUMMARY MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-32 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Environmental Impact Mitigation
Measures Significance after Mitigation c) Blasting notification procedures, lead times, and list of those notified. Public notification to potentially affected vibration receptors describing
the expected extent and duration of the blasting; d) Description of means for transportation and on-site storage and security of explosives in accordance with local, state and federal
regulations; e) Minimum acceptable weather conditions for blasting and safety provisions for potential stray current (if electric detonation); f) Traffic control standards and traffic
safety measures (if applicable); g) Require personal protective equipment; h) Minimum standoff distances and description of blast impact zones and procedures for clearing and controlling
access to blast danger; i) Procedures for handling, setting, wiring, and firing explosives. Also procedures for handling misfires per Federal code; j) Type and quantity of explosives
and description of detonation device. Sequence and schedule of blasting rounds, including general method of excavation, lift heights, etc.; k) Methods of matting or covering of blast
area to prevent flyrock and excessive air blast pressure; l) Description of blast vibration and air blast monitoring programs; m) Dust control measures in compliance with applicable
air pollution control regulations (to interface with general construction dust control plan); n) Emergency Action Plan to provide emergency telephone numbers and directions to medical
facilities. Procedures for action in the event of injury; o) Material Safety Data Sheets for each explosive or other hazardous materials to be used; p) Evidence of licensing, experience,
and qualifications of blasters; and q) Description of insurance for the blasting work. 3) A Blast Survey Workplan shall be prepared by the blaster. The Plan shall establish vibration
limits in order to protect structures from blasting activities and identify specific monitoring points. At a minimum, a pre-blast survey shall be conducted of any potentially affected
structures and underground utilities within 500 feet of a blast area, as well as the nearest commercial or residential structure, prior to blasting. 4) The survey shall include visual
inspection of the structures, documentation of structures by means of photographs, video, and a level survey of the ground floor of structures or the crown of major and critical utility
lines, and these shall be submitted to the City. This documentation shall be reviewed with the individual owners prior to any blasting operations. The City and impacted property owners
will be notified at least 48 hours prior to
Executive Summary TABLE ES-1 (continued) EIR SUMMARY MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-33 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Environmental Impact Mitigation
Measures Significance after Mitigation the visual inspections. 5) Vibration and settlement threshold criteria (for example peak particle velocity of 0.5 inches per second) shall be submitted
by the blaster to the City for review and approval during the design process. If the settlement or vibration criteria are exceeded at any time or if damage is observed at any of the
structures or utilities, then blasting shall immediately cease and the City immediately notified. The stability of segmental retaining walls, existing slopes, creek canals, etc. shall
be monitored and any evidence of instability due to blasting operations shall result in immediate termination of blasting. The blaster shall modify the blasting procedures or use alternative
means of excavating in order to reduce the vibrations to below the threshold values, prevent further settlement, slope instability, and prevent further damage. 6) Air blast overpressure
limits and monitoring shall be conducted at the property line closest to the blast and at other above ground structures identified in the Plan for vibration monitoring. Air blast overpressure
limits shall be in accordance with applicable law and shall be established to prevent damage to adjacent properties, new construction, and to prevent injuries to persons on-site and
off-site. 7) Prior to full-scale production blasting, the blaster shall conduct a series of test blasts at the sites where blasting is to occur. The tests shall start with reduced charge
weights and shall increase incrementally to that of a full-scale production round. Monitoring shall be conducted as described in the Plan. 8) Post-construction monitoring of structures
to identify (and repair if necessary) all damage, if any, from blasting vibrations. Any damage shall documented by photograph, video, etc. This documentation shall be reviewed with the
individual property owners. 9) Reports of the results of the blast monitoring shall be provided to the City, the local fire department, and owners of any buried utilities on or adjacent
to the site within 24 hours following blasting. Reports documenting damage, excessive vibrations, etc. shall be provided to the City and impacted property owners. Impact 3.8-2: Construction
activities associated with the project would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive levels of ground-borne vibration. No mitigation required. N/A Impact 3.8-3: Traffic
associated with operation of the project would not result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels on nearby roadways. No mitigation required. N/A
Executive Summary TABLE ES-1 (continued) EIR SUMMARY MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-34 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Environmental Impact Mitigation
Measures Significance after Mitigation Impact 3.8-4: Increases in traffic from the project in combination with other development could result in cumulatively considerable noise increases.
No mitigation required. N/A Recreation Impact 3.9-1: The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. No mitigation required. N/A Impact 3.9-2: The proposed project would not include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No mitigation required. N/A
Executive Summary City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-35 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Summary of Project Alternatives The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6, identify
the parameters within which consideration and discussion of alternatives to the proposed project should occur. As stated in this section of the guidelines, alternatives must focus on
those that are reasonably feasible and which attain most of the basic objectives of the project. Each alternative must be capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant
effects of the proposed project. The direct significant environmental effects that result from the proposed project, after mitigation measures are implemented, are impacts to air quality,
mineral resources, transportation/traffic and noise. Cumulatively, the project contributes to impacts to air quality, mineral resources, transportation/traffic and noise. The rationale
for selecting the alternatives to be evaluated and a discussion of the "no project" alternative are also required, per Section 15126.6. The project, as proposed, consists of the annexation
of approximately 4,997 acres of unincorporated County territory to the City. Approximately 554 acres of the area proposed to be annexed is already in the City’s sphere of influence.
The project includes a General Plan Amendment to adopt land use designations for the annexation area (OS and HR, 1 DU/10 AC) and adoption of pre-zoning to implement the General Plan
land use designations. The proposed land use designations and pre-zoning are anticipated to result in unavoidable adverse impacts related to air quality, mineral resources, transportation/traffic
and noise. Therefore, alternatives with higher intensities of residential uses or commercial and/or industrial uses would clearly result in more traffic, and therefore, poorer air quality
than the proposed project, and were not considered further. Likewise, land uses significantly different than those allowed under the present County of Riverside land use designations
(i.e., OS-CH and RM), which would not meet the project objectives in any way are not considered. It is required under CEQA that alternative site(s) be evaluated if any feasible sites
exist where significant impacts can be lessened. However, the proposed project consists of the annexation of specific property into the City. Annexation of alternative property in the
City will not implement any of the project’s objectives. Therefore, an alternative location is not considered a feasible alternative to the proposed project. This EIR looks at 1) a No
Project Alternative that retains existing use of the site with no new development, 2) an alternative that considers development pursuant to the existing Riverside County’s General Plan
Land Use designations with large-lot residential development within the Rural Mountainous designation, 3) an alternative that considers development pursuant to the existing Riverside
County’s General Plan Land Use designations with large-lot residential development and quarry development within the Rural Mountainous designation, and 4) an alternative consisting of
City annexation of only that portion of the project area (554 acres) currently located within the City’s sphere of influence. Table ES-2, Comparison of Alternatives Matrix, gives a summary
of all project alternatives considered in detail in the EIR and identifies the areas of potential environmental effects per
Executive Summary City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-36 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 CEQA and ranks each alternative as better, the same, or worse than the proposed
project with respect to each area. Environmentally Superior Alternative The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2), requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative.
Of the alternatives evaluated above, the No Project – No Development Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative with respect to reducing impacts created by the proposed
project. The CEQA Guidelines also require the identification of another environmentally superior alternative if the No Project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative.
Of the three remaining project alternatives, the Existing County General Plan – Residential Only Alternative meets most of the project objectives while being marginally environmentally
superior to the proposed project. The Existing County General Plan – Residential Only Alternative would retain the proposed project’s allowable land uses of open space and large-lot
residential development, although it would result in one fewer single-family dwelling unit than the would the proposed project. Implementation of this alternative would be virtually
identical to the proposed project, but would keep the entire project site within unincorporated Riverside County, rather than annex it into the City. Project-related impacts would be
similar to those of the proposed project, with marginally reduced air quality impacts and PM Peak Hour traffic impacts. However, this alternative would still have significant unavoidable
impacts to mineral resources and transportation and traffic. Most of the project objectives would be met under this alternative, with the exception of the integration of the SMAA into
the City’s General Plan. Of the four alternatives, the Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative and the Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Alternative
are the only alternatives that completely avoid or substantially reduce the proposed project’s significant unavoidable adverse impact upon mineral resources by including surface mining
operations. However, due to the adverse impacts related to surface mining operations, these alternatives are not environmentally superior to the proposed project.
Executive Summary City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-37 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE ES-2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Environmental Issue Proposed Project: Santa Margarita Area Annexation No Project – No Development Existing County General Plan – Residential Only Alternative
Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Agricultural Resources Same -No loss of farmland. No significant
impact. Same -No loss of farmland. No significant impact. Same -No loss of farmland. No significant impact. More Impactful – No direct loss of farmland. There is the potential to generate
dust and other airborne particulate matter which will blow from the site to the nearby agricultural uses, thereby negatively impacting agricultural production. Potentially significant
impact. More Impactful -No direct loss of farmland. There is the potential to generate dust and other airborne particulate matter which will blow from the site to the nearby agricultural
uses, thereby negatively impacting agricultural production. Potentially significant impact. Air Quality Less than Significant-Consistent with AQMP and will not exceed SCAQMD short-term
or long-term thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, SO, PM-10, and PM-2.5. Given the global nature of GHG and their ability to alter the Earth’s climate, it is not anticipated that a single development
project, particularly one of this limited density, would have an effect on global climate conditions. It is, however, reasonably foreseeable that emissions resulting from this project
in combination with statewide, national, and international emissions could cumulatively contribute to a change in Earth’s climate, i.e., global warming. Without any regulatory guidance
or Less Impactful -Minimal impacts to air quality. No significant impact. Similar – This alternative will generate virtually the same short-term and longterm emissions as the proposed
project and will not exceed SCAQMD short-term or long-term thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, SO, PM-10, and PM-2.5. Given the global nature of GHG and their ability to alter the Earth’s climate,
it is not anticipated that a single development project, particularly one of this Alternative’s limited density, would have an effect on global climate conditions. It is, however, reasonably
foreseeable that emissions resulting from this project in combination with statewide, national, and international emissions could cumulatively More Impactful – Increased traffic and
surface mining operations will result in greater emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, PM-10 and PM-2.5 than from the proposed project. At a minimum NOx emissions during construction and ROG winter
emissions will exceed thresholds of significance. Diesel truck emissions will increase carcinogenic risk caused by exposure to such emission. It is reasonably foreseeable that emissions
resulting from this project in combination with statewide, national, and international emissions could cumulatively contribute to a change in Earth’s climate, i.e., global warming. Air
quality impacts will be More Impactful – Increased traffic and surface mining operations will result in greater emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, PM-10 and PM-2.5 than from the proposed project.
At a minimum NOx and ROG emissions during construction and ROG winter emissions will exceed thresholds of significance. Diesel truck emissions will increase carcinogenic risk caused
by exposure to such emission. It is reasonably foreseeable that emissions resulting from this project in combination with statewide, national, and international emissions could cumulatively
contribute to a change in Earth’s climate, i.e., global warming. Air quality impacts will be
Executive Summary TABLE ES-2 (continued) COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-38 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Alternative 1 Alternative
2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Environmental Issue Proposed Project: Santa Margarita Area Annexation No Project – No Development Existing County General Plan – Residential Only Alternative
Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence actual threshold of significance for global warming or GHG, making
significance findings for associated impacts is considered speculative. However, the limited development potential envisioned by this project suggests that the project’s contribution
to a cumulative impact is less than significant. Nevertheless, mitigation measures are included that will help ensure that the project’s impacts will remain below the level of significance.
contribute to a change in Earth’s climate, i.e., global warming. Impacts related to to global warming should be mitigated to less than significant levels. Without any regulatory guidance
or actual threshold of significance for global warming or GHG, making significance findings for associated impacts is considered speculative. However, the limited development potential
envisioned by this Alternative suggests that the Alternative’s contribution to a cumulative impact is less than significant. Nevertheless, compliance with the same mitigation measures
as required for the proposed project will help ensure that the Alternative’s impacts will remain below the level of significance. significant. significant. Biological Resources Future
development within the annexation area will have the potential to result in impacts to sensitive wildlife species including an incremental loss of habitat (including breeding and/or
seasonal foraging habitat) locally. Individuals present within zones of project grading and other direct development Less Impactful -No loss of habitat. No significant impact. Same –
Will result in similar impacts upon sensitive species and riparian and other habitat. No significant effect, with mitigation. More Impactful – Will result in greater direct and indirect
impacts upon sensitive species within the project area. Has greater potential impacts upon the SMER. More impactful to wildlife movement and the Special Linkage Area. More Impactful
– Will result in greater direct and indirect impacts upon sensitive species within the project area. Has greater potential impacts upon the SMER.
Executive Summary TABLE ES-2 (continued) COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-39 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Alternative 1 Alternative
2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Environmental Issue Proposed Project: Santa Margarita Area Annexation No Project – No Development Existing County General Plan – Residential Only Alternative
Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence impacts could potentially be lost or displaced by construction activities.
No significant effect, with mitigation. Cultural Resources There are no known historical period sites and seven known archaeological sites on the project site. No known paleontological
resources will be impacted by project development. Development may impact unknown buried cultural resources. No significant impact, with mitigation. Less Impactful – No loss of known
cultural or paleontological resources and no potential to impact unknown buried cultural resources. No significant impact. Same -No significant effect with same mitigation measures as
the proposed project. More Impactful -Greater potential for impacts to buried cultural resources. No significant effect with same mitigation measures as the proposed project. More Impactful
-Greater potential for impacts to buried cultural resources. No significant effect with same mitigation measures as the proposed project. Geology and Soils Will not expose people or
structures to potentially significant impacts involving fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure and landslides. The project will not result in substantial erosion
or loss of topsoil, or be located within geologic unit or soil that results in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The project will have
no impact or less than significant impacts related to geology and soils. Same – No impact or less than significant impacts related to geology and soils. Same -No impact or less than
significant impacts related to geology and soils. More Impactful – Surface mining operations have a greater potential for adverse impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil, resulting
in on-site landslides and slope collapse. Potentially significant impacts even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. More Impactful – Surface mining operations have
a greater potential for adverse impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil, resulting in on-site landslides and slope collapse. Potentially significant impacts even with implementation
of all feasible mitigation measures. Hydrology and Water Quality Development within the project area has the potential to affect existing Less Impactful – No development will occur and
there will be no changes in Same -Development within the project area has the potential to affect More Impactful -Development within the project area has the More Impactful -Development
within the project area has the
Executive Summary TABLE ES-2 (continued) COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-40 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Alternative 1 Alternative
2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Environmental Issue Proposed Project: Santa Margarita Area Annexation No Project – No Development Existing County General Plan – Residential Only Alternative
Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence drainage patterns and water quality, however, potential hydrology
and water quality impacts will be less than significant as a result of the City’s grading plan review process and compliance with regulatory requirements. the existing drainage patterns
within the project area. existing drainage patterns and water quality, however, potential hydrology and water quality impacts should be less than significant as a result of the County’s
grading plan review process and compliance with regulatory requirements. potential to to affect existing drainage patterns and water quality due to changes in natural drainage patterns
and increased potential for contaminated runoff. Although, potential hydrology and water quality impacts should be less than significant as a result of the City’s grading plan review
process and compliance with regulatory requirements, there would still be the potential for significant
impacts. potential to affect existing drainage patterns and water quality due to changes in natural drainage patterns and increased potential for contaminated runoff. Although, potential
hydrology and water quality impacts should be less than significant as a result of the City’s grading plan review process and compliance with regulatory requirements, there would still
be the potential for significant impacts. Land Use and Planning Changing the existing Riverside County Land Use designations of OSCH and RM to city of Temecula land use designations
of OS-CH and RM are considered compatible changes with minimal overall differences differences and would have few impacts relevant to the general plan and zoning consistency requirements.
There will be no significant impacts. Same – There will be no changes in the general plan designations or the zoning of the project site. Same -There will be no changes in the general
plan designations or the zoning of the project site. Development within the project area will remain consistent with current general plan and zoning designations. There will be no significant
impacts. More Impactful -There will be no changes in the general plan designations or the zoning of the project site. Development within the project area will remain consistent with
current general plan and zoning designations. The permitting of surface mining operations, although consistent with the existing general plan designation, would be a significant change
in the existing land use pattern within the project area. More Impactful -There will be no changes in the general plan designations or the zoning of most of the project site. site. Development
within the project area will remain consistent with current general plan and zoning designations. The permitting of surface mining operations, although consistent with the existing general
plan designation, would be a significant change in the existing land use pattern within the project area. Mineral Resources The proposed project will result in zoning and general plan
land use designations that do not allow mining operations being placed upon the Same -Although mineral resources located on the project site within MRZ-2a designated areas would remain
in place under this alternative, no such mining Same -Although mineral resources located on the project site within MRZ-2a designated areas would remain in place under this alternative,
no such mining Less Impactful -This alternative retains existing potential to mine on-site aggregate resources, and includes surface mining Less Impactful -This alternative retains existing
potential to mine on-site aggregate resources on 250 acres of the project site, and includes surface
Executive Summary TABLE ES-2 (continued) COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-41 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Alternative 1 Alternative
2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Environmental Issue Proposed Project: Santa Margarita Area Annexation No Project – No Development Existing County General Plan – Residential Only Alternative
Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence project site. This prohibition of mining of the known aggregate
resources found within the project area could potentially result in the continued inability of mineral resource production to meet the consumption demand within the region. will occur.
will occur. operations. mining operations Noise The proposed project does not involve an action that would result in the approval of any policies which would expose persons to or generate
excessive noise levels in excess of standards established in the city of Temecula General Plan. The project will not expose persons to or generate groundborne vibrations or expose the
vicinity of the project to a temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels. The project will have no noiserelated impacts. Same – This alternative will not have any shortterm
or long-term noise impacts. Same – This alternative will not have any shortterm or long-term noise impacts. More Impactful – Higher levels of traffic-generated noise than from proposed
project-related traffic. Surface mining operations will create increased ambient noise levels from operation of mining equipment and blasting. Vibration from blasting may adversely affect
research equipment in the SMER. More Impactful – Higher levels of traffic-generated noise than from proposed project-related traffic. Surface mining operations will create increased
ambient noise levels from operation of mining equipment and blasting. Vibration from blasting may adversely affect research equipment in the SMER. Recreation Implementation of the proposed
project will not result in any significant impacts concerning recreation. Same-access to the SMER is by permission only; as such use of the site is somewhat restricted from the general
public. Under this Alternative, the existing land use on the site would be retained. Like the proposed project, this alternative would not Same-Should optimal residential development
occur under this alternative, the increase in additional residents would not cause significant impacts to area recreation. Less Impactful-This alternative’s impacts upon recreational
facilities would be less than that of the proposed project due to the reduced number of residences that would be constructed. It is not anticipated that additional impacts to Less Impactful-This
alternative’s impacts upon recreational facilities would be less than that of the proposed project due to the reduced number of residences that would be constructed.
Executive Summary TABLE ES-2 (continued) COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-42 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Alternative 1 Alternative
2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Environmental Issue Proposed Project: Santa Margarita Area Annexation No Project – No Development Existing County General Plan – Residential Only Alternative
Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence result in significant recreation impacts. recreation would result
from the eventual reclamation of the mining site under this alternative. Public Services and Utilities Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts
to public services and utilities. Less Impactful -Would not create an increase in the amount of solid waste generated on the project site and will not increase the demand upon libraries,
schools and parks. There would be no demand for water, sewer, or utility services. Same– Although this alternative will allow one fewer dwelling unit, it will have basically the same
demand for public services and utilities. It will not result in any significant impacts to public services and utilities. More Impactful – Greater impacts upon fire, sheriff and health
services. Increased demand for water and natural gas. Less impact upon parks and schools. Overall impacts will be potentially significant. More Impactful – Greater impacts upon fire,
sheriff and health services. Increased demand for water and natural gas. Less impact upon parks and schools. Overall impacts will be potentially significant. Transportation and Traffic
Will generate 775 trips daily, with 60 trips in the AM Peak hour and 82 trips in the PM Peak hour. Project-related and cumulative impacts upon the I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley
W. Blvd. intersection will be significant because the mitigation is beyond the control of the City and it is possible that the required improvements will not be constructed in time to
mitigate the project’s impacts to this intersection to below the level of significance. Less Impactful – No generation of new daily trips. No impacts upon intersections and roadway segments.
Same – Will generate 766 trips daily with 60 trips in the AM Peak hour and 81 trips in the PM Peak Hour. Alternative-related and cumulative impacts upon the I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow
Valley W. Blvd. intersection will be significant because the mitigation is beyond the control of the City and it is possible that the required improvements will not be constructed in
time to mitigate the project’s impacts to this intersection to below the level of significance. More Impactful – Approximately 639 passenger car and 1,300 diesel truck trips daily. Project-related
and cumulative impacts upon intersections and roadway segments will be greater than those from proposed project. The substantial number of daily truck trips has the potential to adversely
impact traffic flow on area streets and highways due to the longer acceleration and deceleration times needed by the trucks and the larger turning movements required by the trucks. The
surface mining operationrelated trucks also have a greater potential to cause increased deterioration of local streets and highways due to their size and More Impactful – Approximately
850 passenger car and 1,300 diesel truck trips daily. Project-related and cumulative impacts upon intersections and roadway segments will be greater than those from proposed project.
The substantial number of daily truck trips has the potential to adversely impact traffic flow on area streets and highways due to the longer acceleration and deceleration times needed
by the trucks and the larger turning movements required by the trucks. The surface mining operationrelated trucks also have a greater potential to cause increased deterioration of local
streets and highways due to their size and
Executive Summary TABLE ES-2 (continued) COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation ES-43 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Alternative 1 Alternative
2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Environmental Issue Proposed Project: Santa Margarita Area Annexation No Project – No Development Existing County General Plan – Residential Only Alternative
Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence weight, thereby increasing the extent of and frequency of road maintenance.
Impacts will be significant. weight, thereby increasing the extent of and frequency of road maintenance. Impacts will be significant. Regional Element The proposed project is consistent
with regional plans. It will have a slightly negative impact upon area’s jobs to housing ratio. No significant impact Less Impactful – Alternative will not generate any housing to adversely
affect the area’s jobs to housing ratio. No significant impact. Same –Although consistent with regional plans, it will have a slightly negative impact upon area’s jobs to housing ratio.
No significant impact. Less Impactful -Will result in a slightly positive effect upon the jobs to housing ratio for the local area. Less Impactful -Will result in a slightly positive
effect upon the jobs to housing ratio for the local area. Environmentally Superior to Proposed Project? Not Applicable Yes Marginally Superior No No Meets Project Objectives? Yes No
-Does not integrate the SMAA area into the City’s General Plan. Does not protect the research value of the SMER by continuing to describe incompatible land uses, such as surface mining
operations, as allowable land uses in the non-reserve properties. Partially – Does not integrate the SMAA area into the City’s General Plan. No – Does not integrate the SMAA area into
the City’s General Plan and does not preserve existing rural/residential character of 414 acres of privatelyowned lands. Does not protect the research value of the SMER by including
incompatible land uses, such as surface mining operations, in the nonreserve properties. Partially – Meets the project objectives on 554 acres of the project site. Does not integrate
most of the SMAA area into the City’s General Plan and does not preserve existing rural/residential character of 250 acres of privatelyowned lands. Does not protect the research value
of the SMER by including incompatible land uses, such as surface mining operations, in the nonreserve properties.
City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 1-1 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 4,997-acre Santa Margarita Area Annexation project which includes: (1) a General Plan Amendment to add the 4,443
acres of the annexation area located outside of the city of Temecula’s (City) current sphere of influence to the City’s General Plan and provide land use designations for that portion
of the proposed annexation area; (2) adoption of a prezoning ordinance for the annexation area to implement the General Plan land use designations, which will become effective only if
the annexation is approved by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO); (3) resolutions of application to LAFCO for an expansion of the City’s sphere of influence
to include the portion of the annexation area not already in the City sphere of influence and for annexation of the project area to the City; and (4) LAFCO consideration of the proposed
sphere expansion and annexation. The City is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is responsible for preparation of this EIR. This EIR is an informational
document intended for use by the City decision makers and members of the general public in evaluating the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed annexation, herein
known as Santa Margarita Area Annexation (SMAA). This study has been prepared pursuant to the CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines
(California Code of Regulations (CCR), Sections 15000 et seq.). 1.2 Compliance with CEQA Format The Executive Summary of this document covers the summary requirements of CEQA as required
by Section 15123 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Sections 1.0 and 2.0 cover the project description requirements of CEQA by discussing the project location, the project objectives, a general
description of the project’s environmental setting, and a statement of document purpose and intended use. Issues identified in the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study prepared by
the City for the proposed project are discussed in Section 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of this document, which has been formatted to address the following general topics: Environmental Impact
Analysis, Consistency with Regional Plans, and Mandatory CEQA Topics, including alternatives to the proposed action.
1. Introduction City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 1-2 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Under each issue, an analysis is performed to determine the amount and degree
of impact that is associated with the project. For all significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures, where feasible, are identified in order to reduce the impact to a level
below significant. The analysis of impacts and identification of mitigation measures is derived from technical reports which are included as technical appendices to this document and
from other informational resources as listed in Section 6.0 (Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted) of this document. 1.3 Environmental Procedures The basic purposes of CEQA
are to (1) inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities, (2) identify the ways that environmental damage
can be avoided or significantly reduced, (3) prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures
when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible, and (4) disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose
if significant environmental effects are involved. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15002.) The EIR process typically consists of three parts—the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (including
the Initial Study), Draft EIR, and Final EIR. Pursuant to Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared an Initial Study (Environmental Checklist) for the project in
order to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Based upon the findings of fact contained within the Initial Study, the City concluded that an EIR
should be prepared. An NOP for an EIR and a description of potential adverse impacts were distributed to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties on
or about April 13, 2007. A notice advising of the availability of the NOP was posted by the County Clerk on April 18, 2007. Pursuant to Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, recipients
of the NOP were requested to provide responses within 30 days after their receipt of the NOP. Copies of the NOP (including the Initial Study) and the NOP distribution list are located
in Appendix A. Copies of comments regarding the NOP, received by the City, are also included in Appendix A. A community scoping meeting was held on May 10, 2007 pursuant to the requirements
of Section 15082(c)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Following the circulation of the Draft EIR for public review and comment period from February 22, 2008 until April 7, 2008, a revised
NOP was prepared and issued on July 28, 2008 for an updated Draft EIR and a description of potential adverse impacts, due to an expanded Draft EIR scope. This notice was distributed
to the State Clearinghouse, and the same responsible agencies and other interested parties as the original NOP. Pursuant to Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, recipients of
the revised NOP were requested to provide responses within 30 days after their receipt of the revised NOP. The public review period for the revised NOP began July 28, 2008 and extended
through August 26, 2008. Copies of the revised NOP (including the revised Initial Study) and the revised NOP distribution list are also located in
1. Introduction City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 1-3 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Appendix A. Copies of comments regarding the revised NOP, received by the City,
are also included in Appendix A. Both sets of NOP comment letters have been incorporated into this Draft EIR. The City, which has the initial responsibility for processing and approving
the project, is considered the "Lead Agency" for the purposes of CEQA compliance. As set forth in Section 15021 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City, as "Lead Agency", has the duty
to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible. Furthermore, Section 15021(d) states that, “CEQA recognizes that in determining whether and how a project should be approved,
a public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors and in particular the goal of providing a decent home
and satisfying living environment for every Californian.” Other public agencies (i.e., Responsible Responsible and Trustee Agencies) that may use this EIR in their decision-making or
permit processing, will consider the information in this EIR along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process. In accordance with CEQA, the public agencies
will be required to make findings for each environmental impact of the project that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. LAFCO will be acting as a Responsible Agency
when it considers whether to approve the proposed annexation and will rely on this EIR when considering the proposed annexation. If the Lead Agency determines the benefits of the proposed
project outweigh unmitigated significant environmental effects, it will be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations stating the reasons supporting their action notwithstanding
the project’s significant environmental effects. 1.4 Areas of Potential Controversy In accordance with Section 15123(b)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, areas of controversy known to
the Lead Lead Agency including issues raised by agencies and the public shall be identified in the EIR. The following issues were raised by agencies and the public during the first NOP
public comment period. Reference is provided as to where the issue is addressed in this EIR. The thresholds used to determine whether or not effects are significant are included in the
“Thresholds of Significance” section for each topic discussion in this EIR. • Air Quality: – Chapter 3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis -Section 3.1 Air Quality – Chapter 5.0 Mandatory
CEQA Topics – Cumulative Impact Analysis • Biological Resources: – Chapter 3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis -Section 3.2 Biological Resources – Chapter 5.0 Mandatory CEQA Topics – Cumulative
Impact Analysis • Cultural Resources: – Chapter 3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis – Section 3.3 Cultural Resources – Chapter 5.0 Mandatory CEQA Topics – Cumulative Impact Analysis •
Land Use and Planning: – Chapter 3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis – Section 3.4 Land Use and Planning – Chapter 5.0 Mandatory CEQA Topics – Cumulative Impact Analysis
1. Introduction City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 1-4 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 • Mineral Resources: – Chapter 3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis – Section 3.5
Mineral Resources – Chapter 5.0 Mandatory CEQA Topics – Cumulative Impact Analysis • Public Services and Utilities: – Chapter 3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis -Section 3.6 Public Services
and Utilities – Chapter 5.0 Mandatory CEQA Topics – Cumulative Impact Analysis • Traffic Impacts: – Chapter 3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis – Section 3.7 Transportation and Traffic
– Chapter 5.0 Mandatory CEQA Topics – Cumulative Impact Analysis The following two issues were raised by agencies and the public during the revised NOP public comment period. These two
additional issue areas have been included and analyzed in this EIR in response to agency/public comments. Reference is provided as to where the issue is addressed in this EIR. The thresholds
used to determine whether or not effects are significant are included in the “Thresholds of Significance” section for each topic discussion in this EIR. • Noise: – Chapter 3.0 Environmental
Impact Analysis -Section 3.8 Noise – Chapter 5.0 Mandatory CEQA Topics – Cumulative Impact Analysis • Recreation: – Chapter 3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis – Section 3.9 Recreation
– Chapter 5.0 Mandatory CEQA Topics – Cumulative Impact Analysis 1.5 Effects Found Not to Be Significant Effects Found not to be Significant during Preparation of the NOP The CEQA provides
that an EIR shall focus on the significant effects on the environment, discussing the effects with emphasis in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. Effects dismissed
in an initial study as clearly insignificant and unlikely to occur need not be discussed further in the EIR unless information inconsistent with the finding in the initial study is subsequently
received. Section of 21100 (c) of the Public Resources Code states that an EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a
project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR. Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines adds, “Such a statement may be contained
in an attached copy of an Initial Study.” The first Initial Study/NOP (April 19, 2007) prepared and circulated for public review concluded that the proposed development would not result
in significant impacts to the following: Aesthetics, Agriculture Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geological and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology
and Water Quality, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems. The basis for elimination of each relevant impact in these issue areas is
documented in the appended first NOP document (Appendix A). The first NOP determined that several issue areas may have significant effects on
1. Introduction City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 1-5 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 the environment. Impacts related to the following issues were found to be potentially
significant in the first NOP: Air Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, and Transportation and Traffic. Based on the Initial Study and NOP comments received, the Draft EIR
circulated on February 22, 2008 included an evaluation of the project’s impacts on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, public
services and utilities, and transportation and traffic. The revised NOP (July 28, 2008) determined that the proposed project may have significant effects on the environment, which are
therefore discussed further in Section 3.0 of this document. Impacts related to the following issues were found to be potentially significant in the revised NOP: Air Quality, Biological
Resources, Cultural Resources, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Public Services, Recreation, and Transportation and Traffic. Effects Found not to be Significant as Part
of the EIR Process Based on the analysis provided herein, the following areas were found to not have significant impacts. However, some of the following issue areas include mitigation
measures to address potential impacts. Biological Resources Although the revised NOP (Appendix A) prepared for the proposed project found that impacts upon Biological Resources were
potentially significant, the analysis performed during the Draft EIR process determined that the proposed project’s potential impacts to Biological Resources will be less than significant
after mitigation measures as detailed in Section 3.2 because the land use designations in the proposed General Plan Amendment and pre-zoning have designated all the land in the Santa
Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER) as “Open Space” (OS). Further, the proposed General Plan policies and zoning allow only one residence per ten acres and include regulations to buffer
such development from the SMER and avoid interference with linkages for the species in the area and to preserve habitat for the species that now inhabit the area. Please see the Biological
Resources analysis in Section 3.2 of this document for a detailed discussion of this finding. Cultural Resources Although the revised NOP (Appendix A) prepared for the proposed project
found that the proposed project would have less than significant impacts upon Cultural Resources; in response to comments received during the first and revised NOP comment period and
at the community scoping meeting regarding the proposed project, a discussion of potential impacts to Cultural Resources has been included in this Draft EIR. The analysis performed during
the Draft EIR process determined that the proposed project’s impacts to Cultural Resources will be less than significant since there is no development associated with the SMER and that
potential impacts related to development of the privately-owned property within the annexation area can be mitigated to less than significant levels. Please see the Cultural Resources
analysis in Section 3.3 of this document for a detailed discussion of this finding.
1. Introduction City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 1-6 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Land Use and Planning The revised NOP for the proposed project (Appendix A)
concluded that impacts related to Land Use and Planning would be potentially significant. However, the analysis performed during the Draft EIR process determined that the proposed project’s
adoption of land use and zoning designations were substantially consistent with the scope and intensity of Riverside County’s (County) General Plan and zoning designations and that the
proposed project area new designations were consistent with surrounding land use designations and zoning. Although most of the annexation area is located within a mineral resource zone
(MRZ)-3 area, a portion of the site (Liberty Quarry) has recently been designated as a MRZ-2a zone. The proposed project will result in zoning and general plan land use designations
that would not allow mining operations being placed upon the project site. Loss of this one-use activity, mining and quarry operations, under the Rural Residential (R-R) land use does
not preclude the primary use of the property which is for residential development. Additionally, a change in land use from existing uses to mining
would be inconsistent with policies designed to protect the environment, including the SMER and County open-space and preservation policies. The proposed City land use regulations would
not allow mining, therefore eliminating any potential land use impacts that would result from mining. Therefore, impacts were found to be less than significant. Please see the Land Use
and Planning analysis in Section 3.4 of this document for a detailed discussion of this finding. For the purposes of this DEIR, the impact analysis will focus on the proposed project
which is the proposed 4,997-acre Santa Margarita Area Annexation project which includes: (1) General Plan Amendment to adopt land use designations for 4,443 acres of the annexation area
(OS and Hillside Residential (HR), 1 DU/10 AC located outside of the City’s current sphere of influence; (2) adoption of pre-zoning to implement the General Plan land use designations,
which will be conditioned on LAFCO approval of the annexation; (3) resolutions of application to LAFCO for an expansion of the City’s sphere of influence to include the portion of the
annexation area not already in the City sphere of influence and for annexation of the project area to the City; and (4) LAFCO consideration of the proposed sphere expansion and annexation.
An evaluation of impacts associated with development of a surface mining operation for the extraction of aggregate resources will only be evaluated under Alternative 3 within Chapter
5, which analyzes impacts from development of the project site in accordance with its current County general plan designation. Public Services and Utilities Although the revised NOP
(Appendix A) prepared for the proposed project found that the proposed project would not have any impacts upon Public Services and Utilities, and because the proposed project includes
the annexation of the project area into the City, a discussion of potential impacts to Public Services and Utilities has been included in this Draft EIR. Analysis performed during the
Draft EIR process determined that implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to public services and utilities. Please see the Public Services and
Utilities analysis in Section 3.6 of this document for a detailed discussion of this finding.
1. Introduction City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 1-7 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Recreation The revised NOP for the proposed project (Appendix A) concluded that
impacts related to Recreation would be potentially significant. However, the analysis performed during the Draft EIR process determined that the proposed change of the land use designation
and General Plan Amendment define the same level of residential land use intensity for both land use descriptions in an area expected to have steep slopes and development constraints;
that is to limit land use activities to 1 DU/10 AC with ancillary uses. As described in Section 3.9, if optimal development occurs, the project area can expect development of approximately
81 new single-family homes.1 Based on the City’s standard single-family occupancy rate of 3.24 persons per home the project area could become home to approximately 263 additional residents.2
The City’s standard for park acreage is 5.0 acres of usable City-owned parkland per per 1,000 residents. Through the payment of in-lieu fees, dedication of parks, and the joint use of
school facilities, the City anticipates having sufficient parkland to meet the needs of the City residents through year 2013; as such, the increase in projected residents, should optimal
development occur, would be considered negligible. Therefore, the project would not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment. Please see the Recreation analysis in Section 3.9 of this document for a detailed discussion of this finding. 1.6 Potentially Significant Environmental Effects
Sections 15126, 15126.2 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines require consideration and discussion of significant environmental effects and mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant
effects. All phases of a project must be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment: planning, acquisition, development, and operation (Section 15126) and an EIR shall
identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project (Section 15126.2). Section 3.0 of this EIR addresses each environmental effect that was determined
to be potentially significant during preparation of the revised NOP prepared for this project (Appendix A). The environmental effect is organized into an issue area, as listed below.
Potential impacts upon air quality, mineral resources, transportation/traffic and noise were found to be significant and cannot be mitigated to below the level of significance. A Statement
of Overriding Consideration will be required for these issue areas in order for the proposed project to be approved. Please see the following referenced sections of this EIR for more
detailed discussion of each issue area: 1 Each existing lot, regardless of size, may be developed with one dwelling unit. Therefore, when the maximum number of lots that can be created
from existing 20 acre and larger lots is added to the number of lots smaller than 10 acres (that cannot be further subdivided), an estimated 81 new dwelling units may be developed within
that portion of the project area with the Hillside Residential designation 2 It is noted that the County of Riverside General Plan utilizes a population generation rate of 3.01 persons
per dwelling unit. Use of the County of Riverside generation rate results in an estimated population increase of 244 persons within the project area.
1. Introduction City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 1-8 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 • Air Quality (Section 3.1) • Biological Resources (Section 3.2) • Cultural
Resources (Section 3.3) • Land Use and Planning (Section 3.4) • Mineral Resources (Section 3.5) • Public Facilities and Utilities (Section 3.6) • Transportation and Traffic (Section
3.7) • Noise (Section 3.8) • Recreation (Section 3.9) 1.7 Uses of this EIR As the designated Lead Agency, the City has assumed responsibility for preparing this document. The decision
to implement the project and seek approval from LAFCO is within the purview of the Temecula City Council. The City Council will use the information included in this EIR to consider potential
impacts to the physical environment associated with the project when making its decision regarding the project. The original Draft EIR was circulated to local, state and federal agencies,
and to interested organizations and individuals who wished to review and comment on the Draft EIR. Publication of the Draft EIR marked the beginning of a 45-day public review period
which extended from February 22, 2008 until April 7, 2008. This Draft EIR will be 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 should be sent on or before November 5, 2008 by the close of business to: Steve Brown Principle Planner City of Temecula Planning
Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Steve.Brown@cityoftemecula.org (e-mail) 951.694.6400 (phone) 951.694.6477 (fax) In addition to the Temecula City Council,
LAFCO will use the EIR to consider the potential impacts associated with the proposed project, when considering whether to approve the sphere of influence expansion and annexation of
the project site into the City. Regulatory agencies, such as the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB), may use the EIR and supporting documentation in their decision to issue permits related to any future proposed development of the subject property.
City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-1 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 CHAPTER 2 Project Description The proposed project (PA07-0226 and PA 07-0225) is the annexation
of approximately 4,997 acres of unincorporated County territory to the City. Approximately 554 acres of the area proposed to be annexed is already in the City’s sphere of influence.
The project includes a (1) General Plan Amendment to adopt land use designations for 4,443 acres of the annexation area (OS and HR, 1 DU/10 AC) located outside of the City’s current
sphere of influence; (2) adoption of pre-zoning to implement the General Plan land use designations, which will be conditioned on LAFCO approval of the annexation; (3) resolutions of
application to LAFCO for an expansion of the City’s sphere of influence to include the portion of the annexation area not already in the City sphere of influence and for annexation of
the project area to the City; and (4) LAFCO consideration of the proposed sphere expansion and annexation. 2.1 Project Location The SMAA project site is comprised of approximately 4,997
acres located in the unincorporated portion of Riverside County, along the northern side of the San Diego-Riverside County line and west of Interstate 15 (I-15) and the City (see Figure
2-1). This area is comprised of Riverside County’s portion of the SMER and adjacent properties (see Figure 2-2). 2.2 Site Description The project site consists of approximately 4,997
acres of publicly and privately owned primarily undeveloped land; most of which is undisturbed natural open space within the SMER. The majority of the area is comprised of steep hills
with scattered outcroppings of granite boulders, sloping in a southwesterly direction with elevations ranging from approximately 530 feet to 2,330 feet above mean sea level (msl). Within
the lower reaches of the project area is the Santa Margarita River which flows year round. From the river bottom up into the hills are many seasonal drainages. Within the entire 4,997-acre
project area there are only six occupied dwelling units with two dwelling units occasionally used by the San Diego State University (SDSU) Field Station Program to house researchers.
The remaining privately-held properties, outside of the SMER, are currently vacant. At various locations within the SMER are scientific monitoring stations related to SDSU’s research
programs. The pristine nature of this area has made it a valuable resource for ecological study (see Figure 2-3).
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 2-1 Regional Map SOURCE: County of Riverside, 2007 North Not to Scale
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 2-2 Vicinity Map SOURCE: Webb Associates North Not to Scale
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 2-3 The Santa Margarita Area Annexation SOURCE: Air Photo USA, February 2007 County of Riverside, 2007 North Not to Scale
2. Project Description City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-5 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 The project area includes 718 acres of private property within which
only four lots are developed with single-family homes. Two of the six homes within the project area are part of the SMER and are only occupied by those individuals conducting research.
The other four occupied properties are primarily large ranch estates involved with agriculture or equestrian activities. The SMER is a key part of preserving the entire Santa Margarita
River, one of the last freeflowing rivers in coastal southern California, and its rich ecosystem. The Santa Margarita River officially begins northeast of the project site, at the confluence
of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek at the Temecula city limits. The River flows through the Temecula Gorge and ultimately empties into the ocean through the largely undisturbed lands
of Camp Pendleton. The upper watershed of the Santa Margarita River is thus the combined watersheds of Temecula and Murrieta Creeks (see Figure 2-4). Within the project area 4,284 acres
have a Riverside County General Plan Land Use Designation of “Open Space-Conservation Habitat” (OS-CH) while the remaining 713 acres are designated “Rural Mountainous” (RM). The OS-CH
designation applies to public and private lands conserved and managed in accordance with adopted Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and other conservation plans. The
RM designation is for single-family residential uses with a minimum lot size of 10 acres. Within this designation there is an allowance for limited animal keeping, agriculture, recreational
uses, compatible resource development (which may include the commercial extraction of mineral resources with approval of a surface mining permit) and associated uses and governmental
uses. Currently, most of the project area is zoned “Rural Residential” (R-R). The R-R zone allows a minimum lot size of 0.5 acres. A small area comprised of 118 acres is currently zoned
R-A-20 20 (Residential Agricultural with a 20-acre minimum lot size). The majority of the private properties currently have a Riverside County Land Use designation of RM (see Figure
2-5 and Figure 2-6). 2.3 Project Description The proposed project is the annexation of 4,997 acres into the City which will include a Sphere of Influence expansion for the city; an amendment
to its General Plan Land Use Map designating the land uses within the sphere of influence expansion areas; the pre-zoning of the annexation area with zoning designation consistent with
the land use designation; and seeking approval for the annexation from LAFCO. The proposed SMAA includes the following land use applications: Planning Application PA07-0225 Planning
Application PA07-0225 consists of two components an amendment to the city of Temecula General Plan (General Plan Amendment) and the Pre-zoning of the subject property (Change of Zone)
described as follows:
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 2-4 The Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve SOURCE: San Diego State University USGS North Not to Scale
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 2-5 Southwest Area Plan-Land Use Designations SOURCE: Riverside County General Plan, October 2003 North Not to Scale
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 2-6 Riverside County-Zoning Designations SOURCE: County of Riverside, 2003 North Not to Scale
2. Project Description City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-9 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 • General Plan Amendment proposing to amend the General Plan’s Land Use
Map with land use designations over the 4,443 acres of the subject property located outside of the city of Temecula’s current sphere of influence. The 477 acres currently designated
RM 1 DU/10 AC in Riverside County will become HR 1 DU/10 AC in the city of Temecula, 3,961 acres of the 3,966 acres designated OS-CH in the County would be designated OS in the City
and 5 acres currently designated OS-CH in the County will become HR 1 DU/10 AC in the city of Temecula (see Figure 2-7). • Change of Zone proposing the pre-zoning of approximately 4,997
acres with zoning designations which follow the same boundaries used for the general plan land use designations including 4,279 acres with a zoning district of “Conservation-Santa Margarita”
(OS-C-SM); and 718 acres designated with a zoning district of “Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita” (HR-SM), allowing development of 1 DU/10 AC (see Figure 2-8). Planning Application
PA07-0226 • Sphere of Influence Expansion proposing the expansion of the city of Temecula’s sphere of influence to include that 4,443-acre portion of the 4,997-acre SMAA outside of the
city’s current sphere of influence, with ultimate approval by LAFCO. • Annexation proposing the annexation of the SMAA consisting of approximately 4,997 acres into the city of Temecula,
with ultimate approval by LAFCO (see Figure 2-3). Pre-zoning applies to land, which is adjacent to the current City boundaries, but is not yet part of the City. The pre-zoning process
provides a description of the activities the City would potentially allow on subject property once it becomes part of the City. The approval and implementation of the previously outlined
planning applications by the City and LAFCO would result in the ability of the underlying private landowners to potentially develop on a 718 acre area under the HR-SM zoning designation,
which is limited to 1 DU/10 AC and which will permit a maximum of 81 new dwelling units to be built. The City’s designation does allow a number of uses other than residential (i.e. churches,
educational facilities, libraries, day care centers, bed and breakfast establishments). A variety of open space/conservation compatible land uses would also be allowed under these proposed
general plan and zoning designations. The location of the 718 acre area, where potential development of future dwelling units could occur, is shown in Figure 2-9. A total of 81 single-family
dwelling units is considered a worst case scenario, as the actual development of these dwelling units is heavily constrained by numerous environmental and physical design constraints
including: topography; domestic water supply; wastewater disposal; dry utilities; primary and secondary access; land-locked parcels; geotechnical considerations; onsite fire department
water storage requirements (a minimum of 120,000 gallons per dwelling unit) and emergency access requirements; sensitive habitat and species issues; and MSHCP conservation requirements.
It should be noted that it is considered highly unlikely that any residential parcel could meet these development requirements on an individual basis. The proposed hillside development
standards would require specific setback, massing, landscaping and fuel modification requirements, and would prohibit
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 2-7 City of Temecula-Proposed General Plan Amendment Land Use Designations SOURCE: City of Temecula, June 2007, Riverside County
GIS, 2007 North Not to Scale
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 2-8 Proposed Pre-Zoning SOURCE: City of Temecula, June 2007, Riverside County GIS, 2007 North Not to Scale -sm -sm
Riverside County San Diego County City of Temecula LEGEND City of Temecula Boundary Project Boundary Parcels City of Temecula Hillside Residential 1 Dwelling Unit /10 Acres 79 15 City
of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 2-9 Proposed Project Land Plan SOURCE: City of Temecula, June 2007, Riverside County GIS, 2007 North Not to Scale
2. Project Description City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-13 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 mass grading and wholesale vegetation clearing for agricultural purposes.
As such, individual dwelling units would be constructed as custom homes and would be required to incorporate sensitive design considerations into the planning of each site. It is not
possible to forecast when all 81 units would be constructed, as it is dependent on the intentions of each underlying landowner, market conditions and the economic feasibility of complying
with the above-outlined environmental, physical and design constraints. A reasonable phasing assumption would entail development of 5 homes per year, which would require 16 years to
construct all 81 single-family dwelling units allowed under the proposed planning applications. However, in order to implement a worst case scenario to be analyzed in this document,
it will be assumed that all 81 single-family units will be developed by 2015, and all impact analyses in this document will be based on the residential units being constructed by this
year. 2.4 Project Objectives A clear statement of project objectives allows for the analysis of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. A range of reasonable alternatives, both
on-and off-site, that would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening the significant effects of the project, must be analyzed per
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. The City has identified the following planning objectives for the SMAA: • To integrate the SMAA area into the City’s General Plan, adopting general plan
and zoning amendments that establish the general framework for ultimate development within the study area. • To preserve public lands within the SMAA area in natural open space; while
retaining the existing rural residential/agricultural character of privately-owned lands. • To protect the research value of the SMER by prohibiting incompatible land uses within adjacent
properties. 2.5 Environmental Setting Geology and Soils The project site is located at the southern end of the Temescal Valley located in western Riverside County. The Temescal Valley
can generally be described as ranging from the Riverside County/Orange County line east to the Perris Valley and from the city of Corona south to the Riverside County/San Diego County
line. The northern portion of the Temescal Valley including the Lake Elsinore area, generally drains north into the Santa Ana River; while the southern portion of Temescal Valley generally
drains south into the Santa Margarita River by way of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek. The Temescal Valley area is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Range province and
is dominated by rocks of the southern California batholith. The multiple intrusives of the batholith have invaded older metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks of Paleozoic through early
Cretaceous ages (570 to 98 million years ago). Bodies of these metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks now crop out along the edges of the batholithic rocks and as roof pendants
2. Project Description City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-14 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 within batholithic rocks. Rocks of Late Cretaceous through Holocene
age (98 million years ago to the present) were deposited over the eroded surfaces of these older rocks and crop out in the major drainages. These younger rocks are mostly conglomerates,
claystones, and sandstones of marine and continental origin. Typical rock types that can be found in this area include: • Pre-Batholithic Rocks: Jurupa Complex (gneiss, schist, quartzite
and marble), Bedford Canyon Formation (quartzites, slates, and argillites), Santiago Peak Volcanics (pyrite and pyrrhotite), Temescal Wash Quartz Latite Porphyry (porphyritic quartz
latite). • Southern California Batholith Rocks: Gabbro, quartz diorite, granodiorite, and granite. (Silica, feldspar, lithium minerals, micas and gemstones.) • Post-Batholithic Rocks:
Cretaceous Formations (sandstone, cobble and small boulder conglomerate, siltstone and shale), Silverado Formation (marine clays, silts, quartz and arkosic sands), Vaqueros and Sespe
Formations (sandstone and conglomerate). The City is located in one of the most seismically active areas of southern California. The city is traversed by the Elsinore fault and has historically
experienced earthquakes of moderate magnitude. The Elsinore fault zone, which is located in proximity to the eastern boundary of the SMAA, is one of the largest in southern California
and in historical times, has been one of the quietest. The southeastern extension of the Elsinore fault zone, the Laguna Salada fault, ruptured in 1892 in a magnitude 7.0 earthquake,
but the main trace of the Elsinore fault zone has only seen one historical event greater than magnitude 5.2: the magnitude 6.0 earthquake of 1910 near Temescal Valley, which produced
no known surface rupture and did little damage. Other faults surrounding the City include the San Andreas, San Jacinto, San Gabriel, Newport-Inglewood, Sierra Madre-Santa Susana-Cucamonga,
Rose Canyon, Coronado Banks, San Diego Trough, and San Clemente Island faults. The eastern portion of the annexation area is part of Cieneba-Rock land-Fallbrook association that is characterized
by well-drained and somewhat excessively drained soils. Typically, these soils are very shallow to moderately deep soils in undulating to steep areas and have a surface layer of sandy
loam and fine sandy loam on a granitic rock base. The western portion of the annexation area is identified as being within the Cajalco-Temescal-Las Posas association which is characterized
as well-drained soils in undulating to steep areas. These soils are moderately deep to shallow soils that have a surface layer of fine sandy loam and loam found on gabbro and latiteporphyry.
According to the soil survey information from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the primary soil types within the project boundary are Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15 to
50 percent slopes, eroded (CbF2), Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded (CkF2), Fallbrook rocky sandy loam, shallow, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded (FcF2), Las Posas
rocky loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, severely eroded (LkF3) and Rockland (RtF). A number of other soil types are found within the project boundary in small quantities throughout the
site.
2. Project Description City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-15 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Air Quality The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air
Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAB consists of Orange County, the coastal and mountain portions of Los
Angeles County, as well as Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Regional and local air quality within the SCAB is affected by topography, atmospheric inversions, and dominant onshore
flows. Topographic features such as the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains form natural horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. The presence of
atmospheric inversions limits the vertical dispersion of air pollutants. With an inversion, the temperature initially follows a normal pattern of decreasing temperature with increasing
altitude, however, at some elevation, the trend reverses and temperature begins to increase as altitude increases. This transition to increasing temperature establishes the effective
mixing height of the atmosphere and acts as a barrier to vertical dispersion of pollutants. Dominant onshore flow provides the driving mechanism for both air pollution transport and
pollutant dispersion. Air pollution generated in coastal areas is transported east to inland receptors by the onshore flow during the daytime until a natural barrier (the mountains)
is confronted, limiting the horizontal dispersion of pollutants. The result is a gradual degradation of air quality from coastal areas to inland areas, which is most evident with the
photochemical pollutants such as ozone formed under reactions with sunlight. The project site is located within SCAQMD Source Receptor Area (SRA) 25. The most recent published data applicable
to SRA 25 indicates that the baseline air quality conditions in the project area include occasional events of very unhealthful air. However, the frequency of smog alerts has dropped
significantly in the last decade. Ozone (O3)and particulates are the two most significant air quality concerns in the project area. The yearly monitoring records document that prior
to 1997, approximately one-third or more of the days each year experienced a violation of the state hourly ozone standard, with around ten days annually reaching first stage alert levels
of 0.20 parts per million (ppm) for one hour. It is encouraging to note that ozone levels have dropped significantly in the last few years with less than one-fifth of the days each year
experiencing a violation of the state hourly ozone standard since 1997. Locally, no second stage alert (0.35 ppm/hour) has been called by SCAQMD in the last ten years. The California
Air Resources Board (CARB) maintains records as to the attainment status of air basins throughout the state, under both state and federal criteria. The portion of the SCAB within which
the proposed project is located is designated as a non-attainment area for ozone, particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM-10), and Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns (PM-2.5)
under both state and federal standards. Detailed discussions of the air quality setting and air pollution related
to the project site are included in Section 3.1 (Air Quality) of this document.
2. Project Description City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-16 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Biological Resources The City is located within the western Riverside
County MSHCP area. The overall biological goal of the MSHCP is to maintain and restore biological diversity and natural ecosystem processes that support diversity in natural areas within
western Riverside County known to support threatened, endangered or key sensitive populations of plant and wildlife species. The MSHCP identifies five geographic locations within the
City and surrounding areas that contain potential regional wildlife corridor linkages, including French Valley, Lower Tucalota Creek, Temecula Creek, Pechanga Creek, and Murrieta Creek.
Additionally, the Santa Ana Palomar Mountains Linkage straddles the San Diego County Northern MSHCP and the Riverside County Western MSHCP. This jurisdictional division placed an artificial
boundary directly through the Linkage. The SMAA project site consists of approximately 4,997 4,997 acres of primarily undeveloped land and a 5-mile stretch of the protected Santa Margarita
River. The majority of the project area is undisturbed and is in a pristine natural area, of which 4,279 acres have been conserved in the SMER within the project boundary. The SMER is
part of a “Special Linkage Area” of the Riverside County MSHCP. The SMER lies in the chaparral/coastal sage and scrub/oak woodland vegetation zone of southern California. The climate
is Mediterranean, with cool wet winters and warm summers moderated by the marine influence of the Pacific Ocean that lies 18 miles (30 kilometers (km)) to the west. Mean annual precipitation
is approximately 400 mm and the mean annual temperature about 16.4°C. The topography is complex consisting of low hills and intervening drainages. The majority of the area is comprised
of steep hills with scattered outcroppings of granite boulders sloping in a southwesterly direction with elevations ranging from approximately 530 feet to 2,330 feet above msl. The northern
portion of the reserve is dominated by the deep gorge of the Santa Margarita River. Most of the project site is covered by low shrub vegetation, a mosaic of mixed chaparral, chamise
chaparral, and coastal sage, oak and riparian woodlands are found in the deeper drainages. Sycamore, cottonwood, and willow forests are part of a protected riparian corridor in the SMER.
Coast live oak occurs along ephemeral drainages. The upland areas of the reserve support coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral. Some native grassland occurs in small isolated
patches. Scattered self-seeded orange, avocado and eucalyptus groves are also found throughout the project area. The SDSU Field Station Program for the SMER has conducted significant
research of natural communities found within the reserve. The research has documented the observation of 181 animal species within the SMER. Additionally, the California Department of
Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and SMER records identify 20 sensitive species species as occurring within or in proximity to the annexation area. Two of these species,
least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica ) are federally and/or state listed endangered species. Other sensitive wildlife
species documented within the
2. Project Description City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-17 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 SMER include: two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii), northern
red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber ruber), Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii), Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus), Bell’s Sage Sparrow (Amphispiza belli belli), Golden Eagle
(Aquila chrysaetos), White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus), Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), Orange-throated Whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus), western spadefoot toad (Spea
hammondii), southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata pallida), and Arroyo chub (Gila orcuttii). The research has documented the observation of 331 plant species. Three sensitive
plant species, the San Diego thorn mint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia), rainbow manzanita (Arctostaphylos rainbowensis) and Parry’s tetracoccus (Tetracoccus dioicus). A CNPS species 1B.2
plant has been documented on the project site during SDSU surveys. San Diego thorn mint is a federally listed threatened and California listed endangered species. Rainbow manzanita is
a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) list 1B.1 species. Mineral Resources Riverside County has diverse mineral resources, including extensive deposits of clay, limestone, iron, sand,
and aggregates that have been influential in the development of the area and serve as an important component of the County’s economy. Riverside County consists predominantly of igneous
and metamorphic rock with some sedimentary units. They vary from hard rock underlying steep slopes of the San Jacinto Mountains to the weathered granitic rocks of Joshua Tree National
Park and hillsides near the city of Riverside. Alluvial (river) valleys between these mountain ranges contain sediments with significant variation in thickness. Some valleys are filled
with a few hundred feet of Pleistocene and Holocene sediments, whereas others, such as the Coachella, San Jacinto and Elsinore Valleys, contain several thousand feet to several miles
of sediment. The thickest sediments have been deposited in basins that are being pulled apart by the movement of tectonic plates. In the Temescal Valley, where the SMER area is located
typical rock types that can be found include: • Pre-Batholithic Rocks: Jurupa Complex (gneiss, schist, quartzite and marble), Bedford Canyon Formation (quartzites, slates, and argillites),
Santiago Peak Volcanics (pyrite and pyrrhotite), Temescal Wash Quartz Latite Porphyry (porphyritic quartz latite). • Southern California Batholith Rocks: Gabbro, quartz diorite, granodiorite,
and granite. (Silica, feldspar, lithium minerals, micas and gemstones). • Post-Batholithic Rocks: Cretaceous Formations (sandstone, cobble and small boulder conglomerate, siltstone and
shale), Silverado Formation (marine clays, silts, quartz and arkosic sands), Vaqueros and Sespe Formations (sandstone and conglomerate). The site specifically has rock types that include
primarily Cretaceous igneous granitic rocks, Jurassic marine sedimentary rocks and Mesozoic basic intrusive rocks. Cretaceous-age granitic bedrock is exposed throughout the area. The
bedrock is comprised primarily of quartz and feldspar.
2. Project Description City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-18 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 The County of Riverside General Plan shows that the SMER area is located
within an MRZ-3 zone; indicating that available geologic information indicates that mineral resources are likely to exist, but the significance of the deposit is undetermined. The County
General Plan, however, recognizes that further exploration work could result in the reclassification of all or part of these areas into the specific localities into MRZ-21 category.
Granite Construction Company submitted a petition to the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) dated December 18, 2006, for mineral land classification of the proposed Liberty Quarry
project located in Riverside County. In accordance with the “Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands”, the State Geologist reviewed the petition and recommended
acceptance of the petition by the SMGB. At its regular business meeting held on March 8, 2007, the SMGB accepted the petition and instructed the State Geologist to commence the classification
study. The State Geologist subsequently investigated and reclassified a portion of the Temecula 7.5 minute Quadrangle, Riverside County, from MRZ-3a to MRZ-2a for Portland cement concrete
(PCC) aggregate, as documented in California Geological Survey Special Report 200, “Mineral Land Classification of the Granite Construction Company Liberty Quarry Site, Temecula, Riverside
County, California”. On June 14, 2007, the SMGB found that the report had been prepared in accordance with the SMGB’s guidelines and policies, and accepted the report. For the purposes
of this Draft EIR, the impact analysis will focus on the proposed project which is the proposed 4,997-acre SMAA project which includes: (1) General Plan Amendment to adopt land use designations
for 4,443 acres of the annexation area (OS and HR, 1 DU/10 AC) located outside of the City’s current sphere of influence; (2) adoption of pre-zoning to implement the General Plan land
use designations, which will be conditioned on LAFCO approval of the annexation; (3) resolutions of application to LAFCO for an expansion of the City’s sphere of influence to include
the portion of the annexation area not already in the City sphere of influence and for annexation of the project area to the City; and (4) LAFCO consideration of the proposed sphere
expansion and annexation. An evaluation of impacts associated with development of a surface mining operation for the extraction of aggregate resources will only be evaluated under Alternative
3 within Chapter 5, which analyzes impacts from development of the project site in accordance with its current general plan designation. 2.6 Discretionary Actions and Approvals The EIR
serves as an informational document for use by public agencies, the general public, and decision makers. This EIR discusses the impacts of development pursuant to the proposed project
and related components and analyzes project alternatives. This EIR will be used by the City and responsible agencies in assessing impacts of the proposed project. The following public
officials and agencies will use this EIR when considering the following actions: 1 The MRZ-2 designation means that adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are
present or there is a high likelihood for their presence and development should be controlled.
2. Project Description City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-19 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 City of Temecula Planning Commission 1. Recommendation to the Temecula
City Council for Certification of the Final EIR EA-128. 2. Recommendation to the Temecula City Council regarding approval of Planning Application PA07-0226 consisting of: • Sphere of
Influence Expansion proposing the expansion of the city of Temecula’s sphere of influence to include that 4,443-acre portion of the 4,997-acre SMAA outside of the city’s current sphere
of influence. • Annexation proposing the annexation of the SMAA consisting of approximately 4,997 acres into the city of Temecula 3. Recommendation to the Temecula City Council regarding
approval of Planning Application PA07-0225 consisting of: • General Plan Amendment proposing to update the General Plan’s Land Use Map with land use designations over 4,443 acres of
the SMAA is located outside of the city’s current sphere of influence. The 477 acres currently designated RM (1 DU/10 AC) in Riverside County will become HR (1 DU/10 AC) in the city
of Temecula, and 3,961 acres of the 3,966 acres designated OS-CH in the County would be designated OS in the City and 5 acres currently designated OS-CH in the County will become HR
(1 DU/10 AC) in the city of Temecula. • Change of Zone proposing the pre-zoning of approximately 4,997 acres with zoning designations which will follow same boundaries used for the general
plan land use designations including 4,279 acres with a zoning district of OS-C-SM; and 718 acres designated with a zoning district of HR-SM, allowing development of one dwelling unit
per 10 acres. City of Temecula City Council 1. Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report EA-128. 2. Approval of Planning Application PA07-0226 consisting of: • Sphere of
Influence Expansion proposing the expansion of the city of Temecula’s sphere of influence to include that 4,443-acre portion of the 4,997-acre SMAA outside of the City’s current sphere
of influence. • Annexation proposing the annexation of the SMAA consisting of approximately 4,997 acres into the city of Temecula. 3. Approval of Planning Application PA07-0225 consisting
of: • General Plan Amendment proposing to update the General Plan’s Land Use Map with land use designations over the 4,443 acres of the SMAA is located outside of the City’s current
sphere of influence. The 477 acres currently designated RM (1 DU/10 AC) in Riverside County will become HR (1 DU/10 AC) in the city of Temecula, and 3,961 acres of the 3,966 acres designated
OS-CH in the County would be designated OS in the City and 5 acres currently designated OS-CH in the County will become HR (1 DU/10 AC) in the city of Temecula.
2. Project Description City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 2-20 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 • Change of Zone proposing the pre-zoning of approximately 4,997 acres
with zoning designations which will follow the same boundaries used for the general plan land use designations including 4,279 acres with a zoning district of OS-C-SM; and 718 acres
designated with a zoning district of HR-SM, allowing development of 1 DU/10 AC. Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 1. Approval of Sphere of Influence Expansion expanding
the city of Temecula’s sphere of influence to include that 4,443-acre portion of the 4,997-acre SMAA outside of the City’s current sphere of influence. 2. Approval of Annexation of the
SMAA consisting of approximately 4,997 acres into the city of Temecula.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-1 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 3.1 Air Quality 3.1.1 Introduction
Potential impacts related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial point source emissions and the construction of sensitive receptors were found to be less than significant in
the Initial Study/NOP prepared for this project (Appendix A). The focus of the following discussion is related to the potential impacts related to the project’s consistency with applicable
air quality plans, compliance with air quality standards, cumulative increases of criteria air pollutants, and the production of odors. 3.1.2 Setting Physical Setting The proposed project
is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAB consists of Orange County, the coastal and mountain portions of Los Angeles County, as well as Riverside
and San Bernardino Counties. Regional and local air quality within the SCAB is affected by topography, atmospheric inversions, and dominant onshore flows. Topographic features such as
the Santa Ana and Palomar Mountains form natural horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. The presence of atmospheric inversions limits the vertical dispersion of air
pollutants. With an inversion, the temperature initially follows a normal pattern of decreasing temperature with increasing altitude, however, at some elevation, the trend reverses and
temperature begins to increase as altitude increases. This transition to increasing temperature establishes the effective mixing height of the atmosphere and acts as a barrier to vertical
dispersion of pollutants. Dominant onshore flow provides the driving mechanism for both air pollution transport and pollutant dispersion. Air pollution generated in coastal areas is
transported east to inland receptors by the onshore flow during the daytime until a natural barrier (the mountains) is confronted, limiting the horizontal dispersion of pollutants. The
result is a gradual degradation of air quality from coastal areas to inland areas, which is most evident with the photochemical pollutants such as ozone formed under reactions with sunlight.
Climate Terrain and geographical location determine climate in the SCAB. The project site lies within the terrain of the Santa Margarita watershed, southeast of the Santa Ana Mountains
and northwest of the Palomar Mountain Range. The climate in the SCAB is typical of southern California’s Mediterranean climate, which is characterized by dry, warm summers and mild winters,
where winters typically have infrequent rainfall, light winds, and frequent early morning fog and clouds that turn to hazy afternoon sunshine. The following includes factors that govern
micro-climate differences among inland locations within the SCAB: 1) the distance of the mean air trajectory from the site to the ocean; 2) the site
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-2 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 elevation; 3) the
existence of any intervening terrain that may affect airflow or moisture content; and 4) the proximity to canyons or mountain passes. As a general rule, locations farthest inland from
the ocean have the hottest summer afternoons, the lowest rainfall, and the least amount of fog and clouds. Foothill communities in the SCAB have greater levels of precipitation, cooler
summer afternoons and may be exposed to wind funneling through nearby canyons during Santa Ana winds. Terrain will generally steer local wind patterns. The project site is located in
the unincorporated portion of Riverside County, along the northern side of the San Diego-Riverside County line and west of I-15 and the city limits of the city of Temecula; and is within
the eastern portion of the SCAB. Precipitation and Temperature Annual average temperatures in the SCAB are typically in the low to mid-60s (degrees Fahrenheit). Temperatures above 100
degrees are recorded for all portions of the SCAB during the summer months. The rainy season in the SCAB is November to April. Summer rainfall can occur as widely scattered thunderstorms
near the coast and in the mountainous regions in the eastern SCAB. Rainfall averages vary over the SCAB. The city of Riverside averages 9 inches of rainfall, while the city of Los Angeles
and the city of Temecula average 14 inches. Rainy days vary from 5 to 10 percent of all days in the SCAB, with the most frequent occurrences of rainfall near the coast. Winds The interaction
of land (offshore) and sea (onshore) breezes control local wind patterns in the area. Daytime winds typically flow from the coast to the inland areas, while the pattern typically reverses
in the evening, flowing from the inland areas to the ocean. Figure 3.1-1, Dominant Wind Patterns of the South Coast Air Basin shows dominant wind patterns of the SCAB. Air stagnation
may occur during the early evening and early morning during periods of transition between day and nighttime flows. Approximately 5 to 10 times a year, the project site vicinity experiences
strong, hot, dry desert winds known as the Santa Ana winds. These winds, associated with atmospheric high pressure, originate in the upper deserts and are channeled through the passes
of the San Bernardino Mountains into the inland valleys. Santa Ana winds can last for a period of hours or days, and gusts of over 60 miles per hour have been recorded. Santa Ana winds
affect dust generation characteristics and create the potential for off-site air quality impacts, especially with respect to airborne nuisance and particulate emissions. Local winds
in the project area are also an important meteorological parameter because they control the initial rate of dilution of locally-generated air pollutant emissions. Figure 3.1-2, Wind
Rose, shows the wind direction and speed frequency distribution in the project area. Categories of Emission Sources Air pollutant emissions sources are typically grouped into two categories:
stationary and mobile sources. These emission categories are defined and discussed in the following subsections.
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.1-1 Dominant Wind Patterns of the South Coast Air Basin SOURCE: SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Figure A8-1
Norco, California – 1981 January 1-December 31; Midnight-11PM Note: Data taken from the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Riverside Monitoring Station in Norco, California,
between January 1 and December 31, 1981 reflects the most recent data available. The Norco station is the closest station with data available and meteorological conditions similar to
those observed in the Temecula area. Calm winds: 8.70%. Direction of the colored bars show the direction the wind is blowing from, colors represent various wind speeds, and percentages
marked on rings indicate the percentage that the wind blows from that direction and at that particular wind speed. City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.1-1 Dominant
Wind Patterns of the South Coast Air Basin SOURCE: Webb Associates
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-5 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Stationary Sources
Stationary sources are divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. Point sources consist of a single emission source with an identified location at a facility. A single
facility could have multiple point sources located onsite. Stationary point sources are usually associated with manufacturing and industrial processes. Examples of point sources include
boilers or other types of combustion equipment at oil refineries, electric power plants, etc. Area sources are small emission sources that are widely distributed, but are cumulatively
substantial because there may be a large number of sources. Examples include residential water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and consumer
products, such as barbecue lighter fluid and hair spray. Mobile Sources Mobile sources are motorized vehicles, which are classified as either on-road or off-road. Onroad mobile sources
typically include automobiles and trucks that operate on public roadways. Off-road mobile sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction equipment that operate
off public roadways. Mobile source emissions are accounted for as both direct source emissions (those directly emitted by the individual source) and indirect source emissions, which
are sources that by themselves do not emit air contaminants but indirectly cause the generation of air pollutants by attracting vehicles. Examples of indirect sources include office
complexes, commercial and government centers, sports and recreational complexes, and residential developments. Air Pollution Constituents Air pollutants are classified as either primary,
or secondary, depending on how they are formed. Primary pollutants are generated daily and are emitted directly from a source into the atmosphere. Examples of primary pollutants include
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitric oxide (NO)—collectively known as oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulates (PM-10 and PM-2.5) and various hydrocarbons
(HC) or volatile organic compounds (VOC), which are also referred to as reactive organic gases (ROG). The predominant source of air emissions generated by the project development is
expected to be vehicle emissions. Motor vehicles primarily emit CO, NOX and VOC/ROG/HC. Secondary pollutants are created over time and occur within the atmosphere as chemical and photochemical
reactions take place. An example of a secondary pollutant is ozone (O3), which is one of the products formed when NOX reacts with HC, in the presence of sunlight. Other secondary pollutants
include photochemical aerosols. Secondary pollutants such as ozone represent major air quality problems in the SCAB. The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 established the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Six “criteria” air pollutants were identified using specific medical evidence available at that time, and NAAQS were established for those chemicals.
The state of California has adopted the same six chemicals as criteria pollutants, but has established different allowable levels. The six criteria pollutants are: carbon monoxide, nitrogen
dioxide, ozone, lead, PM-10,
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-6 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 PM-2.5, and sulfur
dioxide. The following is a further discussion of the criteria pollutants, as well as volatile organic compounds: Carbon Monoxide (CO) – A colorless, odorless toxic gas produced by incomplete
combustion of carbon-containing substances. It is a component of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes about 56 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. Other non-road engines and
vehicles, such as construction equipment and boats, contribute about 22 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. Higher levels of CO generally occur in areas with heavy traffic congestion.
Concentrations of CO are generally higher during the winter months when meteorological conditions favor the build-up of primary pollutants. Automobiles are the major source of CO in
the Basin, although various industrial processes also emit CO through incomplete combustion of fuels. In high concentrations, carbon monoxide can cause serious health problems in humans
by limiting the red blood cells’ ability to carry oxygen. The health threat from lower levels of CO is most serious for those who suffer from heart disease, like angina, clogged arteries,
or congestive heart failure. In those persons, a single exposure of CO at low levels may cause chest pain and reduce the ability to exercise; repeated exposures may contribute to other
cardiovascular effects. In healthy people, breathing high levels of CO may result in vision problems, reduced ability to work or learn reduced manual dexterity, and difficulty performing
complex tasks. At extreme high levels, CO is poisonous and can cause death. CO also contributes to the formation of smog ground-level ozone, which can trigger serious respiratory problems.
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) – The forms of nitrogen oxide that are important in air pollution are NO and NO2. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed by a combination of nitrogen and oxygen
when combustion takes place under high temperatures and pressures. NO2 is a reddish-brown gas formed by the combination of NO with oxygen. Combustion in motor vehicle engines, power
plants, refineries and other industrial operations, as well as ships, railroads and aircraft, are the primary sources of NOx. NO2 at atmospheric concentrations is a potential irritant
and can cause coughing in healthy persons, due to increase resistance to air flow and airway contraction. Larger decreases in lung functions are observed in individuals with preexisting
respiratory illness. Longterm exposure to NO2 can potentially lead to increased levels of respiratory illness in children. NOx is one of the main ingredients involved in the formation
of ground-level ozone, which can trigger serious respiratory problems. Ozone (O3) – A colorless toxic gas that irritates the lungs and damages materials and vegetation. During the summer’s
long daylight hours, plentiful sunshine provides the energy needed to fuel photochemical reactions between NO2 and VOC which result in the formation of O3. Conditions that lead to high
levels of O3 are adequate sunshine, early morning stagnation in source areas, high surface temperatures, strong and low morning inversions, greatly restricted vertical mixing during
the day, and daytime subsidence that strengthens the inversion layer (all of which are characteristic of the Inland Empire). Individuals exercising outdoors, children and people with
pre-existing lung disease such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease are considered to be the most susceptible sub-groups for ozone effects. Short-term exposures (lasting for
a few hours) to ozone at levels typically observed in southern California can result in changes in breathing patterns, reductions in lung capacity, and increased susceptibility to respiratory
illnesses. Elevated levels of ozone have been associated with increased school absences. An increased risk for
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-7 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 asthma has been
found in children who participate in multiple sports and live in high ozone communities. Studies have shown that children living within the SCAB experience a 10-15% reduction in lung
function. Atmospheric Particulate Matter (PM) – Made up of fine solid and liquid particles, such as soot, dust, aerosols,
fumes and mists. PM-10 consists of particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter, and PM-2.5 consists of particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in size. Both PM-10 and
PM-2.5 can be inhaled into the deepest part of the lung, attributing to health effects. The presence of these fine particles by themselves can cause lung damage and interfere with the
body’s ability to clear its respiratory tract. Said particles can also act as a carrier of other toxic substances. Several studies have assessed the effects of long-term particulate
matter exposure and have found it associated with symptoms of chronic bronchitis and decreased lung function. A lower rate of growth in lung function has been found in children living
in areas with higher levels of particulate pollution. The sources contributing to particulate matter pollution include road dust, windblown dust, agriculture, construction, fireplaces
and wood burning stoves, industrial uses such as factories, quarries and rock crushing, and vehicle exhaust. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) – A colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion
of sulfurcontaining fossil fuels. SO2 can result in temporary breathing impairment in asthmatic children and adults engaged in active outdoor activities. When combined with PM, SO2 can
cause symptoms such as shortness of breath and wheezing and, with long-term exposure, lead to the exacerbation of existing cardiovascular disease and respiratory illnesses. Although
SO2 concentrations have been reduced to levels well below state and federal standards, further reductions in SO2 emissions are needed because SO2 is a precursor to sulfate and PM-10.
When sulfate particles are inhaled, they gather in the lungs and are associated with increased respiratory symptoms and disease, difficulty in breathing, and premature death. Lead (Pb)
– Lead concentrations once exceeded the state and federal air quality standards by a wide margin, but have not exceeded state or federal air quality standards at any regular monitoring
station since 1982. Health effects associated with lead include neurological impairments, mental retardation, and behavioral disorders. At low levels, lead can damage the nervous systems
of fetuses and result in lowered IQ levels in children. Though special monitoring sites immediately downwind of lead sources recorded very localized violations of the state standard
in 1994, no violations have been recorded at these stations since 1996. Unleaded gasoline has greatly contributed to the reduction in lead emissions in the SCAB. Since the proposed project
will not involve leaded gasoline, or other sources of lead emissions, this criteria pollutant is not expected to be a factor with project implementation. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
– It should be noted that there are no state or federal ambient air quality standards for VOCs (which are also referred to as “reactive organic compounds” or “reactive organic gas”)
because they are not classified as criteria pollutants. VOCs are regulated, however, because a reduction in VOC emissions reduces certain chemical reactions, which contribute to the
formation of ozone. VOCs are also transformed into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, contributing to higher PM-10 and lower visibility levels. Although health-based standards have
not been established for VOCs, health effects can occur from
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-8 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 exposures to high
concentrations of VOC because of interference with oxygen uptake. In general, ambient VOC concentrations in the atmosphere are suspected to cause coughing, sneezing, headaches, weakness,
laryngitis, and bronchitis, even at low concentrations. Some hydrocarbon components classified as VOC emissions are thought or known to be hazardous. Benzene, for example, is a hydrocarbon
component of VOC emissions that is known to be a human carcinogen. Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are often referred to as “non-criteria” air contaminants because
ambient air quality standards have not been established for them. There are hundreds of air toxics (e.g., benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene), and exposure to these pollutants
can cause or contribute to cancer or non-cancer health effects such as birth defects, genetic damage, and other adverse health effects. Effects may be carcinogenic, chronic (i.e., of
long duration), or acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) on human health. Acute health effects are attributable to sudden exposure to high quantities of air toxics. These effects
include nausea, skin irritation, respiratory illness, and, in some cases, death. Chronic health effects are a result of low-dose, long-term exposure from routine releases of air toxics.
The effect of major concern for this type of exposure is cancer. Cancer risk is often expressed as the maximum number of new cases of cancer projected to occur in a hypothetical population
of one million people due to exposure to a specific cancer-causing substance after 24-hours a day, 365 days a year, exposure outdoors at the same concentration over a lifetime of 70
years. This probability is usually expressed in terms of the estimated number of people who will develop cancer per one million people exposed. Monitored Air Quality The project site
is located within SCAQMD S SRA 25 and 26; however due to the lack of emission data for SRA 26 (emissions for some criteria pollutants were not recorded) data for SRA 25 was utilized.
(See Figure 3.1-3) The most recent published data for SRA 25 is presented in Table 3.1-1, Air Quality Monitoring Summary – 1997-2006 (SRA 25). This data indicates that the baseline air
quality conditions in the project area include occasional events of very unhealthful air. However, the frequency of smog alerts has dropped significantly in the last decade. Ozone and
particulates are the two most significant air quality concerns in the project area. The yearly monitoring records document that prior to 1997, approximately one-third or more of the
days each year experienced a violation of the state hourly ozone standard, with around ten days annually reaching first stage alert levels of 0.20 ppm for one hour. It is encouraging
to note that ozone levels have dropped significantly in the last few years with less than one-fifth of the days each year experiencing a violation of the state hourly ozone standard
since 1997. Locally, no second stage alert (0.35 ppm/hour) has been called by SCAQMD in the last ten years. Monitoring for PM-2.5 did not begin until 1999. Since then, the annual standard
has been consistently exceeded as shown in Table 3.1-1. The 1997 federal annual average standard for PM-2.5 (15 μg/m3 (micrograms per liter)) was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in
February 2001. Effective in December 2006, the federal 24-hour PM-2.5 standard was revised from
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.1-3 Source Receptor Areas SOURCE: SCAQMD
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-10 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.1-1 AIR
QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY – 1997–2007 (SRA 25) Monitoring Year Pollutant/Standard 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Ozone Number of Days Exceeded Health Advisory
-0.15 ppm --------1 0 2 0 1 0 0 California Standard: 1-Hour -0.09 ppm 49 52 51 45 61 52 50 41 37 40 66 8-Hour -0.07 ppma --------------51 46 58 88 Federal Primary Standards: 1-Hour -0.12
ppm 4 22 4 1 12 6 7 2 4 3 4 8-Hour -0.08 ppmd 38 44 37 31 46 44 35 21 15 24 37 Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.16 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.151 0.139 0.154 0.13 0.149 0.14 0.139 Max 8-Hour Conc. (ppm)a
0.12 0.14 0.13 0.109 0.120 0.114 0.137 0.12 0.119 0.109 0.116 Carbon Monoxide Number of Days Exceeded California Standard: 1-Hour -20 ppm ------0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8-Hour -9.0 ppm ------0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal Primary Standards: 1-Hour -35 ppm ------0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8-Hour -9.5 ppm --------0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) ------4 2 3 4 2 2 1 3 Max 8-Hour Conc. (ppm)
------2.0 2.0 2.0 1.3 0.9 1.0 1.0 2.1 Nitrogen Dioxide Number of Days Exceeded California Standard: 1-Hour -0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal Standard: Annual Mean -0.053ppmb No
No No No No No No No No No No Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-11 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.1-1 (continued)
AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY – 1997–2007 (SRA 25) Monitoring Year Pollutant/Standard 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sulfur Dioxidec Number of Days Exceeded
California Standards: 1-Hour – 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24-Hour – 0.04 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal Primary Standards: 24-Hour – 0.14 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Mean
– 0.03 ppmb No No No No No No No No No No No Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 Max. 24-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.007 0.010 0.011 0.041 0.011 0.002
0.012 0.015 0.011 0.004 0.002 Suspended Particulates (PM-10)d Number of Days Exceeded California Standards: 24-Hour -50 μg/m3 19 14 30 13 16 24 19 15 19 19 32 Federal Primary Standards:
24-Hour -150 μg/m3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Arithmetic Mean (μg/m3) 44.5 36.1 50.0 41.1 40.8 45.2 43.9 41.4 39.2 45.0 454.8 Annual Geometric Mean (μg/m3) 38.5 33.3 44.0 36.8 36.0
41.6 ----------Max. 24-Hour Conc. (μg/m3) 139 98 112 87 86 100 142 83 80 125 120 Suspended Particulates (PM-2.5)c Number of Days Exceeded Federal Primary Standards: Annual Standard (15μg/m3)b
----Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 24-Hour -65 μg/m3 ----9 11 19 8 8 5 4 1 1 Annual Arithmetic Mean (μg/m3) ----30.9 28.2 31.1 27.5 24.9 22.1 21.0 19.0 21.0 Max. 24-Hour Conc. (μg/m3)
----111.2 119.6 98.0 77.6 104.3 91.7 98.7 68.5 69.7 a 1997 is first year of SCAQMD records for federal 8-hour Ozone standard. 2004 is first year of SCAQMD records for state 8-hour Ozone
standard. b Yes or No indicating whether or not the standard has been exceeded for that year. c Metro Riverside County 1 air monitoring station (SRA 23) data summaries used. d Perris
Valley air monitoring station (SRA 24) data summaries used. --= No data available. SOURCE: SCAQMD.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-12 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 65 μg/m3 to 35
μg/m3. The state annual average standard for PM-2.5 (12 μg/m3) was finalized in 2003 and became effective on July 5, 2003. PM-2.5 particles are manmade particles resulting from combustion
sources. According to SCAQMD, one component of PM-2.5 pollution in Riverside County comes from ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) particulates. NOX, emitted throughout the SCAB by vehicles, reacts
with ammonia produced from livestock and horses to form ammonium nitrate. Organic carbon particles generated from paints, degreasers and vehicles, are another component of PM-2.5 pollution.
The last notable constituent of PM-2.5 sources is elemental carbon, which is used as a surrogate for diesel particulates. 3.1.3 Regulatory Setting The federal and state ambient air quality
standards (AAQS) establish the context for the local air quality management plans and for determination of the significance of a project's contribution to local or regional pollutant
concentrations. The federal and state AAQS are presented in Table 3.1-1. The AAQS represent the level of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the
public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already
weakened by other diseases or illness and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, all referred to as “sensitive receptors.” SCAQMD defines a "sensitive receptor" as a land use
or facility such as schools, child care centers, athletic facilities, playgrounds, retirement homes, and convalescent homes. Both federal and state CAAs require that each non-attainment
area prepare a plan to reduce air pollution to healthful levels. The 1988 California CAA and the 1990 amendments to the federal CAA established new planning requirements and deadlines
for attainment of the air quality standards within specified time frames which are contained in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised,
and approved over the past decade. The currently adopted clean air plan for the basin is the 1999 SIP Amendment, approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2000.The
Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at attainment of the state and national air quality standards. The AQMP control
measures and related emission reduction estimates are based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics
defined in consultation with local governments. Accordingly, conformance with the AQMP for development projects is determined by demonstrating compliance with local land use plans and/or
population projections. The SCAQMD adopted an updated AQMP in June 2007, which outlines the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health-based standards for particulates (PM-2.5)
by 2014 and for ozone by 2023 (SCAQMD 2007a). The AQMP was approved by the CARB on September 27, 2007. The AQMP will be submitted to the EPA for its final approval and included as a
revision to California’s SIP. The 2007 AQMP employs the most up-to-date science, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes
and new air quality
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-13 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 modeling tools.
Policies and measures to achieve federal standards for healthful air quality in the Basin are built upon in the 2007 AQMP Plan. It also incorporates a comprehensive strategy aimed at
controlling pollution from all sources, including stationary sources, on-road and off-road mobile sources and area sources. The 2007 AQMP builds upon improvements accomplished in previous
plans and aims to incorporate all feasible control measures while balancing costs and socioeconomic impacts for the attainment of air quality standards. However, it highlights the significant
number of reductions needed and the urgent need to identify additional strategies, especially in the area of mobile sources, to meet all federal criteria pollutant standards within the
timeframes allowed under federal CAA. The 2007 AQMP relies on a comprehensive and integrated control approach aimed at achieving the PM2.5 standard by 2015 through implementation of
short-and mid-term control measures and achieving the 8-hour ozone standard by 2024 based on implementation of additional long-term measures. These reductions are expected to be achieved
through implementation of new and advanced control technologies as well as improvement of existing control technologies. Control techniques requiring substantial levels of committed
funding for implementation would also fall under this category of long-term emission reductions. There are four components of the 2007 AQMP control measures: 1) the District's Stationary
and Mobile Source Control Measures; 2) CARB’s Proposed State Strategy; 3) District Staff’s Proposed Policy Options to Supplement CARB’s Control Strategy; and 4) Regional Transportation
Strategy and Control Measures provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Overall, the Plan includes 31 stationary and 30 mobile source measures. The District’s
control strategy for stationary and mobile sources is based on the following approaches: 1) facility modernization; 2) energy efficiency and conservation; 3) good management practices;
4) market incentives/compliance flexibility; 5) area source programs; 6) emission growth management; and 7) mobile source programs. The SCAQMD adopts rules and regulations to implement
portions of the AQMP. Several of these rules may apply to construction or operation of the project. For example, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires the implementation of best available fugitive
dust control measures during active construction periods capable of generating fugitive dust emissions from on-site earth-moving activities, construction/demolition activities, and construction
equipment travel on paved and unpaved roads. The full text of SCAQMD Rule 403 is included in Appendix B of this Draft EIR. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook (the Handbook) was published
in November 1993 to provide local governments with guidance for analyzing and mitigating project-specific air quality impacts. The Handbook provides standards, methodologies, and procedures
for conducting air quality analyses in EIRs and was used extensively in the preparation of this analysis. However, the SCAQMD is currently in the process of replacing the Handbook with
the Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook. While this process is underway, the SCAQMD recommends that the lead agency avoid using the screening tables in the Handbook’s Chapter 6, because
the tables were derived using an obsolete version of CARB’s mobile source emission factor inventory, and the
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-14 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 trip generation
characteristic of the land uses identified in these screening tables were based on the fifth edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, instead of the most current sixth edition. Additionally,
the lead agency should avoid using the on-road mobile source emission factors in Table A9-5-J1 through A9-5-L. The SCAQMD instead recommends using other approved models to calculate
emissions from land use projects, such as the URBEMIS 2007 model.1 In addition, the SCAQMD has published a guidance document called the Localized Significance Threshold Methodology for
CEQA Evaluations (June 2003) that is intended to provide guidance in evaluating localized effects from mass emissions during construction. Recently, the SCAQMD adopted additional guidance
regarding PM2.5 in a document called Final-methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM)PM)2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds (October 2006). These documents were also used in
the preparation of this analysis. The SCAQMD has also adopted land use planning guidelines in the Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning
(May 2005), which considers impacts to sensitive receptors from facilities that emit TAC emissions. SCAQMD’s distance recommendations are the same as those provided by CARB (e.g., a
500-foot siting distance for sensitive land uses proposed in proximity of freeways and high-traffic roads, and the same siting criteria for distribution centers and dry cleaning facilities).
The SCAQMD’s document introduces land use related policies that rely on design and distance parameters to minimize emissions and lower potential health risk. SCAQMD’s guidelines are
voluntary initiatives recommended for consideration by local planning agencies. The California Air Resources Board maintains records as to the attainment status of air basins throughout
the state, under both state and federal criteria. The portion of the SCAB within which the proposed project is located is designated as a non-attainment area for ozone, PM-10, and PM-2.5
under both state and federal standards. Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Life on Earth depends upon energy from the Sun. About half of the light reaching Earth’s atmosphere passes
through the air and clouds to the surface, where it is absorbed and then radiated upward in the form of infrared heat. Approximately 90 percent of this heat is absorbed by gases in the
atmosphere and radiated back towards the earth. Without these gases, which are called “greenhouse gases” (GHG) heat would escape and Earth’s atmosphere and the average temperature would
be about 60°F (15°C) colder. This natural warming process is known as the greenhouse effect. Under normal conditions, for the annual mean and for the Earth as a whole, the incoming solar
radiation energy is balanced approximately by the outgoing terrestrial radiation. Any factor that alters the radiation received from the Sun or lost to space, or that alters the redistribution
of energy within the atmosphere and among the atmosphere, land, and ocean, can affect climate. A change in the net radiative energy available to the global Earth-atmosphere system is
referred to as a radiative forcing. Positive radiative forcings tend to warm the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. Negative radiative forcings tend to cool them. 1 http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/oldhdb
k.html.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-15 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Increases in the
concentrations of GHGs will reduce the efficiency with which the Earth’s surface radiates to space. More of the outgoing terrestrial radiation from the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere
and re-emitted at higher altitudes and lower temperatures. This results in a positive radiative forcing that tends to warm the lower atmosphere and surface. Because less heat escapes
to space, this is the enhanced greenhouse effect—an enhancement of an effect that has operated in the Earth’s atmosphere for billions of years due to the presence of naturally occurring
GHGs: water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), O3, methane and nitrous oxide (N2O). The amount of radiative forcing depends on the size of the increase in concentration of each greenhouse
gas, the radiative properties of the gases involved, and the concentrations of other GHGs already present in the atmosphere. Furthermore, many GHGs reside in the atmosphere for centuries
after being emitted; thereby introducing a long-term commitment to positive radiative forcing. Many chemical compounds present in the Earth’s atmosphere behave as GHGs. Many GHG occur
naturally in the atmosphere while others are synthetic (man-made). Naturally occurring GHG include water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O and O3. Man-made GHGs include several classes of substances
that contain halogens (fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine). Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are halocarbons (compounds of carbon and one
or more halogens) that contain chlorine; while halocarbons that contain bromine are referred to as bromofluorocarbons (i.e., halons). Atmospheric concentrations of both natural and man-made
gases have been rising over the last several centuries due to the industrial revolution. As the global population and reliance upon fossil fuels (such as coal, oil and natural gas) have
increased, so have emissions of these GHG. While GHG such as CO2 occur naturally in the atmosphere, interference with the “carbon cycle” through burning forest lands, or mining and burning
coal, atmospheric concentrations of the gases have increased due to the manmade conversion of carbon in its solid storage state to its gaseous state (see Figure 3.1-4). “Stratospheric
ozone depletion” refers to the slow destruction of naturally occurring ozone, which lies in the upper atmosphere (called the stratosphere) and which protects Earth from the damaging
effects of solar ultraviolet radiation. Certain compounds, including CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and other halogenated compounds, accumulate in the lower atmosphere
and then gradually migrate into the stratosphere. In the stratosphere, these compounds participate in complex chemical reactions to destroy the upper ozone layer. Destruction of the
ozone layer increases the penetration of ultraviolet radiation to the Earth’s surface, a known risk factor that can increase the incidence of skin cancers and cataracts, contribute to
crop and fish damage, and further degrade air quality. There are also several gases that do not have a direct global warming effect but indirectly affect terrestrial and/or solar radiation
absorption by influencing the formation or destruction of GHGs, including tropospheric and stratospheric ozone. These gases include CO, NOx, and non-CH4 volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs).
Aerosols, which are extremely small particles or liquid droplets, such as those produced by SO2 or elemental carbon emissions, can also affect the absorptive characteristics of the atmosphere.
Although the direct greenhouse gases CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have changed their atmospheric concentrations. From the pre-industrial era
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-16 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Sunlight brings
energy into the climate system; most of it is absorbed by the oceans and land. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT: Heat (infrared energy) radiates outward from the warmed surface of the Earth. Some
of the infrared energy is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which re-emit the energy in all directions. Some of the infrared energy further warms the Earth. Some of the
infrared energy is emitted into space. AMPLIFIED GREENHOUSE EFFECT: Higher concentrations of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases trap more infrared energy in the atmosphere than occurs
naturally. The additional heat further warms the atmosphere and Earth’s surface. City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation /208485 SOURCE: Marian Koshland Science Museum of the
National Academy of Sciences Figure 3.1-4 The Greenhouse Effect (ending about 1750) to 2004, concentrations of these GHGs have increased globally by 35, 143,and 18 percent, respectively.
Beginning in the 1950s, the use of CFCs and other stratospheric ozone depleting substances (ODS) increased by nearly 10 percent per year until the mid-1980s, when international concern
about ozone depletion led to the enforcement of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in January 1989. Since then, the production of ODS is being phased out.
In recent years, use of ODS substitutes such as HFCs and PFCs has grown as they begin to be phased in as replacements for CFCs and HCFCs. Accordingly, atmospheric concentrations of these
substitutes have been growing. The relative contribution of the most significant GHG to the overall climate change warming effect are CO2 (55 percent), CFCs (24 percent), methane (15
percent), and N2O (6 percent). Transportation is responsible for 41 percent of the California’s GHG emissions, followed by electricity generation which contributes 22 percent of the
State’s GHG emissio
ns. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-17 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Feedback Mechanisms
and Uncertainty The Earth’s climate is determined by the complex interaction of different components of the Earth and its atmosphere. For a stable climate, a balance is required between
incoming solar radiation and the outgoing radiation emitted by the climate system. The natural greenhouse effect is part of the energy balance of the Earth. Change in climate occurs
as a result of both internal variability within the climate’s system and external factors (both natural and anthropogenic). The influence of external factors on climate can be broadly
compared using the concept of radiative forcing. A positive radiative forcing, such as that produced by increasing concentrations of GHGs, tends to warm the surface. A negative radiative
forcing, which can arise from an increase in some types of aerosols (microscopic airborne particles) tends to cool the surface. Natural factors, such as changes in solar output or explosive
volcanic activity, can also cause radiative forcing. The prediction of climate change is complicated by the fact that, once climate change starts, there will be consequences (feedbacks)
in the climate system which can act to either enhance or reduce the warming. For example, as the atmosphere warms it will be able to "hold" more water vapor. Water vapor itself is a
very powerful greenhouse gas, so this will act as a positive feedback and enhance the warming.
Similarly, when sea ice begins to melt, some of the solar radiation which would otherwise be reflected from the sea ice is absorbed by the ocean, and heats it further; another positive
feedback. On the other hand when CO2 concentrations increase in the atmosphere then it acts to speed up the growth of plants and trees (the fertilization effect) which in turn absorb
more of the CO2; this acts as a negative feedback. There are many of these feedbacks, both positive and negative, many of which we do not fully understand. This lack of understanding
is the main cause of the uncertainty in climate predictions; this applies in particular to changes in clouds. Cloud Effect Clouds play an important role in the Earth’s energy balance
and in particular in the natural greenhouse effect. Clouds absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus contribute to warming the Earth’s surface, just like the GHGs. On the other hand,
most clouds are bright reflectors of solar radiation and tend to cool the climate system. The net average effect of the Earth’s cloud cover in the present climate is a slight cooling:
the reflection of radiation more than compensates for the greenhouse effect of clouds. However this effect is highly variable, depending on height, type, and optical properties of clouds.
Direct and Indirect Effects of Aerosols Aerosols, including particulate matter, are extremely small particles or liquid droplets found in the atmosphere. Various categories of aerosols
exist, including naturally produced aerosols such as soil dust, sea salt, biogenic aerosols, sulfates, and volcanic aerosols, and anthropogenically manufactured aerosols such as industrial
dust and carbonaceous aerosols (e.g., black carbon, organic carbon) from transportation, coal combustion, cement manufacturing, waste incineration, and biomass burning. Aerosols affect
radiative forcing differently than GHGs, and their radiative effects occur through direct and indirect mechanisms. Direct mechanisms include the scattering
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-18 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 and absorbing
of solar radiation. Indirect mechanisms result in the increasing of droplet counts that modify the formation, precipitation efficiency, and radiative properties of clouds. The indirect
radiative forcing from aerosols is typically divided into two effects. The first effect involves decreased droplet size and increased droplet concentration resulting from an increase
in airborne aerosols. The second effect involves an increase in the water content and lifetime of clouds due to the effect of reduced droplet size on precipitation efficiency. The net
effect of aerosols on radiative forcing is believed to be negative (i.e., net cooling effect on the climate). However, as particulate matter emissions are reduced, the effect of aerosols
on clouds would be reduced, potentially further amplifying the greenhouse effect. Other Feedback Mechanisms As global temperatures rise, other feedback mechanisms influence earth’s climate.
Permafrost, which is any soil/rock material that remains frozen throughout two or more consecutive years, underlies almost 25% of the exposed land surface in the Northern Hemisphere.
As increased amounts of permafrost thaw in warmer temperatures, the release of methane gas trapped in the permafrost would be expected to accelerate and enhance global warming trends.
Additionally, as the extent of polar and sea ice continues to diminish, the Earth’s albedo or reflectivity would also diminish. This will also result in an increase in the greenhouse
effect and accelerate the melting of polar and sea ice. Melting polar and sea ice also increases the amount of fresh water entering the oceans and affects the salinity of sea water;
thereby affecting the ocean’s heat transport mechanisms. Changes in oceanic heat transport could significantly affect regional climatic changes, possibly causing some regions to cool
temporarily and others to warm by considerably more than the global mean as the global climate warms. The scientific community is studying these and other positive and negative feedback
mechanisms in order to better understand and quantify their potential effects on global climate change. Global Warming Potentials Individual GHGs have varying global warming potential
and atmospheric lifetimes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed the Global Warming Potential (GWP) concept to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in
the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP of individual GHGs is determined through a comparison with the global warming potential of CO2. CO2 has a GWP of one. Methane has a GWP
of 21, meaning that on a molecule by molecule basis, methane has 21 times the global warming potential of CO2. Table 3.1-2, Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes (Years),
shows the GWP and atmospheric lifetimes of various GHGs with relatively long atmospheric lifetimes.2 2 Greenhouse gases gases with relatively long atmospheric lifetimes (e.g., CO2, CH4,
N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) tend to be evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere, and consequently global average concentrations can be determined. The short-lived gases such as water
vapor, carbon monoxide, tropospheric ozone, ozone precursors (e.g., NOx, and NMVOCs), and tropospheric aerosols (e.g., SO2 products and carbonaceous particles), however, vary regionally,
and consequently it is difficult to quantify their global radiative forcing impacts. No GWP values are attributed to these gases that are short-lived and spatially inhomogeneous in the
atmosphere.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-19 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.1-2 GLOBAL
WARMING POTENTIALS AND ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIMES (years) Gas Atmospheric Lifetime Global Warming Potential (100-Year Time Horizon) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50-200 1 Methane (CH4) 9 to 15 21
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 310 Hydrofluorocarbons: HFC-23 264 11,700 HFC-32 5.6 650 HFC-125 32.6 2,800 HFC-134a 14.6 1,300 HFC-143a 48.3 3,800 HFC-152a 1.5 140 HFC-227ea 36.5 2,900 HFC-236fa
209 6,300 HFC-4310mee 17.1 1,300 Perfluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 6,500 Perfluoroethane (C2F6) 10,000 9,200 Perfluorobutane (C4F10) 2,600 7,000 Perfluorohexane (C6F14) 3,200 7,400 Sulfur
Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 23,900 SOURCE: PCR Services Corporation, 2008. 3.1.4 Regulatory Framework The AQMP for the SCAB establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at attainment
of the state and national air quality standards. The AQMP control measures and related emission reduction estimates are based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario
derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. The CARB maintains records as to the attainment status of air basins
throughout the state, under both state and federal criteria. The portion of the SCAB within which the proposed project is located is designated as a non-attainment area for ozone and
PM-10 and PM-2.5 under state and federal standards. The AQMP for the SCAB establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at attainment of the state and national air quality
standards. Accordingly, conformance with the AQMP for development projects is determined by demonstrating compliance with local land use plans. The CARB published a draft version of
the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook on February 17, 2005, to serve as a general guide for considering impacts to sensitive receptors from facilities that emit TAC emissions. The recommendations
provided therein are voluntary and do
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-20 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 not constitute
a requirement or mandate for either land use agencies or local air districts. The goal of the guidance document is to protect sensitive receptors, such as children, the elderly, acutely
ill, and chronically ill persons, from exposure to TAC emissions. Some examples of CARB’s siting recommendations include the following: (1) avoid siting sensitive receptors within 500
feet of a freeway, urban road with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day; (2) avoid siting sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of a distribution center
(that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units per day, or where transport refrigeration unit operations exceed 300
hours per week); and (3) avoid siting sensitive receptors within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation using perchloroethylene and within 500 feet of operations with two or more machines.
Potential TAC impacts are evaluated by conducting a screening-level analysis followed by a more detailed analysis (i.e., dispersion modeling), as necessary. The screening-level analysis
consists of reviewing the proposed project’s site plan and project description to identify any new or modified TAC emissions sources. If it is determined that the proposed project will
introduce a potentially significant new source, or modify an existing TAC emissions source, then downwind sensitive receptor locations are identified and site-specific dispersion modeling
is conducted to determine proposed project impacts. In order to reduce natural gas and electricity consumption, building design shall comply with the energy efficiency requirements of
Title 24 of CCR. Since natural gas use and electricity generation produce air emissions, a reduction in natural gas and electricity consumption results in a related reduction in air
quality emissions. The project will be required to comply with existing SCAQMD rules for the reduction of fugitive dust emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 establishes these procedures. They
include the application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils at least twice a day, covering all haul vehicles before transport of materials, restricting vehicle speeds
on unpaved roads to 15 mph, and sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways used by construction vehicles. In addition, it is required to establish a vegetative ground cover
on disturbance areas that are inactive within 30 days after active operations have ceased. Alternatively, an application of dust suppressants can be applied in sufficient quantity and
frequency to maintain a stable surface. Rule 403 also requires grading and excavation activities to cease when winds exceed 25 mph. SCAQMD Rule 1113 governs the sale of architectural
coatings and limits the VOC in paints and paint solvents. Although this rule does not directly apply to the project, it does dictate the VOC content of paints available for use during
building construction. Construction activity shall comply with all applicable provisions of Section 18.06.100 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Compliance with Section 18.06.100
reduces fugitive dust emissions associated with project construction.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-21 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Greenhouse Gas
Regulations Federal Regulations There has been activity at the federal level with respect to the regulation of GHGs. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (Docket No. 05–1120),
argued November 29, 2006 and decided April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held that not only did the EPA have authority to regulate GHGs, but the EPA's reasons for not regulating this
area did not fit the statutory requirements. As such, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA should be required to regulate CO2 and other GHGs as pollutants under the federal CAA.
To date, the EPA has not developed a regulatory program for greenhouse gas emissions, nor has it been mandated to do so. State Regulations California Code of Regulations, Title 24 CCR
Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's
energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The latest amendments
were made in October 2005 and currently require new homes to use half the energy they used only a decade ago. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity, and electricity production
by fossil fuels results in greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, increased energy efficiency results in decreased greenhouse gas emissions. Assembly Bill 1493 California Assembly Bill
(AB)1493 (Pavley), signed by Governor Gray Davis on July 22, 2002, requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHG emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks.
Regulations adopted by CARB will apply to 2009 and later model year vehicles. CARB estimates that the regulation will reduce climate change emissions from light duty passenger vehicle
fleet by an estimated 18 percent in 2020 and by 27 percent in 2030. It should be noted that setting emission standards on automobiles is solely the responsibility of the federal EPA.
The federal CAA allows States to set state-specific emission standards on automobiles if they first obtain a waiver from the U.S. EPA. The U.S. EPA denied California’s request for a
waiver, thus delaying the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) proposed implementation schedule for setting emission standards on automobiles to help reduce GHGs. Executive Order
S-3-05 In June 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05. This Order calls for the following GHG emission reduction targets to be established: reduce GHG emissions
to 2000 levels by 2010; reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; and reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Order also requires that the Secretary of the
California Environmental Protection Agency shall coordinate oversight of the efforts made to meet the targets with: the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency,
Secretary of the Department of Food and Agriculture, Secretary of the Resources Agency,
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-22 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Chairperson of
the Air Resources Board, Chairperson of the Energy Commission, and the President of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The order directed the Secretary for California EPA to report
every two years on the State’s progress toward meeting the Governor’s GHG emission reduction targets. As a result of this executive order, the California Climate Action Team (CAT), led
by the Secretary of the California EPA, was formed. The CAT is made up of representatives from a number of State agencies and was formed to implement global warming emission reduction
programs and reporting on the progress made toward meeting statewide targets established under the Executive Order. State agency members include the Business, Transportation and Housing
Agency; Department of Food and Agriculture; Resources Agency; Air Resources Board; California Energy Commission (CEC); the PUC; and Department of Water Resources. The CAT published its
Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature in March 2006, in which it laid out forty-six specific emission reduction strategies for reducing GHG emissions
and reaching the targets established in the executive order. Assembly Bill 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed
AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 directs CARB to implement regulations for a cap on sources or categories of sources of GHG emissions. GHG as defined
under AB 32 include: CO2, methane, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The bill requires that CARB develop regulations to reduce emissions with an enforcement
mechanism to ensure that the reductions are achieved, and to disclose how it arrives at the cap. It also includes conditions to ensure businesses and consumers are not unfairly affected
by reductions. AB 32 requires the CARB to: • adopt a list of discrete early action measures by July 1, 2007 that can be implemented before January 1, 2010; • establish a statewide GHG
emissions cap for 2000 GHG emission levels by 2010 (which represents an approximately 11 percent reduction from business as usual) • establish a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020
based on 1990 emissions and adopt mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of GHG by January 1, 2008 (approximately 25 percent below business as usual); • indicate how emission
reductions will be achieved from significant GHG sources via regulations, market mechanisms and other actions by January 1, 2009; and • adopt regulations by January 1, 2011 to achieve
the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG, including provisions for using both market mechanisms and alternative compliance mechanisms. AB 32 codifies
the state’s goal by requiring that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on
GHG emissions that will be implemented no later than January 1, 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs CARB to establish a quantified emissions cap, institute a schedule
to meet the cap, implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-23 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 sources, and develop
tracking, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that reductions are achieved The following schedule outlines the CARB actions mandated by AB 32: • By January 1, 2008, CARB
adopts regulations for mandatory (GHG) emissions reporting, defines 1990 emissions baseline for California (including emissions from imported power), and adopts it as the 2020 statewide
cap. 3 • By January 1, 2009, CARB adopts plan to effect GHG reductions from significant sources of GHG via regulations, market mechanisms and other actions • During 2009, CARB drafts
rule language to implement its plan and holds a series of public workshop on each measure (including market mechanisms). • By January 1, 2010, early action measures will take effect.
• During 2010, CARB, after workshops and public hearings, conducts series of rulemakings to adopt GHG regulations including rules governing market mechanisms. • By January 1, 2011, CARB
completes major rulemakings for reducing GHGs, including market mechanisms. CARB may revise and adopt new rules after January 1, 2011 to achieve the 2020 goal. • By January 1, 2012,
GHG rules and market mechanisms adopted by CARB take effect and become legally enforceable. • December 31, 2020 is the deadline for achieving 2020 GHG emissions cap. CARB’s list of discrete
early action measures that can be adopted and implemented before January 1, 2010 was approved on June 21, 2007, and focuses on major State-wide contributing sources and industries, not
on individual development projects or practices. These early action measures are: 1) a low-carbon fuel standard; 2) reduction of refrigerant losses from motor vehicle air conditioning
system maintenance; and 3) increased methane capture from landfills. Recently, the CARB released emissions inventory estimates for 1990 through 2004. Senate Bill 1368, Electricity: emissions
of greenhouse gases Also in September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill (SB) 1368 which requires the California PUC and CEC to adopt a GHG performance standard
for in-state and imported electricity generators to mitigate climate change. SB 1368 provides a mechanism for reducing the emissions of electricity providers, thereby assisting CARB
to meet its mandate under AB 32. On January 25, 2007, the CPUC adopted an interim GHG Emissions Performance Standard (EPS). This standard is a facility-based emissions standard requiring
all new long-term commitments for baseload generation to serve California consumers with power plants that have emissions no greater than a combined cycle gas turbine plant. That level
is established at 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh). Further, on May 23, 2007, the CEC adopted regulations that establish and implement an identical EPS of 1,100 pounds of
CO2 per MWh (see CEC order No. 07-523-7). 3 CARB has adopted 427 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) as the total statewide greenhouse gas 1990 emissions level
and the 2020 emissions limit. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/1990level/1990level.htm (last visited 8/14/2008).
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-24 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Executive Order
S-01-07 Executive Order S-01-07 was approved by the Governor on January 18, 2007. The order mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California's
transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. It also requires that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard for transportation fuels be established for California. Senate Bill 97 An additional
bill related to AB 32, SB 97, requires the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR), by July 1, 2009, to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for
the feasible mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, as required by the CEQA, including but not limited to, effects associated with transportation
or energy consumption. The Resources Agency will then be required to certify and adopt the guidelines by January 1, 2010, and to periodically update the guidelines to incorporate new
information or criteria established by the CARB pursuant to AB 32.4 The OPR released a technical advisory on addressing climate change through CEQA review on June 19, 2008. This guidance
document outlines suggested components to CEQA disclosure: quantification of GHG emissions from a project’s construction and operation, determination of signifiance of the project’s
impact to climate change, and if the project is found to be significant, the identification of suitable alternatives and mitigation measures. Western Regional Climate Action Initiative
The Western Regional Climate Action Initiative was signed on February 26, 2007 by five states: Washington, Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. British Columbia, Canada joined
on April 20, 2007. The Initiative plans on collaborating to identify, evaluate, and implement ways to reduce GHG emissions in the states collectively and to achieve related co-benefits.
The The Initiative plans to design a regional market-based multi-sector mechanism, such as a load-based cap and trade program by September 2008. In addition, a multi-state registry will
track, manage, and credit entities that reduce GHG emissions. South Coast Air Quality Management District Regulations The SCAQMD is responsible for monitoring air quality and planning,
implementing, and enforcing programs designed to attain and maintain state and federal ambient air quality standards in the district. Programs developed include air quality rules and
regulations that regulate stationary source emissions, including area and point sources and certain mobile source emissions. The SCAQMD is also responsible for establishing permitting
requirements and issuing permits for stationary sources and ensuring that new, modified, or relocated stationary sources do not create net emissions increases. The SCAQMD enforces air
quality rules and regulations through a variety of means, including inspections, educational and training programs, and fines. A number of GHG are regulated through implementation of
rules adopted by the SCAQMD. 4 Senate Bill No. 97, Chapter 185, approved by Governor Schwarzenegger and filed with the Secretary of State, August 24, 2007.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-25 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Methane emissions
from landfills are reduced by SCAQMD Rule 1150.1 – Control of Gaseous Emissions from Active Landfills. Methane emissions from petroleum sources are reduced by a number of rules in SCAQMD
Regulation XI that control fugitive emissions from petroleum production, refining, and distribution. SCAQMD Rule 1418 – Halon Emissions from Fire Extinguishing Equipment requires the
recovery and recycling of halons used in fire extinguishing systems and prohibits the sale of halon in small fire extinguishers. SCAQMD Rule 1415 – Reduction of Refrigerant Emissions
from Stationary Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Systems requires CFC refrigerants to be reclaimed or recycled from stationary refrigeration and air conditioning systems. SCAQMD Rule
1405 – Control of Ethylene Oxide and Chlorofluorocarbon Emissions from Sterilization or Fumigant Processes requires recovery of reclamation of CFCs at certain commercial facilities and
eliminates the use of some CFCs in the sterilization processes. Some CFCs are classified as TACs and regulated by SCAQMD Rule 1401 – New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants and SCAQMD
Rule 1402 Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources. SCAQMD regulates TCA compound as a TAC under Rules 1401 and 1402. 3.1.5 Design Considerations The only development
contemplated is large lot residential development that likely would occur lot by lot rather than as a comprehensive subdivision type of development. Construction of the individual residences
would be required to incorporate several green building design features to reduce energy and water demand, and thus also GHG emissions. These design features are described in detail
on page 3.1-38 of this section. 3.1.6 Impacts and Mitigation Significance Criteria The city of Temecula has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section
15064.7 of of the State CEQA Guidelines. However, pursuant to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines impacts to air quality may be considered potentially significant if the project
would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation. • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-26 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 The CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15064.7, define a threshold of significance as an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, noncompliance with which means
the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant. CEQA gives
wide latitude to lead agencies in determining what impacts are significant and does not prescribe thresholds of significance, analytical methodologies, or specific mitigation measures.5
CEQA leaves the determination of significance to the reasonable discretion of the lead agency and encourages lead agencies to develop and publish thresholds of significance to use in
determining the significance of environmental effects. However, neither the SCAQMD, the air pollution control agency for all of Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside
and San Bernardino counties, nor the city of Temecula, the lead agency for the proposed project, have yet established significance thresholds for GHG emissions.6 The regulations required
to meet the State goals under AB 32 are still under development. Furthermore, pursuant to SB 97, guidelines to be prepared by OPR for addressing greenhouse gas emissions under CEQA will
not be adopted until January 1, 2010. Accordingly, at this time there is no
formal guidance under CEQA and no available quantitative standards by which the approval of a real estate development project can be judged to support or hinder attainment of the State’s
goals relating to GHG abatement. While the OPR has not yet adopted formal significance thresholds, OPR issued a guidance document on June 19, 2008 which suggests three components for
CEQA disclosure: quantification of GHG emissions from a project’s construction and operation, determination of significance of the project’s impact to climate change, and if the project
is found to be significant, the identification of suitable alternatives and mitigation measures. While it is difficult to predict the specific impact of one project’s incremental contribution
to the global effects of GHG emissions due to a variety of factors, including the complex and long term nature of such effects and the global scale of climate change,7 it is possible
to determine whether a project is implementing design strategies consistent with the guidance that is available. Thus, if a project implements design strategies consistent with the goals
of AB 32 and the CAT strategies, the project will not be considered to have a significant impact with respect to global climate change, either on a project-specific basis or with respect
to its contribution to a cumulative impact on global climate change. 5 Climate Change and CEQA, Presentation to the Climate Action Team, Cynthia Bryant, Director, Governor’s Office of
Planning and and Research, September 19, 2007. 6 Personal Communication, AQMD Legal Offices, October 4, 2007. The SCAQMD has formed a GHG Significance Threshold Working Group, but SCAQMD
Staff is not expected to make a recommendation to the Governing Board until at least September 2008. More information on this Working Group is available at http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/GHG.h
tml (last visited 5/5/2008). 7 Ibid. OPR indicates in the Climate Change and CEQA Presentation to the Climate Action Team that complex questions must be answered before a consistent,
effective, and workable process can be developed for evaluating climate change under CEQA. Some of the questions cited include: What constitutes a new GHG emission? What is the appropriate
baseline for calculating new emissions? What makes a project’s GHG emissions significant? Is the effect of climate change too speculative to be considered a significant environmental
impact? How much mitigation is enough to reduce the impact so it is not significant?
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-27 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Impact Analysis
Impact 3.1-1: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. As discussed above, the 2007 AQMP for the SCAB sets forth a
comprehensive program that will lead the SCAB into compliance with all federal and state air quality standards. The AQMP control measures and related emission reduction estimates are
based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. Accordingly,
conformance with the AQMP for development projects is determined by demonstrating compliance with local land use plans and/or population projections or evaluation of assumed emissions.
The 2007 AQMP was developed based on SCAG population projections for the region. The population projections made by SCAG are based on existing and planned land uses as set forth in the
various general plans of local governmental jurisdictions within the region. The project involves the annexation of approximately 4,997 acres of unincorporated Riverside County territory
to the city of Temecula, and concurrent extension of the city’s sphere of influence to include that portion of the annexation area not currently within the city’s sphere (4,443 acres).
Approximately 713 acres within the project site are designated, by the Riverside County General Plan, RM (1 DU/10 acres) and approximately 4,284 acres are designated OP-CH. The majority
of the area proposed for annexation (4,279) acres will be designated by the City of Temecula General Plan “Open Space” and will remain primarily undeveloped. The development potential
on the remaining area (718 acres) which will be designated “Hillside Residential” is limited to one dwelling unit per 10 acres, which will permit a maximum of 81 new dwelling units to
be built. The proposed City of Temecula General Plan designations are ostensibly the same as the current County of Riverside designations with approximately the same projected population
within the project area. Since the project will be developed with land uses that are in accordance with the currently approved general plan land use designations, the project is also
considered to be in compliance with the AQMP. Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan and potential impacts
will be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. Impact 3.1-2a: The proposed project could violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation – non-blasting. Air quality impacts historically have been gauged on a regional-scale in SCAB. These regional thresholds are presented in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook, and are measured in both long and short-term impacts. Table 3.1-3, Regional Significance Thresholds shows thresholds. Recently, however, SCAQMD has also begun to focus on the
localized effects of air quality as a part of its environmental justice program. Due to this project’s potential proximity to
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-28 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.1-3 REGIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS Emission Threshold Units ROG NOX CO SOX PM-10 PM-2.5 Daily Threshold – Construction lbs/day 75 100 550 150 150 55 Daily Threshold – Operations lbs/day 55 55 550
150 150 55 SOURCE: PCR Services Corporation, 2008. sensitive receptors (i.e., existing residences), air quality impacts were also measured using a Localized Significance Threshold (LST)
analysis. LST analyses are also presented in terms of both short-and long-term significance. Regional Significance – Short-Term Short-term emissions consist of fugitive dust and other
particulate matter, as well as exhaust emissions generated by construction-related vehicles. Short-term impacts will also include emissions generated during construction as a result
of operation of personal vehicles by construction workers, asphalt degassing, rock blasting, and and architectural coating (painting) operations during construction. The project will
be required to comply with existing SCAQMD rules for the reduction of fugitive dust emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 establishes these procedures. Compliance with this rule is achieved through
application of standard best management practices in construction and operation activities, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, covering haul vehicles,
restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph and establishing
a permanent, stabilizing ground cover on finished sites. In addition, projects that disturb 50 acres or more of soil or move 5,000 cubic yards of materials per day are required to submit
a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or a Large Operation Notification Form to SCAQMD. Based on the size of this project (approximately 718 acres of developable land), a Fugitive Dust Control
Plan Plan or Large Operation Notification may be required, depending upon the size of the individual development proposals. SCAQMD Rule 1113 governs the sale of architectural coatings
and limits the volatile organic content (VOC) in paints and paint solvents. This rule dictates the VOC content of paints available for use during building construction, thereby reducing
impacts. Short-term emissions were evaluated using the URBEMIS 2007 for Windows Version 9.2.4. The URBEMIS model however, does not calculate emissions from rock blasting. In order to
assess the potential impacts resulting from blasting activities, emission factors from U.S. EPA AP-42, Chapter 13.3 were used to calculate blasting emissions. Blasting emissions are
calculated outside of the URBEMIS 2007 model, but are included in the overall construction emissions inventory.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-29 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 In order to prepare
a worst-case analysis of potential air quality impacts for the proposed project, the total construction of the development allowed by the proposed project was assumed to occur concurrently,
and is expected to require approximately 1 year, from February 2009 to April 2010. Development-specific information regarding the precise location and size of individual dwelling units
has not been determined; in addition, several assumptions relevant to model input for shortterm construction emission estimates are as follows: • The project site is currently mostly
vacant (with the exception of a handful of existing residences that will be incorporated into the project); therefore, demolition emissions were not analyzed. • The grading and blasting
will occur concurrently in 2009. Building construction will begin one month after grading and blasting begins. • Construction will take 14 months. Painting and asphalt can occur during
the same time as construction, and the resulting emissions added to the construction emissions. Table 3.1-4 summarizes the estimated construction emissions. TABLE 3.1-4 ESTIMATED DAILY
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS 2010 Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day) Activity/Year ROG NOX CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 SCAQMD Daily Regional Construction Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Road Construction
4 33 17 <1 9 3 Mass Site Grading 11 89 47 <1 24 8 Blasting <1 17 67 2 2 <1 Fine Site Grading 1 10 6 <1 <1 <1 Building Construction 10 38 189 <1 3 3 Painting 17 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 Asphalt
7 35 18 <1 2 2 Maximum Regional Emissions 26 116 207 2 27 10 Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No No No NOTE: See Appendix A of the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix B) for model output
report. SOURCE: PCR Services Corporation, 2008. Evaluation of the above table indicates that daily worst-case emissions from construction of 81 dwelling units would result in an exceedances
of the SCAQMD regional air quality emissions threshold for NOx, due to concurrent blasting and other site preparation activities. It is the combination of site preparation activities
and blasting that would cause an exceedence of NOX. It should also be noted that construction could be less intense (be spread out over a longer period of years) than predicted for this
analysis, which would result in lower daily emissions. However,
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-30 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 SCAQMD thresholds
are exceeded in the short-term; therefore, the impact from emissions produced during project construction will be significant and mitigation is required. The following mitigation measures
are proposed to reduce emissions from construction: Mitigation Measure 3.1-2a: General contractors shall implement a fugitive dust control program pursuant to the provisions of SCAQMD
Rule 403. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2b: All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2c: General
contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues would turn
their engines off when not in use to reduce vehicle emissions. Construction emissions should be phased and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks and discontinued during second-stage smog
alerts. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2d: Electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel-or gasoline-powered generators shall be used to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2e:
All construction vehicles shall be prohibited from idling in excess of ten minutes, both on-and off-site. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2f: The Applicant shall utilize coatings and solvents
that are consistent with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. Impact 3.1-2b: The proposed project could violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation – blasting. Blasting emissions cannot be mitigated. Therefore, even with implementation of the
above mitigation measures, NOx would continue to exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds as a result of concurrent blasting and other site preparation activities. Significance:
Significant and unavoidable. Regional Significance – Long-Term Long-term emissions are evaluated at buildout for the completed project at the end of construction. Operational emissions
refer to on-road motor vehicle emissions from project buildout. Area Source emissions include stationary combustion emissions of natural gas used for space and water heating, yard and
landscape maintenance, and consumer use of solvents and personal care products. URBEMIS 2007 computes operational and area source emissions based
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-31 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 upon default factors
and land use assumptions for each project. Separate emissions were computed for both summer and winter (see Table 3.1-5 and Table 3.1-6). TABLE 3.1-5 ESTIMATED DAILY PROJECT OPERATION
EMISSIONS (summer) Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day) Activity/Year ROG NOX CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 SCAQMD Daily Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Natural Gas <1 1 1 <1 0.00 0.00 Landscaping 1
<1 4 <1 <1 <1 Consumer Products 4 ----------Architectural Coatings <1 ----------Vehicles 9 13 119 <1 20 4 Total 14 15 124 <1 20 4 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No SOURCE: PCR Services
Corporation, 2008. TABLE 3.1-6 ESTIMATED DAILY PROJECT OPERATION EMISSIONS (winter) Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day) Activity/Year ROG NOX CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 SCAQMD Daily Thresholds 55
55 550 150 150 55 Natural Gas <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1 Hearth <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Landscaping (No Winter Emissions) ------------Consumer Products 4 ----------Architectural Coatings <1 ----------Vehicles
10 16 113 <1 20 4 Total 15 18 113 <1 21 4 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No SOURCE: PCR Services Corporation, 2008. Summer and winter emissions of the criteria air pollutants studied
will not exceed SCAQMD long-term regional thresholds. Neither summer nor winter operational emissions will exceed the significance thresholds for any criteria pollutant; therefore, the
impact is considered less than significant for long-term regional air quality.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-32 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Mitigation: None
required. Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Background Recently, as part of the SCAQMD’s environmental justice program, attention has been focused on localized effects of air quality.
Staff at SCAQMD has developed LST methodology that can be used by public agencies to determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts
(both short-term and long-term). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard to be exceeded, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA. Methodology The emissions analyzed under the LST methodology are NO2, CO,
PM-10, and PM-2.5. For attainment pollutants, NO2 and CO, the LSTs are derived using an air air quality dispersion model to back-calculate the emissions per day that would cause or contribute
to a violation of any ambient air quality standard for a particular source receptor area. LSTs for NO2 and CO are derived by adding the incremental emission impacts from the project
activity to the peak background NO2 and CO concentrations and comparing the total concentration to the most stringent ambient air quality standards. The most stringent standard for NO2
is the 1-hour state standard of 25 parts per hundred million and for CO it is the 1-hour and 8-hour state standards of 9 ppm and 20 ppm respectively. For PM-10 and PM-2.5, which the
SCAB is non-attainment, the operation LST is derived using an air quality dispersion model to back-calculate the emissions necessary to make an existing violation in the specific source
receptor area worse, using the allowable change in concentration thresholds approved by the SCAQMD. For PM-10 and PM-2.5, the operation concentration thresholds are 2.5 μg/m3. Short-Term
LST For short-term construction emissions, it is estimated that the maximum daily area to be disturbed would be 2.5 acres a day. Under the LST analysis methodology, only the on-site
emissions need to be considered. SCAQMD has developed a series of worksheets for use by projects in order to determine the pollutant emissions for LST analysis purposes. SCAQMD has provided
LST lookup tables to allow users to readily determine if the daily emissions for proposed construction or operational activities could result in significant localized air quality impacts
for projects 5 acres or smaller. As mentioned above, it was assumed that the maximum daily area to be disturbed would be 2.5 acres a day. The closest sensitive receptors are located
approximately 100 meters (328 feet) away. In order to perform a localized analysis, an LST was assumed using a 2-acre site and a 100 meter receptor distance in SRA No. 25. As shown in
Table 3.1-7, PM10, PM2.5, NO2 and CO localized construction emissions would not exceed California Ambient Air Quality Standards. Therefore, short-term construction emissions
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-33 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.1-7 ESTIMATED
DAILY LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS 2010 Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day) Activity/Year ROG NOX CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 SCAQMD Localized Construction Thresholds -363 2452 -38 10 Road Construction
4 33 15 <1 8 2 Mass Site Grading 11 89 47 <1 24 8 Blasting <1 17 67 2 2 <1 Fine Site Grading 1 10 4 <1 <1 <1 Building Construction 4 25 15 <1 2 2 Painting 16 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Asphalt 3
18 9 <1 2 1 Maximum Regional Emissions 16 135 121 2 24 8 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No NOTE: See Appendix A of the Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix B) for model output report.
Localized thresholds based on a 2-acre site with a 100 meter receptor distance in SRA No. 25 SOURCE: PCR Services Corporation, 2008. of non-attainment pollutants and precursors generated
by project construction are below SCAQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than than significant. Potential localized impacts from construction emissions are less than SCAQMD significance
thresholds. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2d: Electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel-or gasoline-powered generators shall be used to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure
3.1-2e: All construction vehicles shall be prohibited from idling in excess of ten minutes, both on-and off-site. Mitigation Measure 3.1-2f: The Applicant shall utilize coatings and
solvents that are consistent with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Long-Term LST This project involves the development of
residential units. The majority of the operational emissions are in the form of mobile source emissions. According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase
of a project, if the project includes
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-34 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 substantial stationary
sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site, such as warehouse/transfer facilities. The proposed project does not include such uses.
Therefore, due to the lack of substantial stationary source emissions, no long term localized significance threshold analysis is needed. CO Hot Spot Analysis Carbon Monoxide is a localized
problem requiring additional analysis beyond total project emissions quantification. The SCAQMD recommends that projects with sensitive receptors or projects that could negatively impact
levels of service (LOS) of existing roads use the screening procedures outlined in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Section 5.3) to determine the potential to create a CO “hot spot.”
A CO hot spot is a localized concentration of CO that is above the state or federal federal 1-hour or 8-hour ambient air standards. Localized high levels of CO are associated with traffic
congestion and idling or slow-moving vehicles. The proposed project was evaluated to determine the potential of creating CO hot spots as a result of project operations and the project’s
contribution to Level of Service (LOS) on adjacent roadways according to the CO hot spots protocol developed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The CO hot spot
analysis is contained in its entirety in Appendix B of this document and the results are summarized in Table 3.1-8, CO Hot Spot Results. For all of the intersections modeled, which were
selected in accordance with the Caltrans protocol, the CO emissions from project-generated traffic are less than significant and even when the cumulative impacts are analyzed, the peak
CO hot spot concentrations are less than the threshold values. Therefore, the project will not contribute to an exceedance of either the state or federal ambient air quality threshold
for CO emissions and will not form any CO hot spots in the project area. There are also no cumulative impacts for CO hot spots. No significant impacts related to CO generation are therefore
expected from the project. It should be noted that localized operational air quality impacts were assessed for the year 2010, which is the earliest year that full buildout could potentially
be implemented. As discussed above, a compressed construction schedule would result in the “worst-case” daily construction impacts. It is more likely that the 81 dwelling units will
be built over a longer period of time, and other sections of this Draft EIR consider 2015 to be the horizon year for obtaining full buildout. The criteria pollutant calculations and
dispersion modeling results presented above are appropriately conservative and represent a worst case potential daily operational scenario, because fleet-wide average emission factors
for mobile sources decrease over time due to the retirement of older, higher polluting cars and introduction of vehicles with lower emission profiles and higher fuel efficiency standards.
In addition, although non-project related vehicular traffic is expected to increase between 2015 as compared to 2010, the SCAQMD has projected that background CO concentrations would
remain constant. Therefore, analyzing 2015 emissions would result in lower emissions and lower localized concentrations than those presented in this Draft EIR. Therefore, as discussed
above, the proposed project will not exceed the most stringent air quality standards for criteria pollutants and potential impacts related to air quality will be less than significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-35 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.1-8 CO
HOT SPOT RESULTS CO Concentration (ppm) 1-Hour 8-Hour Intersection 2007a 2010 with Projectb 2010 Cumulativec 2007a 2010 with Projectb 2010 Cumulativec State Threshold 20 20 20 9 9 9
Federal Threshold 35 35 35 9 9 9 I-15 SB Ramps /Temecula Pkwy 4.4 4.0 5.3 4.4 4.0 5.3 I-15 NB Ramps /Temecula Pkwy 4.8 4.1 6.0 4.8 4.1 6.0 La Paz Road /Temecula Pkwy 4.2 3.8 5.0 4.2
3.8 5.0 Pechanga Parkway /Temecula Pkwy 5.1 4.4 6.1 5.1 4.4 6.1 Rainbow Canyon Road /Pechanga Parkway 4.2 3.7 4.6 4.2 3.7 4.6 Rainbow Canyon Road /Birdie Court 2.8 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.9
Rainbow Canyon Road /Bayhill Drive 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.7 Old Highway 395 /Rainbow Valley W Blvd 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.8 I-15 SB Ramps /Rainbow Valley W Blvd 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.5
a Includes Existing CO emissions. b Includes Existing plus Growth plus Project. c Includes Existing plus Growth plus Cumulative Projects plus Project. SOURCE: PCR Services Corporation,
2008. Greenhouse Gases Construction Emissions of GHGs were calculated for each year of project construction. Results are presented in Table 3.1-9. Also included in Table 3.1-9 is the
CARB’s estimated 2004 State-wide inventory, the latest year for which data are available. As shown, the highest net increase in temporary GHG emissions from on-road mobile source emissions
and on site construction equipment relative to the 2004 state-wide levels, due to the project, would be only 0.00045 percent in 2009 and 0.00011 percent in 2010. The GHG emissions estimates
presented in Table 3.1-9 do not take into account the implementation of GHG-reducing construction practices the City will require. The construction mitigation measures described in Section
3.5 include power poles, rather than temporary diesel or gasoline generators to power construction equipment, and limiting construction vehicle idling.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-36 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.1-9 CONSTRUCTION
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS CO2ea (Metric Tons) Emission Source 2009 2010 GHG Emissionsb 2,162 526 2004 Statewide Totalc 479,740,000 479,740,000 Net Increase as Percentage of 2004 Statewide
Inventory 0.0.00045% 0.00011% a All carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) factors were derived using the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol; Version 3.0, April
2008. b Compiled using the URBEMIS 2007emissions inventory model. The equipment mix and use assumption for each phase is provided in Appendix B of this Technical Report. Blasting emissions
included as part of the construction emissions inventory. c Statewide totals were derived from the CARB Draft California GHG Inventory. SOURCE: PCR Services Corporation, 2008. The implementation
of these construction mitigation measures would reduce energy consumption and thus GHG emissions, and thus would represent an improvement above “business as usual.” The project would
thus result in a less than significant impact with mitigation. No further mitigation is required. Operation Emissions of GHGs were calculated for the existing and projected future uses
with implementation of the proposed project. Results are presented in Table 3.1-10. Also included is CARB’s draft estimated 2004 State-wide inventory, the latest year for which data
are available. As shown, the net increase in GHG emissions from mobile source, electrical, and natural gas usage associated with the proposed project is approximately 0.00039 percent
of the 2004 statewide total. As described above, this GHG analysis was performed in accordance with existing non-GHG specific SCAQMD and CARB guidance. There are many uncertainties involved
in the quantification of GHG emissions from any individual development project. Newer construction materials and practices, current energy efficiency requirements, and newer appliances
tend to emit lower levels of air pollutant emissions, including GHGs, as compared to those built years ago, but the net effect is difficult to quantify. Thus, the estimated net increase
in emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed project presented above may be an over-or underestimation. The following project features would promote the reduction of GHG
emissions, and are described below: • Construction of the project would be required to exceed Title 24 standards by 10 percent. • The project will incorporate sealed duct systems, which
have the potential to increase heating and cooling efficiency by 30 percent.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-37 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.1-10 PROJECT-RELATED
OPERATION GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Emission Source CO2e (Metric Tons) Project Mobile Sourcesa 1,605 Electricityb 182 Natural Gasc 96 Net Increase Total 1,883 2004 Statewide Totald 479,740,000
Net Increase as Percentage of 2004 Statewide Inventory 0.00039% a Electricity Usage Rates from Table A9-11-A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993. Water conveyance energy rates from
California Energy Commission Staff Report: California's Water -Energy Relationship. 2005. b Natural Gas Usage Rates from Table A9-12-A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993. c Statewide
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory: http://www.CARB.ca.gov/cc/ccei/emsinv/emsinv.htm. d All CO2e factors were derived using the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol;
Version 2.2, March 2007. SOURCE: PCR Services Corporation, 2008. • Fluorescent lighting will be installed throughout the project. Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) use up to 75
percent less energy than traditional incandescent bulbs. CFLs also produce substantially less heat than incandescent bulbs, and can thus reduce home cooling demand. • “Energy Star” appliances,
such as dishwashers, washing machines, and refrigerators will be installed throughout the project. “Energy Star” qualified appliances utilize advanced technologies that require 10 to
50 percent less energy than standard models. “Energy Star” dishwashers and washing machines are also more water-efficient, and thus save energy associated with treatment and conveyance
of water. • The proposed project will reduce the energy associated with heating and cooling loads through the use of high-albedo (or reflective) roofing. Light colored roofing increases
the reflectance of the roof, and thus reduces GHG emissions from heating and cooling equipment. In addition, these roofs can mitigate the heat island effect by reducing the absorption
of solar energy. • Heating and cooling demand will be reduced through the thermal insulation properties of double-paned windows. • The project will also use “Energy Star” air conditioning
equipment and programmable thermostats to control heating and cooling equipment. “Energy Star” central air conditioners are approximately 14 percent more efficient than standard models,
and room air conditioners require approximately 10 percent less energy than standard models. Programmable thermostats can save up to 20 percent of heating and cooling costs by automatically
reducing home heating and cooling when it is not needed. The city of Temecula will require homes to include at least two of the following features in order to obtain Certificate of Occupancy:
• Spectrally selective or Low-E glass windows reduce energy loss, and thus decrease heating and cooling demand.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-38 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 • Enhanced insulation,
which is above code by at least five percent. • Utilize trees to shade the project’s structures, sidewalks, patios, and driveways. • Solar water heaters, which can reduce operating costs
by 90 percent. • Solar power generation through roof-mounted photovoltaic cells, which can reduce grid energy demand. The city of Temecula will also require homes to use one of the following
features in order to obtain Certificate of Occupancy: • Engineered and certified wood, which is harvested in a sustainable manner. • Tankless water heaters, which require less energy
than traditional water heaters. • Cellulose attic insulation made from recycled materials. • Sustainable flooring made from recyclable materials, such as bamboo and cork. Actual project
emissions will be lower than the estimates presented for the operational scenarios above, as the estimates do not account for the emissions reduction requirements associated with AB
1493, SB 1368, AB 32, Executive Order S-3-5, and regulations that have yet to be created. According to the CEC, the reductions in emissions anticipated under AB 1493 (if reinstated)
will be equivalent to reducing gasoline consumption to a rate of 31 percent of 1990 gasoline consumption (and associated GHG emissions) by 2020. Similarly, emission standards on the
State’s power plants under SB 1368 have not been used to predict emissions shown in Table 3.1-10 and will likely result in actual emissions below the levels presented. It is difficult
to estimate what portion of the direct and indirect GHG emissions presented above represent new GHG emissions versus existing displaced emissions. Displaced emissions are those that
prior to the project, are created and emitted elsewhere; whereas new GHG emissions are those that do not and would not exist without implementation of the project, creating an incremental
increase in emissions. This project would provide housing to accommodate the projected increase in demand for housing within the region. Those who would occupy the new homes already
generate GHG emissions through their current activities; any net increase in such emissions with their relocation to the site would depend on the nature of their current activities,
such as the distance of their commute, the energy demand associated with their current homes, and other factors. Accordingly, assuming all project-related operational emissions are new
is conservative for this reason as well. Due to the complex physical, chemical and atmospheric mechanisms involved in global climate change, there is no basis for concluding that the
project's very small theoretical emissions increase could actually cause a measurable increase in global GHG emissions necessary to force global climate change. The GHG emissions of
the project alone cannot cause a direct physical change in the environment. It is global emissions in their aggregate that contribute to climate change, not any one source of emissions
alone. Therefore, due to the incremental amount of GHG emissions estimated for this project, the fact that estimated operational emissions are likely overstated (due to the fact that
it is speculative to account for reductions through future regulations or to offset precisely for existing emissions by future occupants of the project), and
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-39 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 the lack of any
evidence for concluding that the project's GHG emissions could cause any measurable increase in global GHG emissions necessary to force global climate change, the project is not considered
to have a significant impact with respect to global climate change on a project-specific basis. Moreover, there is no non-speculative method for assessing how the project's very small
theoretical GHG emissions increase could cause a significant project-specific effect on global climate change. Impact 3.1-3: The proposed project could result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Cumulative Impacts Construction Thirty-one related projects have been identified within the proposed project vicinity; their
locations are given in Figure 5-2 (Chapter 5). Of the 31 related projects listed in Table 5-5 (Chapter 5)that have been identified within the project area, there are a number of related
projects that have not yet been built or are currently under construction. Since the Applicant has no control over the timing or sequencing of the related projects, any quantitative
analysis to ascertain daily construction emissions that assumes multiple, concurrent construction projects would be entirely speculative. For this reason, the SCAQMD’s methodology to
assess a project’s cumulative impact differs from the cumulative impacts methodology employed elsewhere in this Draft EIR. With respect to the project’s construction-period air quality
emissions and cumulative Basin-wide conditions, the SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to Federal CAA mandates. As such,
the proposed project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements, and implement all feasible mitigation measures. In addition, the proposed project would comply with adopted AQMP
emissions control measures. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates as well as the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements (i.e.,
Rule 403 compliance, the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures) would also be imposed on construction projects
Basin-wide, which would include each of the related projects mentioned above. By applying SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology, implementation of the proposed project would
not result in an addition of pollutants such that considerable cumulative impacts in conjunction with related projects in the region would occur. Therefore, the emissions of non-attainment
pollutants and precursors generated by project operation would be less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, the greatest potential for TAC emissions at each related project
would involve diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during grading and excavation activities. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic
air toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of TACs over a 70-year
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-40 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 lifetime will
contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. Given that the proposed project’s contribution to cancer risk from construction activities would be less than
significant and is a localized impact, related projects that have not already been built would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of TAC emissions with no
residual emissions after construction and corresponding individual cancer risk. Thus, TAC emissions from the related projects are anticipated to be less than significant individually
and cumulatively. Also similar to the proposed project, potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities at each related project would include the use of architectural
coatings and solvents. SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits the amount of volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and solvents. Via mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules, it is anticipated
that construction activities or materials used in the construction of the related projects would not create objectionable odors. Thus, odor impacts from the related projects are anticipated
to be less than significant individually, as well as cumulatively in conjunction with the proposed project. Operation The SCAQMD’s approach for assessing cumulative impacts related to
operations is based on attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the Federal and State Clean Air Acts. As discussed earlier, the SCAQMD has developed
a comprehensive plan, the 2007 AQMP, which addresses the region’s cumulative air quality condition. A significant impact may occur if a project would add a cumulatively considerable
contribution of a federal or state non-attainment pollutant. Because the Basin is currently in nonattainment for ozone, PM-10 and PM-2.5, related projects could exceed an air quality
standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. Cumulative impacts to air quality are evaluated under two sets of thresholds for CEQA and the SCAQMD. In particular,
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3) provides guidance in determining the significance of cumulative impacts. Specifically, Section 15064(h)(3) states in part that: “A lead agency may
determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved
plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem (e.g., water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated
waste management plan) within the geographic area in which the project is located. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over
the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency…” For purposes of the cumulative
air quality analysis with respect to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative air quality impacts is determined based on compliance with
SCAQMD’s adopted 2007 AQMP. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, which in this case is the AQMP. A project is deemed
inconsistent with air quality plans if it results in population and/or employment growth that exceeds growth estimates in the applicable air quality plan. In turn, the AQMP relies upon
growth projections adopted by the
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-41 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 SCAG, which in
turn, relies upon adopted General Plan growth projections. Consequently, compliance with the City’s General Plan typically results in compliance with the AQMP. As discussed above, the
project would not result in population and/or employment growth that exceeds growth estimates in the AQMP. The project would comply with all rules and regulations as implemented by the
SCAQMD and the CARB, and would conform to the standards and guidelines of the City of Temecula General Plan. Therefore, it was determined that the proposed project was consistent with
the AQMP. Thus, given the project’s consistency with the AQMP, the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative air quality effects is not cumulatively considerable, per CEQA Section
15064(h)(3). Nonetheless, SCAQMD no longer recommends relying solely upon consistency with the AQMP AQMP as an appropriate methodology for assessing cumulative air quality impacts. Instead,
SCAQMD’s approach to determining cumulative air quality impacts for criteria air pollutants is to first determine whether or not the proposed project would result in a significant project-level
impact to regional air quality based on SCAQMD significance thresholds. If not, then the lead agency needs to consider the additive effects of related projects only if the proposed project
is part of an ongoing regulatory program or is contemplated in a Program EIR, and the related projects are located within approximately one mile of the project site. If there are related
projects within the vicinity (one-mile radius) of the project site, (i.e., that are part of an ongoing regulatory program or are contemplated in a Program EIR) then additive effects
of the related projects should be considered. As the proposed project is not part of an ongoing regulatory program, the SCAQMD recommends that project specific air quality impacts be
used to determine the potential cumulative impacts to regional air quality. As discussed in above, peak daily operation-related emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance
thresholds. By applying SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an addition of criteria pollutants such that cumulative
impacts, in conjunction with related projects in the region, would occur. Therefore, the emissions of non-attainment pollutants and precursors generated by project operation in excess
of the SCAQMD project-level thresholds would be cumulatively less than significant. The CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (March 2005) provides
important air quality information about certain types of facilities (e.g., freeways, refineries, rail yards, ports, etc.) that should be considered when siting sensitive land uses (e.g.,
residences). A key air pollutant common to these sources is particulate matter from diesel engines. CARB identifies diesel particulate matter (DPM) as both a carcinogen and long-term
chronic TAC. Gasoline exhaust also results in additional TAC emissions (e.g., 1,3 butadiene, benzene, formaldehyde, etc). Because living near sources of air toxics may increase both
cancer and non-cancer health risks, CARB recommends that proximity be considered in the siting of new sensitive land uses. CARB’s recommendations are based primarily on data showing
that the air pollution exposure can be reduced as much as 80 percent with recommended separation. The CARB recommends that site-specific project design improvements may help reduce air
pollution exposures and should also be considered when siting new sensitive land uses. The
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-42 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 recommendations
are advisory and should not be interpreted as defined “buffer zones.” In addition, the CARB recognizes that site-specific analysis is preferred over use of the recommended site distances,
which is similar to a screening level approach. Where possible, CARB recommends a minimum separation between new sensitive land uses and existing sources. However, this is not always
possible, particularly where there is an elevated health risk over large geographical areas (e.g. urbanized areas of southern California). The CARB recommends avoiding new sensitive
land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. The basis for the recommended distance is a southern California
study that showed measured concentrations of vehicle-related pollutants drop dramatically within approximately 300 feet of the Interstate 710 (I-710) and Interstate 405 (I-405) freeways.8
Another study looked at the validity of using distance from a roadway as a measure of exposure to traffic related air pollution. This study showed that concentrations of traffic related
pollutants declined by 70 percent at a distance of 500 feet.9 CARB concluded that these findings were also consistent with air quality modeling and risk analyses done by CARB staff.
The CARB siting recommendations also recommend that sensitive receptors should not be sited within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million
gallons per year or greater), 50 feet for typical gas dispensing facilities or within 300 feet of a dry cleaning facility that uses perchloroethylene, among other siting recommendations.
According to a visual site survey and search on the SCAQMD Facility Information (FIND) database, no permitted TAC sources are located within the advisory recommendations promulgated
by the CARB. However, the actual project boundary is located within 500 feet of the I-15 freeway. Since residential uses may potentially be located within 500 feet of the freeway, a
mitigation measure will be added to ensure the project is consistent with CARB siting guidelines. As such, carcinogenic risk to on-site sensitive populations would be less than significant
with mitigation. The project may introduce residential uses near the I-15 freeway and expose residences to TACs from the freeway. Thus, a mitigation measure has been included to ensure
the project is consistent with CARB recommended siting guidelines: Mitigation Measure 3.1-3: Residential uses shall be located at least 500 feet from the edge of the I-15 freeway, consistent
with CARB siting recommendations. Global Climate Change It is difficult to estimate what portion of the direct and indirect GHG emissions presented above represent new GHG emissions
versus existing displaced emissions. Displaced emissions are those that prior to the project, are created and emitted elsewhere; whereas new GHG emissions are those that do not and would
not exist without implementation of the project, creating an incremental increase in emissions. This project would provide housing to accommodate the projected increase in demand for
housing within the region. Those who would occupy the new 8 Zhu, Y et al. “Study of Ultra-Fine Particles Near a Major Highway with Heavy Duty Diesel Traffic.” Atmospheric Environment.
2002; 26:4323-4335. 9 Knape, M. “Traffic related air pollution in city districts near motorways.” The Science of the Total Environment. 1999: 235:339-341.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-43 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 homes already
generate GHG emissions through their current activities, and that any net increase in such emissions with their relocation to the site would depend on the nature of their current activities,
such as the distance of their commute, the energy demand associated with their current homes, and other factors. Accordingly, assuming all project-related operational emissions are new
is conservative for this reason as well. As indicated in the analysis above, the estimate of project GHG emissions is conservative, with the theoretical net increase in GHG emissions
from operation of the project by 2010 estimated to represent a net increase of 0.00039 percent of 2004 State-wide total emissions. Moreover, a large percentage of the operational GHG
emissions conservatively associated with the proposed project would not represent new emissions because the future occupants of the project already generate emissions through their current
activities, and further, the emissions estimate does not reflect improvements in technology and other reductions in GHG emissions that are likely to occur pursuant to State regulations,
such as AB 1493, SB 1368, AB 32, and Executive Order S-3-5, as well as future federal and/or State regulations. Nonetheless, reducing GHG emissions is an important priority and reasonable
reduction efforts should be taken. Accordingly, the project has incorporated design features to reduce the project's potential impact with respect to GHG emissions that are consistent
with the goals of AB 32 and the CAT strategies discussed in this EIR and summarized in Table 3.1-11. AB 1493 mandates that CARB create GHG emission reduction rules for cars and light
trucks. According to the CEC, if AB 1493 is reinstated, the reductions in emissions will be equivalent to reducing gasoline consumption to a rate of 31 percent of 1990 gasoline consumption
(and associated GHG emissions) by 2020. When the rules are fully implemented and older cars are replaced with AB 1493 compliant vehicles there will be further reduction in GHGs from
trips to and from the proposed project. New power plant emission standards are proposed and anticipated to go into effect as a result of AB 32. These anticipated emission reductions
are not taken into account for this project, and future carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emission factors would be reduced when these measures go into effect. In June 2005, Governor
Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05, which established GHG emissions targets for the state, as well as a process to ensure the targets are met. As a result of this executive
order, the CAT, led by the Secretary of the California EPA, was formed. The CAT published its report in March 2006, in which it laid out several recommendations and strategies for reducing
GHG emissions and reaching the targets established in the executive order.10 Table 3.1-11 illustrates the project’s consistency with those recommendations and strategies presented in
the CAT report. The project features listed in Table 3.1-11apply directly to CAT strategies for reducing GHG emissions. The proposed project, by implementing the project features and
GHG reducing measures described above, results in a GHG emission profile that is better (lower) than business as usual. The project’s features and GHG reduction measures, make the project
consistent with the goals of 10 California Climate Action Team. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, 2006.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-44 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.1-11 PROJECT
CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION TEAM REPORT STRATEGIES Strategies for Reducing GHG Emissions Project Consistency Diesel Anti-Idling Reduce diesel-fueled commercial
motor vehicle idling. All construction vehicles would be prohibited from idling in excess of five minutes, both on-and off-site. Alternative Fuels: Biodiesel Blends and Ethanol Increase
the use of alternative fuels that are less GHGintensive. The fuel used by vehicles traveling to and from the project would be subject to regulations pertaining to the use of biodiesel
to displace California diesel fuel, and to increase in the ethanol percentage used in gasoline. In addition, project residents may choose to purchase flex-fuel vehicles. Achieve 50 percent
Statewide Recycling Goal Achieve California’s 50 percent waste diversion mandate (Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989) to reduce GHG emissions associated with virgin material extraction.
AB 939 would apply to the proposed project through the County’s regulatory plan. Urban Forestry Increase carbon sequestration by planting five million trees in urban areas statewide
by 2020. Planting shade trees is one of the options for reducing energy consumption required by the city of Temecula. Water Use Efficiency Implement efficient water management practices
and incentives, as saving water saves energy and GHG emissions. Water-efficient Energy Star appliances, such as dishwasher and washing machines would be installed throughout the project.
Building Energy Efficiency Standards in Place and in Progress The California Energy Commission updates building energy efficiency standards that apply to newly constructed buildings
and additions to and alterations to existing buildings. Both the Energy Action Plan and the Integrated Energy Policy Report call for ongoing updating of the standards Construction of
the proposed project would be required to exceed the standards of Title 24 in effect at the time of development by 10 percent. Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards in Place and in Progress
The California Energy Commission updates appliance energy efficiency standards that apply to electrical devices or equipment sold in California. Recent policies have established specific
goals for updating the standards; new standards are currently in development. Energy Star appliances, such as dishwashers, washing machines and/or refrigerators would be installed throughout
the project. Green Buildings Initiative Reduce energy use in public and private buildings to comply with Governor Schwarzenegger’s Green Building Executive Order, S-20-04, which mandates
a 20 percent reduction in building energy use by 2015. The proposed project would incorporate duct sealing, light colored roofing materials, double paned windows, and Energy Star thermostats
and air conditioners in order to reduce the heating and cooling demand of the the project. The project would install energy-efficient street lighting, and fluorescent lighting throughout
the project. In addition, the following are options for reducing energy consumption required by the city of Temecula: shade tress, double paned, Low-E glass windows, enhanced insulation,
California Solar Initiative Install one million solar roofs on homes and businesses and increase the use of solar thermal systems to offset the growing demand for natural gas and reduce
GHG emissions from electricity usage and heating applications. Two options for reducing energy consumption as required by the city of Temecula are installing solar water heaters in lieu
of conventional gas and electric powered water heaters, and roof mounted photovoltaic cells on individual houses to generate electricity. NOTE: Climate Action Team strategies
not listed are not applicable to this project. SOURCE: PCR Services Corporation, 2008.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-45 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 AB 32. Thus, the
project does not result in a cumulatively significant impact. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Given the global nature of GHG and their ability to alter the Earth’s climate, it
is not anticipated that a single development project, particularly one of this limited size, would have an effect on global climate conditions. It is, however, reasonably foreseeable
that emissions resulting from this project in combination with statewide, national, and international emissions could cumulatively contribute to a change in Earth’s climate, i.e., global
warming. However, the limited development potential envisioned by this project suggests that the project’s contribution to a cumulative impact is less than significant. As impacts for
construction and operation emissions are less than SCAQMD localized and regional significance thresholds, implementation would thus further reduce project emissions for all pollutants.
In addition, by incorporating the abovelisted project features as illustrated in Table 3.1-11, the project is supportive of the State’s goals related to the reduction of GHGs and will
help ensure that the project’s impacts will remain below the level of significance. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact 3.1-4: The proposed project would not
create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Potential sources that may emit odors to the immediate vicinity of the project site during construction activities
include the use of architectural coatings and solvents, and diesel powered on-and off-road equipment. Due to the nature of the construction activities and the relatively small footprint
of the various construction sites, few pieces of diesel powered equipment will be operating simultaneously. SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits the amount of volatile organic compounds from architectural
coatings and solvents, which lowers the emissions of odorous compounds. Odors generated during construction and grading will be short-term and not result in a long-term odorous impact
to the surrounding area. Therefore, project-related odor impacts during construction would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. References In addition to other reference
documents, the following references were used in the preparation of this section of the EIR: PCR Services Corporation, Air Quality Impact Analysis, Santa Margarita Area Annexation, August
26, 2008. (This report is contained in its entirety in Appendix B of this document.) County of Riverside, Riverside County General Plan, Southwest Area Plan, Adopted October 7, 2003.
(Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-46 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Street, Riverside,
CA 92501, 951-955-3200, or on the Internet on February 11, 2008 At http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap1/swap.html) South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook,
April 1993, with November 1993 Update. (Available for review at South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182.) South Coast Air Quality
Management District, Air Quality Data. (Available for review at South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21965 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 or on the Internet on
August 14, 2008 at www.aqmd.gov/smog/historicaldata.htm) South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, June 2007. (Available for review at South Coast
Air Quality Management District, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 or on the Internet on February 7, 2008 athttp://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/index.html) U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, “Six Common Air Pollutants”. (Available on February 7, 2008 on the Internet at www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/6poll.html) California Air Resources Board, AB 32 Fact Sheet
and Timeline – California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, September 25, 2006. (Available on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/facts/facts.htm) California
Chapter of the Association of Environmental Professionals, Alternative Approaches to Analyze Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents, Final, June 29, 2007.
(Available at on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at www.califaep.org) California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol, Version 2.2 March 2007. (Available on the Internet
on February 7, 2008 at http://www.climateregistry.org/Default.aspx?TabID=3347&refreshed=true)%20) South Coast Air Quality Management District, Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality
Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, May 6, 2005. (Available on the Internet at http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/aqguide/doc/aq_guidance.pdf on February 7, 2008.) California Energy Commission,
Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004, Publication CEC-600-2006-013-SF, December 2006. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at http://www.energy.ca.gov/20
06publications/CEC-600-2006-013/CEC-600-2006-013-SF.PDF) California Energy Commission, Our Changing Climate, Publication CEC-500-2006-077, July 2006. (Available on the Internet on February
7, 2008 at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500-2006-077/CEC-500-2006-077.PDF) California Energy Commission, Scenarios of Climate Change in California: An Overview, Publication
CEC-500-2005-186-SF, Published December 2005. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005-186/CEC-500-2005-186-SF.PDF)
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Air Quality City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.1-47 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 California Executive
Department, Executive Order S-3-05 by the Governor of the State of California, June 2005. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/energy/Exec%20Order%20S-3-05.pdf)
California State Senate, SB 1368, September 29, 2006. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/sen/sb_1351-1400/sb_1368_bill_20060929_chaptered.pdf)
Legislative Counsel of California, AB 32 – California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, September 2006. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/
asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_32_bill_20060927_chaptered.pdf) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 2001. (Available for review on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar
/wg1/index.htm) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Greenhouse Gases – Frequently Asked Questions. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/g
ases.html) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Kids Site. (Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html on February 7, 2008.)
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2005, April 15, 2007. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 athttp://www.epa.gov/cli
matechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html) United States Environmental Protection Agency, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13.3 (Available on the Internet on September 5, 2008
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s03.pdf) Marian Koshland Science Museum of the National Academy of Sciences Internet Site. (Available on the Internet on February 7,
2008 at www.koshland-science-museum.org) National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA Facts: The Balance of Power in the Earth-Sun System, 2005. (Available on the Internet on
February 7, 2008 at http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/NASA-Facts-EnergyBalance.pdf) California Public Utilities Commission, News Release: PUC Sets GHG Emissions Performance Standard
to Help Mitigate Climate Change, January 25, 2007. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/Published/NEWS_RELEASE/63997.htm)
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-1 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 3.2 Biological Resources 3.2.1
Introduction Potential impacts related to migratory corridors and biological resource protection ordinances were found to be less than significant in the NOP prepared for this project
(Appendix A). The focus of the following discussion addresses potential impacts to the existing environment and its relation to the provisions of the adopted Western Riverside County
MSHCP; direct and/or indirect habitat modification affecting endangered, threatened, wildlife movement corridors, candidate, sensitive or special status species; riparian habitat and
other sensitive natural communities; and wetlands. 3.2.2 Setting The SMAA project site is located in the unincorporated portion of Riverside County along the northern side of the San
Diego-Riverside County line and west of I-15 and the city limits of the city of Temecula. The site consists consists of approximately 4,997 acres of mostly undeveloped land and a five-mile
stretch of the protected Santa Margarita River. The majority of the project area is undisturbed and in a pristine natural area, including approximately 4,279 acres within the project
boundary which have been conserved in the SMER managed by SDSU for research and conservation (see Figure 3.2-1). There are six single-family homes located within the boundaries of the
annexation area. Four of these homes are located within the 718 acres of privately-owned land outside the SMER. The occupied private properties are primarily large ranch estates involved
with some agriculture or equestrian activities. The other two homes are located within the SMER and are used by people conducting research within the reserve. The annexation area supports
a species rich and high value ecological area for native plant and wildlife species. A number of special-status biological resources are known to occur or have suitable habitat within
the annexation area. Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (SMER) The SMER is designed to serve as a living laboratory or a campus classroom supporting the mission of SDSU: to provide well-balanced,
high quality education for undergraduate and graduate students and to contribute to knowledge and the solution of problems through excellence and distinction in teaching, research, and
service. The SMER lies in the chaparral/coastal sage and scrub/oak woodland vegetation zone of southern California. The climate is Mediterranean, with cool wet winters and warm summers
moderated by the marine influence of the Pacific Ocean that lies 18 miles to the west. Mean annual precipitation is approximately 15.75 inches and the mean annual temperature about 16.4°
C. The topography consists of low to steep hills and intervening drainages, with extensive outcroppings of granite boulders on the eastern hills. Elevations range from approximately
530 feet to 2,330 feet above
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.2-1 Aerial Photograph SOURCE: AirPhoto USA, February 2007
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-3 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 mean sea level.
The northern portion of the reserve is dominated by the deep gorge of the Santa Margarita River and associated riverine aquatic and riparian habitats (see Figure 3.2-2). The SMER is
a key part of preserving the entire Santa Margarita River, one of the last freeflowing rivers in coastal southern California, and its rich ecosystem. The Santa Margarita River begins
at the confluence of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek northeast of the project site at the current Temecula city limits. The river flows through the Temecula Gorge and Camp Pendleton
to the Pacific Ocean. The SMER has also been designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) holdings within this area are adjacent to lands
owned by the CDFG and the SDSU Foundation. SDSU Foundation administers the 1,230 acres of BLM public lands as a part of the SMER under a Memorandum of Understanding. The SMER provides
habitat for a relatively large number of common and sensitive plant and wildlife species. The SMER is also a large block of habitat and a key resource in the center of the Santa-Ana-Palomar
Mountain Linkage (SAPML). The SAPML represents a wildlife corridor that connects the Santa Ana Mountains and Palomar Mountain, including the Agua Tibia Wilderness Area. I-15 runs north
and south through the linkage, and along with urban and agricultural development in the vicinity of the linkage, has created a substantial chokepoint for wildlife movement in the middle
of the corridor. The Santa Margarita River, which winds through the SMER, is the last intact riparian corridor in southern California and an important water source for Camp Pendleton.
Vegetation Communities Vegetative communities are assemblages of plant species that occur together in the same area forming habitat types. The vegetative community descriptions and nomenclature
nomenclature used in this section are based in part on Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf’s A Manual of California Vegetation (1995) and the CDFG Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural
Communities of California (Holland, 1986). Plant names follow the Jepson Manual (Hickman, 1993). Most of the project site is covered by low shrub vegetation, a mosaic of mixed chaparral,
chamise chaparral, and coastal sage, oak and riparian woodlands are found in the deeper drainages. Sycamore, cottonwood, and willow forests are part of a protected riparian corridor
in the SMER. Coast live oak occurs along ephemeral drainages. The upland areas of the reserve support coastal sage scrub (CSS) and southern mixed chaparral. Some native grassland occurs
in small isolated patches. Scattered self-seeded orange, avocado and eucalyptus groves are also found throughout the project area. Eight vegetation communities were mapped (see Figure
3.2-3) in the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) within the project site and are discussed below. In addition, the eastern hills contain habitats too small to be mapped at the scale
of the RCIP map that are ecologically important for their potential to support special status species. A unique type of vernal pool exists on the site in basins and cracks in the exposed
impermeable granite slabs of the eastern hills (Guilliams 2008). These basins and cracks function like the clay and hard-pan vernal pools
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.2-2 The Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve SOURCE: San Diego State University USGS North Not to Scale
HABITATChaparral Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Grove/Orchard Non-Native Grassland Oak Woodland Residential/Urban/Exotic Southern Cottonwood/Willow Riparian Southern Willow Scrub . 0 2,200
Feet City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area 208485 Figure 3.2-3 Vegetation Map SOURCE: GlobeXplorer; ESA, 2008; Riverside County GIS, 2007.
Intentionally left blank
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-7 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 historically
present over much of California and they contain many seasonal-waters adapted species such as fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli) and a vernal pool indicator plant species (Callitriche
sp.). These pools may have the potential to support listed plant and animal species. Chaparral Chaparral is a structurally homogeneous brushland type dominated by shrubs with thick,
stiff, heavily cutinized evergreen leaves. Chaparral generally occurs below 1520 m (5000 feet) on mountain ranges throughout California. Chaparral occurs on all aspects, but at lower
elevations, it generally is found on north-facing slopes. Generally, it occurs on steep slopes and ridges with relatively thin, well-drained soils. Shrub height, cover, and composition
vary considerably with age since last burn, precipitation regime, aspect, and soil type. Canopy height ranges from 1 to 4 m (3.3 to 13.1 feet), occasionally to 6 m (19.6 feet). When
mature, mixed chaparral forms a dense, nearly impenetrable thicket with greater than 80 percent absolute shrub cover. Considerable leaf litter and standing dead material may accumulate
in stands that have not burned for several decades. The species composition of chaparral may include scrub oak, and several species of Ceanothus and manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.).
Individual patches on-site may support pure stands of these shrubs or diverse mixtures of several species. Commonly associated shrubs include chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), birchleaf
mountain mahogany (Cercocarpu betuloides var. betuloides), silk-tassel (Garrya elliptica), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), yerba-santa (Eriodictyon californicum), California buckeye
(Aesculus californica), poison-oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), California coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), hollyleaf cherry (Prunus illicifolia),
and flannelbush (Fremontodendron californicum). Some of these species may be locally dominant. No wildlife species are restricted to chaparral. Most species that utilize chaparral are
also found in other shrub-dominated types. There are approximately 3,270.76 acres of chaparral on the project site. Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub CSS is a community of soft-woody, drought
deciduous scrubs which grow rapidly and fruit during the spring and then drop and replace larger leaves with smaller ones during the summer dry period. Diegan CSS is the sub-type of
CSS found on the project site. The various sub-types of CSS are generally distinguished by the dominance of a particular species among the group of common species and are dictated by
distance from the coast and soil type. Dominant shrub species vary in Diegan CSS but include: California sagebrush (Artemesia californica), flat-topped buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciulatum),
laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), white sage (Salvia apiana) and black sage (S. mellifera). The project site includes approximately 1,278 acres of Diegan CSS, the majority of which occurs
on the western half of the SMER with additional patches along the northern border. CSS provides habitat for a number of special status species (see discussion below) including the California
gnatcatcher (Poliopotila californica californica), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), and coast (San Diego) horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum [blainvillii population]). Special-status
plants occurring in coastal scrub include Davidson’s saltscale (Atriplex serenana
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-8 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 var. davidsonii),
Plummer’s mariposa lily (Calochortus plummerae), slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras), and prostrate navarretia. Grove/Orchard Groves and orchards are agricultural uses
that provide low to marginal habitat value to native wildlife. There are approximately 77.13 acres of groves and orchards on the project site. Non-native Grassland Non-native annual
grasslands are distributed throughout much of California’s valleys and foothills. On site the non-native grassland is a sparse cover of non-native grasses such as slender oats (Avena
barbata), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), mixed in with ruderal species such as jimson weed (Datura meteloide), castor bean (Ricinus communis),
and mustards (Brassica sp.). Annual grasslands in general support a simple diversity of terrestrial wildlife. Characteristic reptiles that breed in grasslands include the western fence
lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), and western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis). Common birds that forage and breed
in annual grasslands include the western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). Other species that nest in
scattered brush in annual grasslands include California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). Larger mammals
that use grassland to some extent include the raccoon (Procyon lotor) and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). Special-status wildlife that occur in non-native grasslands include the burrowing
owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea), and California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia). Special-status plant species that could occur in non-native annual grasslands include Plummer’s
mariposa lily (Calochortus plummerae), and prostrate navarretia (Navarretia prostrata). Oak Woodland Oak woodland typically occurs on steep, north-facing slopes and shaded ravines or
along raised stream banks and terraces, where it forms open to relatively closed canopy stands dominated by coast live oak. In general, the shrub layer is poorly developed and consists
of species from adjacent scrub or chaparral habitats. The herbaceous layer ranges from a moderate to sparse cover of herbaceous species or leaf litter. Oak woodlands on steep slopes
often occur adjacent to large rock outcrops. Coast live oak occurs along ephemeral drainages. There are approximately 225 acres of oak woodland on the project site. Residential/Urban/Exotic
These areas include areas that have been graded or otherwise physically altered such that conditions no longer exist to support native vegetation including uses such as residential housing,
and associated features such as landscaped areas with non-native ornamental plant species. In general, developed areas typically provide little habitat for native wildlife. Large ornamental
or
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-9 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 any remaining
native trees in the these areas may provide roosting and nesting opportunities for raptors and owls and residential buildings could also be suitable roosting structures bats and for
birds such as swallows. There is approximately 18.64 acres of residential/urban/exotic land on the project site. Southern Cottonwood/Willow Riparian The southern cottonwood/willow riparian
community occurs along perennially wet streams of the Transverse and Peninsular ranges of southern California. It is a tall, open, broadleafed winter deciduous riparian forest dominated
by Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and willows (Salix sp). There are approximately eight acres of cottonwood/willow riparian habitat on the project site. This, combined with
the southern willow scrub community described below, forms a riparian habitat complex of over 80 acres on the project site along the Santa Margarita River and its tributaries on the
project site. This riparian complex provides nest and forage sites for the endangered least Bell’s vireo (federal and state listed) as well as several other species of special concern
including: two-srriped garter snake and southwestern pond turtle. Southern Willow Scrub Similar to cottonwood/willow riparian in species composition, but structurally different, southern
willow scrub commonly occurs in loose, sandy or fine gravelly alluvium deposited near stream channels during flood flows where it forms a dense, broadleafed, winter-deciduous riparian
thicket dominated by several Salix species, with scattered occurences of cottonwoods and sycamores (Platanus racemosa). Most stands are too dense to allow much understory development.
On the project site, there are approximately 72 acres of southern willow scrub dominated by arroyo willo (Salix lasiolepisa). Wildlife The SDSU Field Station Program for the SMER has
conducted extensive research of natural communities found within the reserve. The research has documented the observation of 181 animal species within the SMER, as listed in Table 3.2-1.
TABLE 3.2-1 WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED ON SITE Scientific Name Common Name Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk Actinemys marmorata pallida Southwestern
pond turtle Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper Aeronautes saxatalis White-throated Swift Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper sparrow nesting
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-10 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.2-1
WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED ON SITE – CONT. Scientific Name Common Name Amphispiza belli Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli belli Bell’s Sage Sparrow Anas americana American Wigeon Anas crecca
Green-winged Teal Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Aphelocoma californica Western Scrub-Jay Apodemia mormo Mormon Metalmark Apodemia mormo virgulti Behr’s Metalmark Aquila chrysaetos Golden
Eagle Archilochus alexandri Black-chinned Hummingbird Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron Baeolophus inornatus Oak Titmouse Batrachoseps pacificus Pacific Slender Salamander Bombycilla cedrorum
Cedar Waxwing Bubo virginianus Great Horned Owl Bufo boreas Western Toad Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered Hawk Butorides virescens Green Heron Callipepla
californica California Quail Calypte anna Anna's Hummingbird Calypte costae Costa's Hummingbird Canis latrans Coyote Carduelis psaltria Lesser Goldfinch Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch
Castor canadensis Beaver Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture Catharus guttatus Hermit Thrush Catherpes mexicanus Canyon Wren Ceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher Chaetodipus californicus California
Pocket Mouse Chamaea fasciata Wrentit Chondestes grammacus Lark Sparrow Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier Cistothorus palustris Marsh Wren Cnemidophorus hyperythrus Orange-throated Whiptail
Cnemidophorus tigris Western Whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus coastal western whiptail
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-11 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.2-1
WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED ON SITE – CONT. Scientific Name Common Name Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker Coleonyx variegatus Desert banded gecko Coleonyx variegatus abbotti San Diego
banded gecko Columba fasciata Band-tailed Pigeon Columbina passerina Common Ground-Dove Contopus cooperi Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus sordidulus Western Wood-Pewee Corvus brachyrhynchos
American Crow Corvus corax Common Raven Crotalus mitchellii Speckled Rattlesnake Crotalus ruber Red Diamond Rattlesnake Crotalus viridis Western Rattlesnake Cyanocitta stelleri Steller's
Jay Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica nigrescens Black-throated Gray Warbler Dendroica petechia Yellow Warbler Dendroica townsendi Townsend's Warbler Diadophis punctatus
Ringneck Snake Didelphis virginiana Virginia Opossum Dipodomys agilis Pacific Kangaroo Rat Rat Elanus leucurus White-tailed Kite Empidonax difficilis Pacific-slope Flycatcher Eumeces
gilberti Gilbert Skink Eumeces skiltonianus Western Skink Eumops perotis Western Mastiff Bat Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer's Blackbird Falco sparverius American Kestrel Fulica americana
American Coot Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen Geococcyx californianus Greater Roadrunner Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat Gila orcuttii arroyo chub Guiraca caerulea Blue Grosbeak
Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow Icteria virens Yellow-breasted Chat Icterus cucullatus Hooded Oriole Ixoreus naevius Varied Thrush Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed Junco
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-12 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.2-1
WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED ON SITE – CONT. Scientific Name Common Name Lampropeltis getula Common Kingsnake Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Lepus californicus Black-tailed Jackrabbit
Lynx rufus Bobcat Masticophis flagellum Coachwhip Masticophis lateralis Striped
Racer Melanerpes formicivorus Acorn Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Lewis's Woodpecker Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow Mephitis mephitis Striped Skunk
Microtus californicus California Vole Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird Mustela frenata Long-tailed Weasel Myiarchus cinerascens Ash-throated
Flycatcher Myotis evotis long-eared myotis Myotis leibii Small-footed Myotis Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis Neotoma fuscipes Dusky-footed Woodrat Neotoma lepida Desert Woodrat Notiosorex
crawfordi Gray Gray Shrew Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-Heron Odocoileus hemionus Mule Deer Onychomys torridus Southern Grasshopper Mouse Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Otus
kennicottii Western Screech-Owl Parula americana Northern Parula Passerella iliaca Fox Sparrow Perognathus longimembris Little Pocket Mouse Peromyscus californicus California Mouse Peromyscus
eremicus Cactus Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus White-footed Deer Mouse Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow Phainopepla nitens Phainopepla Phalaenoptilus nuttallii Common Poorwill Pheucticus
melanocephalus Black-headed Grosbeak Phrynosoma coronatum Coast Horned Lizard
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-13 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.2-1
WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED ON SITE – CONT. Scientific Name Common Name Picoides nuttallii Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Downy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Hairy Woodpecker
Pieris rapae Cabbage White Pipilo crissalis California Towhee Pipilo maculatus Spotted Towhee Pipistrellus hesperus Western Pipistrelle Piranga ludoviciana Western Tanager Pituophis
melanoleucus Gopher Snake Poecile gambeli Mountain Chickadee Polioptila caerulea Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Poliopotila californica californica California gnatcatcher Procyon lotor Raccoon
Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit Rana catesbeiana Bullfrog Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned Kinglet Reithrodontomys megalotis Western Harvest Mouse Salpinctes obsoletus Rock Wren Salvadora
hexalepis Western Patch-nosed Snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea Coast patch-nose snake Sayornis nigricans Black Phoebe Scapanus latimanus California Mole Sceloporus occidentalis Western
Fence Lizard Sceloporus orcutti Granite Spiny Lizard Selasphorus rufus Rufous Hummingbird Sialia mexicana Western Bluebird Sitta canadensis Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis White-breasted
Nuthatch Sorex ornatus Ornate Shrew Spermophilus beecheyi California Ground Squirrel Sphyrapicus ruber Red-breasted Sapsucker Spilogale putorius Spotted Skunk Spizella atrogularis Black-chinned
Sparrow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern Rough-winged Swallow Sturnella neglecta Western Meadowlark Sturnus vulgaris European Starling Sylvilagus audubonii Desert Cottontail Sylvilagus
bachmani Brush Rabbit
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-14 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.2-1
WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED ON SITE – CONT. Scientific Name Common Name Tachycineta thalassina Violet-green Swallow Taxidea taxus Badger Thamnophis hammondii Two-striped Garter Snake
Thomomys bottae Valley Pocket Gopher Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's Wren Toxostoma redivivum California Thrasher Troglodytes aedon House Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Winter Wren Turdus
migratorius American Robin Tyrannus verticalis Western Kingbird Tyto alba Barn Owl Urocyon cinereoargenteus Grey Fox Uta stansburiana Side-blotched Lizard Vermivora celata Orange-crowned
Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Nashville Warbler Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell’s Vireo Vireo gilvus Warbling Vireo Vireo huttoni Hutton's Vireo Wilsonia pusilla Wilson's Warbler Zenaida
macroura Mourning Dove Zonotrichia atricapilla Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned Sparrow SOURCE: SMER website 2008 Plants The SDSU Field Station Program for
the SMER has conducted extensive research of natural communities found within the reserve. The research has documented the observation of 331 plant species within the SMER, as listed
in Table 3.2-2. TABLE 3.2-2 PLANT SPECIES DOCUMENTED ON SITE Scientific Name Common Name Abronia umbellata pink sand verbena Abronia umbellata ssp. umbellata purple sand verbena Acanthomintha
ilicifolia San Diego thorn-mint Achnatherum coronatum giant ricegrass Acourtia microcephala sacapellote
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-15 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.2-2
PLANT SPECIES DOCUMENTED ON SITE – CONT. Scientific Name Common Name Adenostoma fasciculatum chamise Adiantum jordanii California maidenhair Allophyllum gilioides ssp. gilioides dense
false gilia Alnus rhombifolia rhombie leaf alder Amaranthus blitoides mat amaranth Ambrosia psilostachya Cuman ragweed Amorpha fruticosa False indigo Anagallis arvensis pimpernel Anemopsis
californica yerba mansa Apium graveolens wild celery Apocynum cannabinum Indian hemp Arctostaphylos glandulosa Eastwood Manzanita Arctostaphylos glauca bigberry manzanita Arctostaphylos
rainbowensis Rainbow manzanita Artemisia californica coastal sagebrush Artemisia douglasiana Douglas Artemisia dracunculus false tarragon Artemisia tridentata Big sagebrush Artemisia
tridentata ssp. tridentata basin big sagebrush Arundo donax giant reed Asclepias fascicularis Mexican whorled milkweed Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush Avena barbata slender
oat Azolla filiculoides Pacific azolla Baccharis emoryi Emory baccharis Baccharis salicifolia mule Baccharis vanessae Coyote bush Bebbia juncea Sweet bush Bebbia juncea var. aspera bebbia
Brassica nigra black mustard Brickellia californica California brickellbush Brodiaea filifolia Thread-leaved brodiaea Bromus diandrus ripgut brome Bromus hordeaceus soft brome Calandrinia
ciliata desert rockpurslane Calochortus splendens desert senna Calystegia macrostegia Island Morning Glory Calystegia macrostegia ssp. tenuifolia Morning Glory
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-16 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.2-2
PLANT SPECIES DOCUMENTED ON SITE – CONT. Scientific Name Common Name Camissonia californica California primrose Carex barbarae Santa Barbara sedge Carex spissa Bailey sedge Castilleja
exserta Purple Owl's Clover Castilleja exserta ssp. exserta exserted Indian paintbrush Ceanothus crassifolius hoaryleaf ceanothus Ceanothus integerrimus deerbrush Ceanothus tomentosus
woolyleaf ceanothus Centaurea melitensis Malta starthistle Centaurium exaltatum Great Basin centaury Centaurium venustum charming centaury Cercocarpus betuloides Birch-Leaf Mountain-Mahogany
Cercocarpus minutiflorus San Diego mountain mahagony Chaenactis artemisiifolia white pincushion Chamaesyce micromera Sonoran sandmat Chamaesyce polycarpa manyfruit spurge Cheilanthes
newberryi Newberry Chenopodium ambrosioides Mexican tea Chenopodium pumilio clammy goosefoot Chenopodium pumilio Pigweed Chloris virgata Chorizanthe fimbriata Fringed Spineflower Cicuta
douglasii Water Hemloc Cirsium occidentale California Thistle Claytonia perfoliata Miner's Lettuce Clematis ligusticifolia Yerba de Chiva Clematis pauciflora Ropevine Cnicus benedictus
Blessed Thistle Conyza bonariensis Conyza canadensis Canada horseweed Cordylanthus rigidus Bird's-Beak Cotula coronopifolia brassbuttons Croton californicus California croton Cryptantha
intermedia Clearwater catseye Cuscuta californica var. californica California dodder Cuscuta subinclusa Canyon dodder Cynodon dactylon Bermudagrass Cyperus eragrostis tall flatsedge
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-17 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.2-2
PLANT SPECIES DOCUMENTED ON SITE – CONT. Scientific Name Common Name Cyperus involucratus umbrella flatsedge Datisca glomerata Durango root Datura wrightii sacred datura Dicentra chrysantha
golden eardrops Dichelostemma capitatum capitatum bluedick Distichlis spicata desert saltgrass Dodecahema leptoceras slender-horned spineflower Dodecatheon clevelandii Padre's shootingstar
Dodecatheon clevelandii ssp. clevelandii Cleveland's shootingstar Dryopteris arguta coastal wood fern Dudleya edulis fingertips Dudleya lanceolata lanceleaf liveforever Dudleya pulverulenta
chalk dudleya Eleocharis montevidensis sand spikerush Encelia californica California brittlebush Encelia farinosa goldenhills Epilobium canum California Trumpet Epilobium canum ssp.
canum hummingbird trumpet Epilobium ciliatum Willowherb Epilobium ciliatum ssp. ciliatum coast willowweed Equisetum hyemale ssp. affine scouringrush horsetail Equisetum hyemale horsetail
Equisetum laevigatum smooth scouring rush Eremocarpus setigerus doveweed Eriastrum sapphirinum sapphire woollystar Ericameria parishii Parish Erigeron foliosus leafy daisy Erigeron foliosus
var. foliosus leafy fleabane Eriodictyon crassifolium Yerba Santa Eriodictyon crassifolium var. crassifolium thickleaf yerba santa Eriogonum elongatum Wild Buckwheat Eriogonum fasciculatum
California buckwheat Eriogonum fasciculatum var. fasciculatum Eastern Mojave buckwheat Eriogonum fasciculatum var. polifolium Eastern Mojave buckwheat Eriogonum gracile Slender Buckwheet
Eriogonum gracile var. gracile slender woolly buckwheat Eschscholzia californica California goldenpoppy Erodium botrys storksbill, filaree
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-18 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.2-2
PLANT SPECIES DOCUMENTED ON SITE – CONT. Scientific Name Common Name Erodium cicutarium storksbill, filaree Eschscholzia californica California Poppy Eucalyptus camaldulensis river red
gum Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red Iron Bark Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum Eucrypta chrysanthemifolia Spotted hideseed Eustoma exaltatum catchfly prairie
gentian Filago californica California cottonrose Foeniculum vulgare sweet fennel Fraxinus velutina velvet ash Galium angustifolium Narrow-leaved Bedstraw Galium angustifolium ssp. angustifolium
narrowleaf bedstraw Gilia angelensis chaparral gilia Gnaphalium bicolor Two-color everlasting Gnaphalium californicum California everlasting Gnaphalium canescens microcephalum White
everlasting Gutierrezia californica California snakeweed Hazardia squarrosa Sawtooth goldenbush Hazardia squarrosa var. grindelioides sawtooth bristleweed Helianthemum scoparium Bisbee
Peak rushrose Helianthus annuus annual sunflower Helianthus gracilentus slender sunflower Heliotropium curassavicum Salt heliotrope Heliotropium curassavicum var. oculatum seaside heliotrope
Hemizonia fasciculata clustered tarweed Heteromeles arbutifolia Christmas Berry Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed Hirschfeldia incana shortpod mustard Hoita macrostachya large leather-root
Hordeum vulgare var. trifurcatum hooded barley Hypericum sp Hypochaeris glabra smooth catsear Isocoma menziesii Coast goldenbush Isocoma menziesii var. vernonioides Menzies Isolepis
cernua low bulrush Jepsonia parryi Parry Juglans californica var. californica California walnut
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-19 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.2-2
PLANT SPECIES DOCUMENTED ON SITE – CONT. Scientific Name Common Name Juncus effusus Common rush Juncus effusus var. pacificus Pacific rush Juncus mexicanus Mexican rush Juncus oxymeris
pointed rush Juncus xiphioides irisleaf rush Keckiella cordifolia heartleaf keckiella Lactuca serriola China lettuce Lathyrus vestitus Pacific pea Lathyrus vestitus var. alefeldii San
Diego Pea Lepidium nitidum Common Pepperweed Lepidium nitidum var. nitidum shining pepperweed Lepidium pinnatifidum featherleaf pepperweed Lepidospartum squamatum California broomsage
Leptochloa uninervia Mexican sprangletop Lessingia filaginifolia var. filaginifolia Cudweed Aster Leymus condensatus giant wildrye Linanthus dianthiflorus fringed linanthus Linaria canadensis
Canada toadflax Lithophragma affine San Francisco woodland-star Lobularia maritima lobularia lobularia Lolium perenne ssp. multiflorum Italian ryegrass Lolium perenne Italian ryegrass
Lonicera subspicata Honeysuckle Lotus corniculatus Birdsfoot trefoil Lotus hamatus San Diego bird Lotus heermannii Heermann's Bird's-foot Trefoil Lotus heermannii var. heermannii Heermann
Lotus purshianus var. purshianus Lotus scoparius California Broom Lotus scoparius var. brevialatus western bird Lotus scoparius var. scoparius common deerweed Lotus strigosus Bishop
Lupinus hirsutissimus stinging annual lupine Lupinus sparsiflorus Mojave lupine Lupinus truncatus collared annual lupine Lythrum californicum California loosestrife Malacothamnus fasciculatus
Mendocino bushmallow Malosma laurina laurel sumac
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-20 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.2-2
PLANT SPECIES DOCUMENTED ON SITE – CONT. Scientific Name Common Name Malva parviflora cheeseweed Marah macrocarpus var. macrocarpus Cucamonga manroot Marrubium vulgare horehound Medicago
sativa alfalfa Melica imperfecta smallflower melicgrass Melilotus alba white sweetclover Melilotus indica sourclover Mimulus aurantiacus Monkeyflower Mimulus brevipes widethroat yellow
monkeyflower Mimulus cardinalis crimson monkeyflower Mimulus guttatus common monkeyflower Mirabilis californica California four o Muhlenbergia microsperma littleseed muhly Muhlenbergia
rigens deer muhly Nassella lepida smallflower tussockgrass Nassella pulchra purple tussockgrass Navarretia atractyloides hollyleaf pincushionplant Navarretia hamata Hooked Skinkweed
Navarretia hamata ssp. hamata hooked pincushionplant Nerium oleander oleander Nicotiana glauca tree tobacco Oenothera californica California Evening Primrose Oenothera californica ssp.
californica California Evening Primrose Oenothera elata Hooker's Evening Primrose Oenothera elata ssp. hookeri Hooker Olea europaea olive Opuntia ficus-indica Indian-fig Opuntia phaeacantha
Nopal pardo Osmadenia tenella false rosinweed Oxalis albicans Hairywood Sorrell Oxalis albicans ssp. pilosa radishroot woodsorrel Paeonia californica California peony Paspalum distichum
knotgrass Pellaea andromedifolia coffee cliffbrake Pellaea mucronata Bird's Foot Fern Penstemon spectabilis Beardtongue Phacelia cicutaria Caterpillar scorpion weed Phacelia cicutaria
var. hispida Caterpillar phacelia
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-21 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.2-2
PLANT SPECIES DOCUMENTED ON SITE – CONT. Scientific Name Common Name Phacelia minor Wild canterbury bells Phacelia ramosissima Branching Phacalia Phacelia ramosissima var. latifolia
branched scorpion-weed Pholistoma auritum Fiestaflower Pholistoma auritum var. auritum Blue Fiestaflower Plagiobothrys nothofulvus rusty popcornflower Plantago erecta dotseed plantain
Plantago lanceolata English plantain Plantago major broadleaf plantain Platanus racemosa California sycamore Pluchea odorata sweetscent Polygala cornuta Milkwort Polygonum lapathifolium
curltop ladysthumb Polypodium californicum California polypody Polypogon monspeliensis Annual Beard Grass Populus balsamifera Black Cottonwood Populus fremontii Fremont Cottonwood Porophyllum
gracile slender poreleaf Potentilla glandulosa gland cinquefoil Prunus amygdalus almond Prunus ilicifolia hollyleaf cherry Pteridium aquilinum Bracken Fern Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens
bracken Pterostegia drymarioides woodland pterostegia Quercus agrifolia coastal live oak Quercus berberidifolia scrub oak Quercus engelmannii Engelmann oak Rafinesquia californica California
chicory Raphanus sativus cultivated radish Rhamnus crocea hollyleaf buckthorn Rhamnus ilicifolia hollyleaf redberry Rhus ovata sugar sumac Rhus trilobata Skunkbush Ribes indecorum whiteflower
currant Ribes malvaceum chaparral currant Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum watercress Rosa californica California wildrose Rubus ursinus California blackberry
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-22 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.2-2
PLANT SPECIES DOCUMENTED ON SITE – CONT. Scientific Name Common Name Rumex salicifolius var. salicifolius willow dock Salix exigua coyote willow Salix gooddingii Goodding Salix laevigata
red willow Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow Salsola tragus prickly Russian thistle Salvia apiana white sage Salvia columbariae chia Salvia mellifera black sage Sambucus mexicana mexican
elder Samolus parviflorus water-pimpernel Sarcostemma cynanchoides Climbing Milkweed Schismus barbatus Mediterranean grass Schoenoplectus americanus American bulrush Schoenoplectus californicus
California bulrush Schoenoplectus maritimus cosmopolitan bulrush Schoenoplectus pungens three-square bulrush Schoenoplectus pungens var. pungens common threesquare Scrophularia californica
California Figwort Scrophularia californica ssp. floribunda Coast Figwort Selaginella bigelovii bushy spikemoss Selaginella bigelovii Spike-Moss Senecio vulgaris common groundsel Sidalcea
malvaeflora Checker Mallow Silene gallica common catchfly Solanum douglasii green-spot nightshade Solanum parishii Parish Solanum xanti chaparral nightshade Solidago californica California
goldenrod Sonchus oleraceus annual sowthistle Sonchus oleraceus Common Sow Thistle Sparganium eurycarpum Bur-Reed Sporobolus airoides alkali sacaton Sporobolus airoides Alkali Sacaton
Stellaria pallida Apetalous Chickweed Stephanomeria exigua Small wire lettuce Stephanomeria exigua ssp. deanei Deane Stephanomeria virgata Twiggy wreath
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-23 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.2-2
PLANT SPECIES DOCUMENTED ON SITE – CONT. Scientific Name Common Name Stephanomeria virgata ssp. virgata rod wirelettuce Stylocline gnaphaloides Everlasting Nest Straw Symphoricarpos
mollis creeping snowberry Tamarix ramosissima salt cedar Tetracoccus dioicus Parry's Tetracoccus Thysanocarpus laciniatus Lacepod, Fringepod Toxicodendron diversilobum Western Poison-Oak
Trichostema lanceolatum Vinegar Weed Typha domingensis Southern Cattail Typha latifolia Broad-Leaved Cattail Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea Hoary Nettle Venegasia carpesioides Canyon
Sunflower Verbena scabra verbena Veronica anagallis-aquatica Water Speedwell Vicia benghalensis purple vetch Vinca major Greater Periwinkle Vitis girdiana Desert Wild Grape Vulpia myuros
var. myuros Rat's-tail Fescue Xanthium strumarium Cockelbur Xylococcus bicolor mission manzanita Yucca whipplei Our Lord's Candle Source: SMER website 2008 Special-Status Plants and
Wildlife Special-status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the USFWS or the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); those considered “species of concern” by the USFWS; those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered
by the CDFG under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); animals designated as “Species of Special Concern” by the CDFG; and plants occurring on lists 1B, 2, and 4 of the CNPS
Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS, 2008). Nesting birds, including raptors and most passerine birds are protected in California, either under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act or the California Fish & Game Code, and may also be considered special-status species. A list of 37 special-status plant and wildlife species (Tables 3.2-3 and 3.2.4)
that have the potential to occur within the project site was compiled based on data in the CNDDB (CDFG, 2008) and CNPS literature (CNPS, 2008).
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-24 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.2-3
SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR ON SITE Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Requirements Birds Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia FSC, MNBMC, CSC, MSHCP,
CNDDB Nests in burrows adjacent to grasslands, scrub habitats, and agricultural areas. Coastal California Gnatcatcher* Polioptila californica californica FT, CSC, MSHCP, CNNDB Coastal
sage scrub and Chaparral. Least Bell’s vireo* Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE, MSHCP, CNNDB Cottonwood-willow forest, oak woodland, shrubby thickets, and dry washes with willow thickets
at the edges. Cooper’s Hawk* Accipiter cooperii CSC, MSHCP Nests in woodlands and forests; occurs in many habitats in winter. Sharp-shinned Hawk* Accipiter striatus CSC, MSHCP Woodlands;
forages over chaparral and scrublands. Bell’s Sage Sparrow* Amphispiza belli belli CSC, MNBMC, MSHCP MSHCP Dense Chamise Chaparral, Coastal sage scrub Golden Eagle* Aquila chrysaetos
CSC, CFP, MSHCP Grasslands, brushlands (coastal sage scrub and sparse chaparral), deserts, oak savannas, open coniferous forests, and montane valleys. White-tailed Kite* Elanus leucurus
CFP, MSHCP Open vegetation and uses dense woodlands for cover. Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus FSC, CE, CSC, MNBMC, MSHCP Large variety of open habitats, including tundra, marshes,
seacoasts, savannahs and high mountains. Loggerhead Shrike* Lanius ludovicianus FSC, MNBMC, MSHCP Grasslands with scattered shrubs, trees, fences or other perches. Amphibians Western
spadefoot toad* Spea [Scaphiopus] hammondii) CSC, MSHCP, CNNDB Grassland, scrub and chaparral locally but could occur in oak woodlands California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii
FT, CSC, MSHCP Aquatic, riparian and upland habitats Reptiles Two-striped garter snake* Thamnophis hammondii CSC, CNNDB Perennial and intermittent streams having rocky beds bordered
by willow thickets or other dense vegetation. Northern red-diamond rattlesnake* Crotalus ruber ruber CSC, MSHCP, CNNDB Scrub habitats, rock outcrops. Granite spiny lizard* Sceloperus
orcutti MSHCP Rock outcrops in shrub lands and grasslands
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-25 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.2-3
SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR ON SITE – CONT. Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Requirements Coastal Western whiptail* Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus
MSHCP Wide variety of habitats from sandy, gravelly, or rocky areas in desert flats, along bases of mountains and well up into mountain ranges. Orange-throated Whiptail* Cnemidophorus
hyperythrus CSC, MSHCP Wide variety of habitats from sandy, gravelly, or rocky areas in desert flats, along bases of mountains and well up into mountain ranges. Southwestern pond turtle*
Actinemys marmorata pallida CSC Inhabits permanent or ream permanent bodies of water in many habitat types below 6000 ft. San Diego horned lizard* Phrynosoma coronatum (blainvilli population)
CSC Coastal sage scrub and chaparral, prefers friable, rocky or shallow sandy soils Coronado skink* Eumeces skiltonianus interparietalis CSC Grassland, chaparral, pinyonjuniper woodand
and pineoak forest in coast ranges, southern CA. Prefers early successional stages, rocky areas close to streams. Mammals Stephens’ kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi FE, CT, MSHCP, CNNDB
Open grasslands or sparse shrublands. Western mastiff bat* Eumops perotis californicus CSC Many open habitats including woodlands, coastal scrub and chaparral. Roosts in cliff faces,
trees and tunnels Crustaceans Riverside Fairy Shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni FE, MSHCP, CNNDB Deep seasonal vernal pools within annual grasslands, which may be interspersed through
chaparral or coastal sage scrub vegetation Fish Arroyo chub* Gila orcuttii CSC, MSHCP Slow moving or backwater sections of cool to warm streams with substrates of sand or mud, but also
found in fast-moving sections of stream with coarser bottoms. Source: CNDDB 2008, SMER 2008 * =Found within the SMER. FSC = Federal Species of Concern – not formally protected under
law CSC = California Special Concern FE = Federally listed, Endangered CFP = California Fully Protected FT = Federally listed, Threatened MNBMC = Migratory Nongame Birds of Management
Concern FC = Federal Candidate for Listing MSHCP = Listed in the MSHCP CE = California listed, Endangered CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database CT = California listed, Threatened
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-26 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.2-4
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR ON SITE Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Requirements Chaparral sand-verbena Abronia villosa var.aurita 1B.1 Chaparral,
Coastal scrub, sandy areas 80-1600m San Diego thorn mint* Acanthomintha ilicifolia FT,CE, 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, vernal pools Rainbow Manzanita*
Arctostaphylos rainbowensis 1B.1 Chaparral, usually found on gabbro soils, Riverside and San Diego counties, 270-790m Jaeger’s milk-vetch Astragalus pachypus var jaegeri 1B.1 Coastal
scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, cismontane woodland. Dry ridges and open sandy slopes. 365-915m Orcutts brodiaea Brodiaea orcuttii 1B.1 Vernal pools, valley and foothill
grassland, closedcone coniferous forest, cismontand woodland, chaparral meadows. Mesic clay habitats, usu. In vernal pools and small drainages. Payson’s jewel-flower Caulanthus simulans
4.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub. Frequently in burned areas or in disturbed sites such as streambeds, also rocky slptes 90-2200m Smooth tarplant Centromadia pungens ssp laevis 1B.1 Valley
and foothill grassland, chenopod scrub, meadows, playas, riparian woodland. Alkali meadow, alkali scrub, also in disturbed places. 0-480m Long-spined spineflower Chorizanthe ploygonoides
var longispina 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, meadows, valley and foothill grassland. Gabbroic clay. 30-1450m Mesa horkelia Horkellia cuneata ssp puberula 1B.1 Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub. Sandy or gravelly sites. 70-810m Coulter’s goldfields Lasthenia glabrata ssp. Couteri 1B.1 Coastal salt marshes, playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal
pools. Usu. Found on alkaline soils in playas, sinks, and grasslands 1-1400m San Miguel savory Satureja chandleri 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland,
valley and foothill grassland. Rocky gabbroic or metavolcanic soils. 120-1005m
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-27 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.2-4
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR ON SITE – CONT. Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Requirements Shevock’s copper moss Schizymenium shevockii 1B.2 Cismontane
woodland. Metamorphic rocks, mesic sites and on rocks along roads Parry’s tetracoccus* Tetracoccus dioicus 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, stony, decomposed gabbro soil 150-1000m California
screw moss Tortula californica 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland, santy soil. 10-1460m * = Found within the SMER FT = Federally listed, Threatened CE = California listed,
Endangered Status codes – from CNPS 1B = plants rare, threatened, or endangered in the states and elsewhere 1B.1 = seriously threatened in California 1B.2 = rare, threatened, or endangered
in California and elsewhere; fairly threatened in California 1B.3 = rare, threatened, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; Not very threatened in CA 4.2 -Limited distribution;
Fairly threatened in CA Table Sources CNDDB 2008, SMER website 2008 Special-Status Wildlife Species The CDFG CNDDB and SMER species occurrence records identify 23 sensitive wildlife
species as occurring within or in proximity to the annexation area. Special status wildlife species with the potential to occur in the SMER are listed in Table 3.2-3. Of the 23 wildlife
species listed in Table 3.2-3, 20 have been documented onsite. Two species occurring on the site, the
least Bell’s vireo and the California gnatcatcher are federal and/or state listed endangered species. Riparian habitats for least Bell’s vireo exist along the Santa Margarita River and
the smaller drainages that feed into it. These habitats are almost entirely restricted to the SMER. Habitat for the California gnatcatcher occurs both within and outside of the SMER
within the annexation area. Special-Status Plant Species The CDFG CNDDB and SMER species occurrence records identify 14 sensitive plant species as occurring within or in proximity to
the annexation area. Special status plant species with the potential to occur in the SMER are listed in Table 3.2-4. Of these species, three have been documented on the project site.
Rainbow Manzanita (Arctostaphylos rainbowensis) a CNPS list 1B.1 is a chaparral shrub found on gabbro soils. San Diego thorn mint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia), a federally listed threatened
and state listed endangered species is associated with vernal pools recently found to occur in granitic basins on the SMER. Parry’s tetracoccus (Tetracoccus dioicus) is a CNPS species
1B.2 species meaning it is rare or threatened in California and elsewhere.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-28 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Narrow Endemic
Plant Species None of the plant species documented at the SMER is considered to be a “Narrow Endemic Plant Species” by the MSHCP. Sensitive Vegetation Communities CSS is documented on
the project site. Some areas of the project site support relatively intact stands of CSS. Although the Sage Scrub has no sensitive designation under the federal and state Endangered
Species Acts, it is, however, considered to have special conservation status by the CNDDB. The CNDDB describes this vegetation community as having between 21-100 viable occurrences and/or
10,000-50,000 acres of CSS worldwide. This community is also the preferred habitat of the Coastal California gnatcatcher. 3.2.3 Regulatory Framework Federal Federal Endangered Species
Act (FESA) The United States Congress passed the federal ESA in 1973 to provide a means for conserving the ecosystems that endangered and threatened species require in order to prevent
species extinctions. The FESA has four major components: the Section 4 provisions for listing species and designating critical habitat; the Section 7 requirement for federal agencies
to ensure, in consultation with the USFWS, that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species or result in the modification or destruction of critical
habitat; the Section 9 prohibition against “taking” listed species; and the Section 10 provisions for permitting the incidental take of listed species. Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act In 1972, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), with the goal of “restor[ing] and maintain[ing] the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” (33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)). In furtherance of this goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of any pollutants into navigable waters, except as
allowed by permit issued under certain sections of the CWA (See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1342, and 1344). Specifically, Section 404 authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to issue
permits for and regulate the discharge of dredged or fill materials into wetlands or other “Waters of the U.S.” Projects that would result in the placement of dredged or fill material
into Waters of the U.S. require a Section 404 permit from the Corps. The Corps defines wetlands as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (33 Code of Federal
Regulations [CFR] Part 328.3[b]). Wetlands are readily identified by the presence of hydrophytic vegetation (plant life growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically
deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content), hydric soils, and wetland hydrology.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-29 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 In January
2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that isolated, non-navigable wetlands and other waters are not necessarily subject to federal regulation [Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County
v. U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers (No. 99-1178) (SWANCC ruling)]. This was followed by another Supreme Court ruling affecting the extent of Corps jurisdiction in Rapanos v. United States
and Carabell v. United States [126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006)]. The Corps and EPA have subsequently issued a set of guidance documents detailing the process for determining CWA jurisdiction
following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States (herein referred to simply as “Rapanos”). The EPA and Corps issued a summary memorandum
of the guidance for implementing the Supreme Court’s decision in Rapanos that addresses the jurisdiction over waters of the United States under the CWA. The complete set of guidance
documents, summarized as key points below, were used to collect relevant data for evaluation by the EPA and the Corps to determine CWA jurisdiction over the project site and to complete
the “significant nexus test” as detailed in the guidelines and the Corps Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form. The significant nexus test includes consideration of hydrologic and
ecologic factors. For circumstances in situations (B) below the significant nexus test would take into account physical indicators of flow (evidence of an OHWM), if a hydrologic connection
to a traditional navigable water exists, and if the aquatic functions of the water body has a significant effect (more than speculative or insubstantial) on the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of a traditional navigable water. The Corps and EPA will apply the significant nexus standard to assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary drainage
ditch to determine if it significantly affects the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters. The key points of Rapanos as it relates to
the jurisdiction of the Corps’ jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA are as follows. (A) The Corps and EPA will assert jurisdiction over the following waters: • Traditional navigable
waters. • Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters. • Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters which are relatively permanent. • Where the tributaries typically
flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months). • Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries. (B) The Corps and EPA will decide jurisdiction
over the following waters based on a fact-specific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water: • Non-navigable tributaries which are
not relatively permanent. • Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries which are not relatively permanent. • Wetlands adjacent to but which do not directly abut a relatively permanent
nonnavigable tributary. (C) The Corps and EPA generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features:
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-30 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 • Swales
or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow). • Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining
only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water. Any project that involves impacting jurisdictional drainages, streams or wetlands by filling, stockpiling, conversion
to a storm drain, channelization, bank stabilization, road or utility line crossings, or any other modification involving fill activities, requires permits from the Corps, before commencing
the project. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Pursuant to Section 401, states can certify or deny federal permits or licenses that might result in a discharge to State waters, including
wetlands (33 U.S.C. § 1341). Section 404 permit applicants must also obtain a “water quality certification” from the state water quality agency indicating that the proposed activity
complies with all applicable state water quality standards, limitations, and restrictions. In California, the RWQCB issue water quality certifications within their jurisdictions. Appeals
to the decisions of the RWQCBs are heard by the State Board. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 United States Code 703-711) implements an international
treaty for the conservation and management of bird species that may migrate through more than one country. It is enforced in the United States by the USFWS, and makes it unlawful to
take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing
regulations (50 CFR 21). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may be considered a “take” and is
potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. In 1972, the MBTA was amended to include protection for migratory birds of prey (raptors). Generally, applicants who obtain an FESA
Section 10(a) permit simultaneously receive a three-year MBTA permit for FESA listed migratory birds. State California Endangered Species Act (CESA) The CESA is similar in many ways
to the FESA. CESA is administered by the CDFG. CESA provides a process for CDFG to list species as threatened or endangered in response to a citizen petition or by its own initiative
(Fish and Game Code § 2070 et seq.). Section 2080 of CESA prohibits the take of species listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the Act (Fish and Game Code § 2080). Section 2081
allows CDFG to authorize take prohibited under Section 2080 provided that: (1) the taking is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity; (2) the taking will be minimized and fully mitigated;
(3) the applicant ensures adequate funding for minimization and mitigation; and (4) the authorization will not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species (Fish and Game Code
§ 2081). These criteria closely mirror the issuance criteria established for the federal HCP program.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-31 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 California
Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. California has adopted regulations to address impacts to many of the resources subject to Section 404 of the CWA. Although not entirely overlapping,
these programs intersect frequently. Project proponents are required to obtain separate authorizations from the Corps and the California Department of Fish and Game. Section 1602 of
the California Fish and Game Code requires any person, state or local governmental agency to provide advance written notification to CDFG prior to initiating any activity that would:
(1) divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or remove material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; (2) result in the disposal or deposition
of debris, waste, or other material into any river, stream, or lake (Fish and Game Code § 1602). The state definition of “lake, rivers, and streams” includes all rivers or streams that
flow at least periodically or permanently through a bed or channel with banks that support fish or other aquatic life, and watercourses with surface or subsurface flows that support
or have supported riparian vegetation (14 CCR § 1.72). Under the Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement process, applicants provide written notification to CDFG of a potential streambed
alteration, and CDFG determines within 30 days if the notification is complete. Once a notification is deemed complete, CDFG reviews the proposed project’s impacts on the existing fish
and wildlife resources that are directly dependent on the waterway. If CDFG determines that the proposed activity will not substantially adversely affect an existing fish and wildlife
resource, it notifies the applicant that no Streambed Alteration Agreement is required and the project may proceed (Fish and Game Code § 1602(a)(4)(A)(i)). If CDFG determines that the
project may substantially adversely affect an existing fish and wildlife resource, it will require, as part of a Streambed Alteration Agreement, reasonable measures necessary to protect
the fish and wildlife resource (Fish & Game Code § 1603(a)). Non-Listed Species Management and Conservation Concerns Species of Special Concern is an informal designation used by CDFG
for some declining wildlife species that are not proposed for listing as threatened or endangered. This designation does not provide legal protection, but signifies that these species
are recognized as declining by CDFG. The CNPS has developed an inventory of California's special-status plant species. This inventory summarizes information on the distribution, rarity,
and endangerment of California's vascular plants. The inventory is divided into four lists based on the rarity of the species. In addition, the CNPS provides an inventory of plant communities
that are considered natural communities of special concern by the state and federal resource agencies, academic institutions, and various conservation groups. The determination of the
level of significance of impacts on plant species and natural communities is based on the number and size of remaining occurrences as well as recognized threats. Natural communities
of special concern are those that support concentrations of special-status plant or wildlife species, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife.
Natural communities of special concern are not afforded legal protection unless they are
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-32 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 designated
critical habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered species, support formally listed species, or are jurisdictional wetland habitats. Natural Community Conservation Planning
Program The NCCP Act (the Act), Sections 2800-2840 of the State Fish and Game Code, authorized the preparation of NCCPs to protect natural communities and species while allowing a reasonable
amount of economic development. The western Riverside County MSHCP, adopted by the County of Riverside on June 17, 2003, serves as a HCP pursuant to the Act and pursuant to Section 10
(a)(1)(B) of the FESA. The Implementation Agreement (IA) sets forth the implementation requirements for the MSHCP as well as procedures and minimization measures related to take of habitats
and species considered for conservation. Implementation of the MSHCP authorizes participating jurisdictions to “take” specified plant and wildlife species within the MSHCP Plan Area.
In addition, the wildlife agencies, namely CDFG and USFWS, allow take of habitat or individual species outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area in exchange for the assembly and management
of a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area. The assembly and longterm management of the MSHCP Conservation Area is the responsibility of the Riverside County, State, and federal governments;
Cities within the western portion of Riverside County; and private and public entities that conduct activities which would potentially impact the habitats and species considered for
conservation under the MSHCP. Local Riverside County General Plan The Riverside General Plan, updated and adopted in October 2003, serves as the blueprint for planning decisions in Riverside
County. It sets the foundation for growth and land-use related decisions within Riverside County over the next 20 years. The Riverside General Plan is comprised of the seven mandatory
elements plus the Air Quality Element. The General Plan is augmented by 19 more detailed Area Plans covering the County's territory. The proposed project area is covered by and subject
to the regulations within the Southwest Area Plan. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The proposed project site lies within the MSHCP. The MSHCP involves
the assembly and management of a 500,000-acre Conservation Area for the conservation of natural habitats and their constituent wildlife populations. The approval of the MSHCP and the
Implementing Agreement (IA) by the USFWS and the CDFG allows signatories of the IA to issue “Take” authorizations for the 146 species covered by the MSHCP (termed “covered species”),
including state and federally listed species as well as other identified sensitive species. The “take” authorization includes impacts to the habitats of the covered species. A project
that complies with the MSHCP meets federal and state endangered species requirements and meets CEQA criteria for less than significant impacts to the covered species and their habitats,
per the MSHCP EIR. The Western Riverside County MSHCP requires any new development to pay an acreage fee established by the City in Ordinance No. 07-01, to support the financing for
the MSHCP. The fee meets mitigation requirements for the CEQA and NEPA, FESA and CESA. The MSHCP is
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-33 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 further broken
down into core areas and linkages which are the focus of reserve and preservation actions. The project does not lie within any of the proposed or existing core areas, criteria area or
any special linkage areas. Furthermore, the proposed project is in compliance with the MSHCP’s Activities Outside of Criteria Area Requirements, which states: Public and private Development,
including construction of buildings, structures, infrastructure and all alterations of the land, that are carried out by Permittees, Participating Special Entities, Third Parties Granted
Take Authorization and others within the Plan Area, that are outside of the Criteria Area are permitted under the Plan, subject to consistency with MSHCP policies that apply outside
the Criteria Area (such as policies related to riparian and riverine areas and vernal pools, narrow endemic plant species, additional survey needs and procedures, and funding/fee issues).
Temecula Municipal Code Chapter 15.10 establishes the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Mitigation Fee for implementation of the MSHCP. On January 19, 2007, the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 07-01 amending Multispecies Habitat Conservation Mitigation Fees Ordinance 03-14 to increase the current fees as established by the Board at the Western Regional Council
of Governments (WRCOG.) These new MSHCP fees became effective July 1, 2007. Future development within the project boundaries will be required to pay these MSHCP fees or those adopted
at the time of development. These current fees are as follows: RESIDENTIAL MSHCP PER DWELLING UNIT • Less than 8.0 DU $1,860.00 • Between 8.1 and 14.0 DU $1,191.00 • Greater than 14.1
DU $ 968.00 COMMERCIAL MSHCP PER ACRE • Commercial $6,333.00 • Industrial $6,333.00 Multipurpose Open Space Element This element of the County General Plan categorizes policies that
seek to conserve, or manage and preserve resources for the purpose of sustaining them within the County. The Multipurpose Open Space Element provides analysis and descriptions of renewable
resources, such as forests, and non-renewable resources, such as mineral resources (i.e. not having an ability to grow). Within the County boundaries there are a wide range of natural
features, including mountain ranges, desert areas, riparian areas and rivers, forests, etc. The following policies are relevant to the proposed project. Southwest Area Plan The Southwest
Area Plan is an extension of the County General Plan. The purpose of the Southwest Area Plan is to provide guidelines and implement the General Plan vision for the unincorporated land
surrounding the cities of Murrieta and Temecula. The land within the area plan is distinguished by characteristics including vineyards and ecological preserves. The
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-34 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Southwest
Area Plan boundaries include San Diego County to the south, Orange and San Diego Counties to the west, Lake Elsinore to the northwest and the Riverside Extended Mountain Area Plan to
the east1. The Area Plan is organized around 30 area plan land use designation and five overlay area2. In the Southwest Area Plan Land Use Plan, approximately 11 percent of the land
is devoted to urban uses and 89 percent of the land is devoted to open space, agricultural and rural designations. There are 12 policy areas within the Southwest Area Plan. In addition
to the policy area, there are 12 specific plans located within the Southwest Area Plan; however, the proposed project is not located in any of the specific areas. 3.2.4 Design Considerations
The majority of the project area proposed for annexation will be designated “Open Space” and will remain undeveloped. The remaining 718 acres will be designated “Hillside Residential”
where development will be limited to one dwelling unit per 10 acres. Under these conditions a maximum of 81 new dwelling units could be built. 3.2.5 Impacts and Mitigation Significance
Criteria The city of Temecula has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines. The significance criteria for this analysis
were developed from criteria presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and the Riverside County Environmental Assessment Form: Initial Study Checklist. The project would result
in a significant impact to biological resources if it would: • Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS; • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG and USFWS; • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; •
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites; or • Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan. 1 County of Riverside
Southwest Area Plan, October 2003. 2 Ibid.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-35 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Impact Analysis
Impact 3.2-1: The proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS. The CDFG CNDDB identified 36 sensitive plant and wildlife species as occurring within
or in proximity to the annexation area. These species are described in Tables 3.2-3 and 3.2.4. Of these 36 sensitive species, 20 sensitive species have been documented within the annexation
area. Future development within the annexation area will have the potential to result in impacts to sensitive wildlife species found within the area. Potential impacts to these species
would include an incremental loss of habitat (including breeding and/or seasonal foraging habitat). Individuals present within zones of project grading and other direct development impacts
could potentially be killed or displaced by construction activities. The proposed project site lies within the MSHCP. The approval of the MSHCP and the Implementing Agreement (IA) by
the USFWS and the CDFG allows signatories of the IA to issue “Take” authorizations for the 146 species covered by the MSHCP (termed “covered species”), including state and federally
listed species as well as other identified sensitive species. The “take” authorization includes impacts to the habitats of the covered species. A project that complies with the MSHCP
meets federal and state endangered species requirements and meets CEQA criteria for less than significant impacts to the covered species and their habitats, per the MSHCP EIR. Because
the sensitive plant and animal species located in the annexation area are MSHCP Covered Species the USFWS has determined that these species are adequately conserved through implementation
of of the MSHCP. (Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit No. TE088609-0 dated June 22, 2004.) Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a will reduce these potential impacts to
a less than significant level. Some of the bird species that have been documented on site are protected under the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code which prohibits take,
possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs (in particular raptor species). If it is found that any of these species has subsequently established an active nest on the project
site and that the nest would be lost as a result of site-preparation, it may be in conflict with these regulations. In order to avoid violation of the MBTA or the California Fish and
Game Code, general guidelines suggest that projectrelated disturbances at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during the nesting cycle (generally February 1 to August
31). Should eggs or fledglings be discovered on site, the nest cannot be disturbed (pursuant to CDFG guidelines) until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they
can leave the nest on their own). Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1b will reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. The majority of the project area proposed
for annexation will be designated “Open Space” and will remain undeveloped. The development potential on the remaining 718 acres which will be designated “Hillside Residential” is limited
to 1 DU/10 AC which will permit a maximum of 81 new dwelling units to be built. As this development occurs, the loss of the portions of the
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-36 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 project site
as habitat will be an adverse, but not substantial impact on region-wide populations of these species. The proposed project’s potential direct and indirect adverse impacts on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species will be reduced to below the level of significance through compliance with the provisions of the MSHCP and the implementation
of Mitigation Measures 3.2-1a and 3.2-1b. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a: Future projects in the annexation area shall pay a development fee established by the City in Ordinance No. 07-01
to support the financing for the MSHCP and shall conform to the other requirements of the MSHCP including any Additional Plan Wide Requirements that may apply to areas outside the MSHCP
Criteria Areas as outlined in Sections 6.1.2 (Riverine/Riparian, Vernal Pool, and Fairy Shrimp Habitat), Section 6.1.3 (Narrow Endemic Plant Species Surveys), Section 6.3.2 (Criteria
Area Species Surveys, which covers additional survey needs and procedures), and Section 6.1.4 (Urban/Wildlands Interface Requirements) of the Western Riverside MSHCP. Payment of the
fee and compliance with all requirements of the MSHCP meets mitigation requirements for the CEQA and NEPA, FESA and CESA. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1b: In order to avoid violation of the
MBTA and
California Fish and Game Code site-preparation activities (removal of trees and vegetation) shall be avoided, to the greatest extent possible, during the nesting season (generally February
1 to August 31) of potentially occurring native and migratory bird species. If site-preparation activities are proposed during the nesting/breeding season (February 1 to August 31),
a pre-activity field survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine whether active nests of species protected by the MBTA or the California Fish and Game Code are present
in the construction zone. If active nests are not located within the project area and appropriate buffer, construction may be conducted during the nesting/breeding season. However, if
active nests are located during the pre-activity field survey, no grading or heavy equipment activity shall take place within at least 500 feet of an active listed species or raptor
nest, 300 feet of other sensitive or protected (under MBTA or California Fish and Game Code) bird nests (non-listed), or within 100 feet of sensitive or protected songbird nests until
the nest is no longer active. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact 3.2-2: The proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS. The vast majority of the riparian habitat within the annexation
area occurs on the SMER, and is therefore conserved. Therefore the project will not result in a a substantial adverse impact to riparian habitats. Other natural communities present within
the project area include chaparral, CSS, and oak woodland. The majority of the area of these communities within the project area is conserved on the SMER. Impacts to the remaining areas
of these communities could occur as part of the development of the 718-acre developable portion of the project area.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-37 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Although
CSS has no sensitive designation under the federal and state endangered species acts, it is considered to have a special conservation status by the CNDDB. This community is also the
preferred habitat of the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) which is a federally threatened species with documented on the SMER and with the potential
to occur within other areas of the project site. The portion of the project site that will retain the potential for approximately 81 dwelling units will be developed in accordance with
general plan and the proposed pre-zoning designations. The proposed General Plan policies and relevant provisions of the proposed pre-zoning (The HR-SM zone requires any hillside development
plan to be designed to protect sensitive wildlife habitat areas, biological corridors, native plants, and plant communities. The HR-SM zone supports interconnected, contiguous, and integrated
open space systems within an area, particularly when located contiguous to open space preserves as well as containing grading limitations, ridgeline protections and standards to reduce
green house gas emissions.) include regulations to buffer the SMER from subsequent residential development, avoid interference with linkages for the species in the area, and preserve
habitat for sensitive species. The city of Temecula General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures that apply to potential future activities within the project site are incorporated by reference
in Section 3.2-6. Development within the 718-acre developable portion of the proposed annexation area will add to the overall loss of CSS caused by development within western Riverside
County. Compliance with the MSHCP will mitigate these impacts to less than significant. Therefore, impacts to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFG or by the USFWS would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: See Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a Significance
after Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact 3.2-3: The proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected Waters of the U.S. and/or wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. The five mile
stretch of the Santa Margarita River that flows through the project site has a diverse array of plant and animal species whose habitats are contingent on the flow of the river. The Santa
Margarita River and its tributaries have the potential to be Water of the U.S. Infrastructure associated with residential development has the potential to impact Waters of the U.S. Any
future projects that have the potential to impact the river or its tributatries will need to be evaluated to determine their jurisdictional status. Due to the speculative nature of any
development within the annexation area, the extent of impact that may occur to federally protected wetlands cannot be determined. If the Waters of the U.S. are to be filled, prior to
grading, the future residential projects will be required to obtain a Section 404 permit from the Corps, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the San Diego
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-38 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Regional
Water Quality Control Board, and a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG. By complying with regulatory requirements, including the implementation of any compensatory mitigation
required by the permitting agencies, the project will have less than significant impacts to waters under federal and state jurisdiction. Therefore, potential impacts to waters under
federal and state jurisdiction will be less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.2-3: Potential impacts to Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State will be reduced to below the level
of significance through implementation of one or more of the following measures, which individually or in combination will reduce potential impacts to below the level of significance:
• Prior to any activity in the project area subject to the Corps jurisdiction, written documentation shall be obtained from the Corps that no permit would be required for construction
activities. Should a permit be required, all the terms and conditions of the Corps permit shall be implemented. • Prior to any activity in the project area subject to CDFG jurisdiction,
written documentation shall be obtained from the CDFG that no agreement would be required for construction activities. Should an agreement be required, all the terms and conditions of
the CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be implemented. • Prior to any activity in the project area subject to San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board jurisdiction, written
documentation shall be obtained from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board that no Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) or Section 401 Water Quality Certification permit would
be required for construction activities. Should a permit be required, all the terms and conditions of the WDR permit or Water Quality Certification shall be implemented. Significance
after Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact 3.2-4: The proposed project could interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The MSHCP identifies five geographic locations within the city
and surrounding areas that contain potential regional wildlife corridor linkages, including French Valley, Lower Tucalota Creek, Temecula Creek, Pechanga Creek, and Murrieta Creek. Upon
annexation, Santa Margarita River would then also be a potential regional wildlife corridor linkage within the city in addition to the previously identified five potential wildlife corridors.
The southeast corner of the project site is located within a designated “Special Linkage Area.” The MSHCP describes the special linkage area as follows:
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-39 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 This Special
Linkage Area will contribute to assembly of a portion of the SAPML for the benefit of Covered Species. Tribal coordination regarding American Indian Lands will be necessary in this area.
The SAPML includes locations within and outside the MSHCP Plan Area. Features of the entire linkage area are described in the Santa Ana-Palomar Mountains Linkage Conservation Design
Plan Working Draft (SDSU Field Station Programs and South Coast Wildlands Project, February 2003). A working draft of the Conservation Design Plan is attached to Comment Letter X3 in
Volume V, of the MSHCP. Local Permittees will apply the following rebuttable presumption of significance, taken from Appendix G to the 1998 State CEQA Guidelines, in CEQA review of proposed
public and private projects within this Special Linkage Area and apply mitigation measures as appropriate: “Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?” (MHSCP, Page
3-449) The SAPML straddles the San Diego County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program and the MSHCP. The SAPML provides the only remaining natural habitat connection for the coastal
Santa Ana Mountains to inland ranges. There are eight (8) existing culverts that traverse I-15 in the vicinity of the project site and the identified Special Linkage Area, that are large
enough to support large mammal movement between the east and west sides of I-15. Large mammal wildlife movement has been documented by camera monitoring stations installed by the SDSU
Field Station Program. Implementation of the proposed project could result in increased impacts to wildlife movement. The majority of the area proposed for annexation is preserved as
part of the SMER and designated OS and will remain undeveloped. The development potential on the remaining 718 acres which will be designated “Hillside Residential” is limited to one
dwelling unit per 10 which will permit a maximum of 81 new dwelling units to be built. Development within this area has the potential to impact wildlife corridors. The precise location
of grading and dwelling units and driveways is speculative and therefore, the extent of the impact upon wildlife corridors cannot be determined. However, compliance with the MSHCP and
the conditions of the Temecula General Plan Mitigation Measures outlined in Section 3.2.6 and relevant provisions of the proposed prezoning (The HR-SM zone requires any hillside development
plan to be designed to protect sensitive wildlife habitat areas, biological corridors, native plants, and plant communities. The HR-SM zone supports interconnected, contiguous, and integrated
open space systems within an area, particularly when located contiguous to open space preserves as well as as containing grading limitations, ridgeline protections and standards to reduce
green house gas emissions.) will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure 3.2-4: See Temecula General Plan Mitigation Measures Significance after
Mitigation: Less than significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-40 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Impact 3.2-5:
The proposed project could conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation
plan. The project site is located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP area and the city of Temecula is a participating entity and permittee of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
The MSHCP establishes “Criteria Area” boundaries for conservation that correspond to the Riverside County General Plan. These boundaries were established to facilitate the process by
which properties are evaluated for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation Area. The Criteria Area is an analytical tool which assists in determining which properties require conservation
under the MSHCP. Although most of the project site is located outside of criteria areas, the the project site is located in proximity to three subunits: Subunit 1 (Murrieta Creek) to
the north, Subunit 2 (Temecula and Pechanga Creeks) to the east and Subunit 6 (Santa Rosa Plateau) also to the north (see Figure 3.2-4). The project site is primarily located outside
of identified criteria areas. A small portion of the project site is located within Criteria Cell 7512 along the project’s northern boundary. Because this area is already conserved as
part of the SMER it is unlikely that development will occur in this portion of the criteria cell. The majority of the future projects within the project area will need to conform with
the MSHCP requirements for non-criteria cell areas. In accordance with the MSHCP, proposed projects outside of the criteria area are to be reviewed for consistency with the MSHCP Section
6.1.2 (“Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool” guidelines), the Section 6.1.3 (“Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species” guidelines), Section
6.1.4 (“Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface”) and the Section 6.3.2 (“Additional Survey Needs and Procedures.”). The proposed project’s consistency with these MSHCP
sections is discussed below: Consistency with MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP focuses on protection of Riparian/Riverine areas and vernal pool habitat types based on their
value in the conservation of the following MSHCP Covered Species (Table 3.2-5), several of which have been found or have the potential to occur on the project site. The project site
includes the Santa Margarita River and drainages tributary to the river. Although most of the sensitive riparian/riverine portion of the annexation area is preserved as part of the SMER,
approximately 718 acres of the proposed SMAA will retain the potential for development in accordance with general plan and zoning designations, which will allow development of approximately
81 new dwelling units. Future development within this area has the potential to impact riparian/riverine resources. However, potential impacts resulting from any future development of
discretionary projects within the project area can be reduced to below the level of significance through compliance with the MSHCP and the Temecula General Plan EIR conditions listed
in Section 3.2.6. Additionally, through compliance with the mandatory provisions of the MSHCP and the listed mitigation measures, it can be determined that the project is consistent
with MSHCP Section 6.1.2.
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.2-4 MSHCP Criteria Cells SOURCE: AirPhoto USA, February 2006 County of Riverside North Not to Scale
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-42 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.2-5
MSHCP RIPARIAN/RIVERINE SPECIES Amphibians arroyo toad mountain yellow-legged frog California red-legged frog Birds bald eagle least Bell’s vireo peregrine falcon southwestern willow
flycatcher western yellow-billed cuckoo Fish Santa Ana sucker Invertebrates -Crustaceans Riverside fairy shrimp vernal pool fairy shrimp Plants Brand’s phacelia California Orcutt grass
California black walnut Coulter’s matilija poppy Engelmann oak Fish’s milkwort graceful tarplant lemon lily Mojave tarplant mud nama ocellated Humboldt lily Orcutt’s brodiaea Parish’s
meadowfoam prostrate navarretia San Diego button-celery San Jacinto Valley crownscale San Miguel savory Santa Ana River woolly-star slender-horned spine flower smooth tarplant spreading
navarretia thread-leaved brodiaea vernal barley Consistency with MSHCP Section 6.1.3 Within identified Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA), site-specific focused surveys
for Narrow Endemic Plant Species are required. The project site is not located within the Narrow Endemic Plant survey areas as shown on Figure 6-1 of the MSHCP (see Figure 3.2-5). However,
one narrow endemic plant species, San Miguel savory (Satureja chandleri) has been reported in the vicinity of the project site. Although most of the annexation area is preserved as part
of the SMER, approximately 718 acres of the proposed SMAA project will retain the potential for development in accordance with general plan and zoning designations, which will allow
development of approximately 81 new dwelling units. Development within this area has the potential to impact narrow endemic plant species at such time that development occurs. The precise
location and extent of impact cannot be determined at this time. Additionally, the future location of narrow endemic plants cannot be determined at this time. Potential impacts resulting
from any future development of discretionary projects within the project area can be reduced to below the level of significance through implementation of the listed mitigation measures.
Through compliance with the mandatory provisions of the MSHCP and the listed mitigation measures, potential impacts are reduced to below the level of significance and the project is
consistent with MSHCP Section 6.1.3.
PROJECT SITE City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.2-5 MHSCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area SOURCE: MSHCP, Figure 6-1
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-44 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Consistency
with MSHCP Section 6.1.4 Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP sets forth guidelines which are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP
Conservation Area, where applicable. Section 6.1.4 states that: “As the MSHCP Conservation Area is assembled, 'hard-line' boundaries shall be established and development may occur adjacent
to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Future development of discretionary projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area may result in Edge Effects that will adversely affect biological
resources within the MSHCP Conservation Area. To minimize such Edge Effects, the following guidelines shall be implemented in conjunction with review of individual public and private
Development projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area.” The guidelines referenced above have been incorporated by reference through General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-10
in Section 3.2.6. The SMAA project site is primarily located outside of identified criteria areas. A small portion of the project site is located within Criteria Cell 7512 along the
project’s northern boundary, and the southeast corner of the project site is located within a designated “Special Linkage Area.” The majority of the project site is located outside of
designated criteria areas. The project site is located in proximity to three subunits: Subunit 1 (Murrieta Creek) to the north, Subunit 2 (Temecula and Pechenga Creeks) to the east and
Subunit 6 (Santa Rosa Plateau) also to the north. Due to the project site’s partial inclusion within an identified criteria cell and a special linkage area, future development in the
project area may need to comply with the policies set forth in Section 6.1.4. Although most of the annexation area is preserved as part of the SMER, approximately 718 acres of the proposed
SMAA will retain the potential for development in accordance with general plan and zoning designations, which would allow development of approximately 81 new dwelling units. Development
within this area has the potential to require compliance with the “Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface” as described in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, at such time that
development requiring discretionary approval is proposed. Local policies and zoning include regulations to buffer the SMER from adverse effects of development, avoid interference with
linkages for the species in the area, and preserve habitat for the common and sensitive species in the area. Through compliance with the mandatory provisions of the MSHCP and the listed
mitigation measures, potential impacts are reduced to below the level of significance and the project is consistent with MSHCP Section 6.1.4. Consistency with MSHCP Section 6.3.2 The
MSHCP also requires additional surveys for certain species if the project is located in criteria areas shown on Figure 3.2-6, MSHCP – Criteria Area Species Survey Area (MSHCP Figure
6-2), Figure 3.2-7, Amphibian Species Survey Areas With Critical Area (MHSCP – Figure 6-3), Figure 3.2-8, Burrowing Owl Survey Areas With Criteria Area (MSHCP –
PROJECT SITE City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.2-6 MHSCP -Criteria Area Species Survey SOURCE: MSHCP, Figure 6-2
PROJECT SITE City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.2-7 Amphibian Species Survey Areas with Critical Area SOURCE: MSHCP, Figure 6-3
PROJECT SITE City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.2-8 Burrowing Owl Survey Areas with Criteria Area SOURCE: MSHCP, Figure 5-1
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-48 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Figure 6-4)
and Figure 3.2-9, Mammal Species Survey Areas With Criteria Area (MSHCP Figure 6-5) of the MSHCP. The project site is located outside of any Critical Area Species Survey Area (CASSA)
for plants and mammals, although one CASSA plant species, the thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) has been observed within the project boundaries. However, the southeast portion
of the project site is located within the area shown on MSHCP Figure 6-4 (Burrowing Owl Survey). A portion of the project area falls within the area for burrowing owl habitat assessments
as required by the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The identification of areas inhabited by burrowing owls is a goal of the Western Riverside County conservation efforts, as existing
information on burrowing owl distribution is limited. Suitable habitats for the burrowing owl include non-native grassland, shrub lands and agricultural use areas which compose much
of the project site. Burrowing owls typically inhabit burrows made by mammals such as ground squirrels or badgers, and can also be found in openings of man-made structures. Focused burrow
surveys are required if suitable habitat is found on site. Although most of the annexation area is preserved as part of the SMER, approximately 718 acres of the proposed SMAA project
will retain the potential for development in accordance with general plan and zoning designations, which would allow development of approximately 81 new dwelling units. The precise location
of development and whether or not a development site contains occupied burrowing owl habitat cannot be determined at this time. Additionally, due to the migratory nature of the burrowing
owl, there is a possibility that although burrowing owls may not be located on a particular property at any point in time, they could occupy the site prior to actual project construction.
Development of future discretionary development proposals within this area may require compliance with MSHCP Section 6.3.2 through the preparation of burrowing owl habitat assessments
and focused burrowing owl surveys, and compliance with the listed mitigation measures for projects that occur on the portions of the projects site where burrowing owl assessments are
required. The proposed project has the potential to have a significance impact associated with burrowing owl habitat. However with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-5a and
Mitigation Measure 3.2-5b the project impacts would be below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 3.2-5a: See Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a Mitigation Measure 3.2-5b: Pursuant Western
Riverside County MSHCP, within 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit, future development projects in the project area shall conduct a pre-construction presence/absence survey
for the burrowing owl shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and the results of this presence/absence survey shall be provided in writing to the County Biologist. If it is determined
that the project site is occupied by the burrowing owl, take of "active" nests shall be avoided. However, when the Burrowing Owl is present, active relocation outside of the nesting
season (March 1 through August 15) by a qualified biologist shall be required. The qualified biologist shall be consulted to determine appropriate translocation sites. Occupation of
this species on the project site may result in the need to revise grading plans so that take of "active" nests is avoided or alternatively, a grading permit may be issued once the species
has been actively relocated. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
PROJECT SITE City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.2-9 Mammal Species Survey Areas with Criteria Area SOURCE: MSHCP, Figure 6-5
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-50 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Based upon
the above analysis of consistency with the MSHCP, and implementation of the listed mitigation measures, the proposed project is consistent with the provisions of the adopted MSHCP. For
these reasons the proposed project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan. 3.2.6 Applicable General
Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures from the General Plan EIR were evaluated for their ability to eliminate or reduce the potential significant adverse impacts to biological
resources. In addition to the abovelisted project-related Mitigation Measures, the following measures shall be implemented for future development of discretionary projects to further
eliminate or reduce potentially significant impacts to biological resources to below the level of of significance. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-1: The City shall require discretionary
development proposals in all areas inside or adjacent to sensitive habitat areas, designated critical habitat, and MSHCP conservation areas and core linkages as defined by the USFWS,
the CDFG and the MSHCP, to provide detailed biological assessments to determine the potentially significant impacts of the project and mitigate significant impacts to a level below significance.
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-2: The City shall require the establishment of open space areas that contain significant water courses, wildlife corridors, and habitats for rare
or endangered plant and animal species, with first priority given to the core linkage areas identified in the MSHCP. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-4: The City will evaluate and
pursue the acquisition of areas with high biological resource significance. Such acquisition mechanisms may include acquiring land by development agreement or gift; dedication of conservation,
open space, and scenic easements; joint acquisition with other local agencies; transfer of development rights; lease purchase agreements; State and federal grants; and impact fees/mitigation
banking. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-5: The City shall use the resources of national, regional, and local conservation organizations, corporations, associations, and benevolent
entities to identify and acquire environmentally sensitive lands, and to protect water courses and wildlife corridors. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-6: The City shall continue
to participate in multi-species habitat conservation planning, watershed management planning, and water resource management planning efforts. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-8:
The City will require proponents of future discretionary implementing projects to minimize impacts to CSS, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, and native grassland consistent
with the MSCHP.
Such mitigation measures will include, but are not limited to: to: on-site preservation, off-site acquisition of mitigation land located within the City and inside MSHCP conservation
areas, and habitat restoration of degraded sage scrub vegetation that increases habitat quality and the biological function of the site.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-51 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 General Plan
EIR Mitigation Measure B-9: The City shall require proponents of future discretionary implementing projects to avoid adverse impacts to Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest and Water
vegetations communities to the maximum extent possible. Mitigation consistent with the MSHCP, and future mitigation ratios established by the City will be required, including, but not
limited to: wetland creation in upland areas, wetland restoration that re-establishes the habitat functions of a former wetland, and wetland enhancement that improves the self-sustaining
habitat functions of an existing wetland. Mitigation measures will be required to achieve “no net loss” of wetland functions and values General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure B-10: The
City shall review future discretionary implementing projects with development-associated impacts to MSHCP conservation areas for consistency with the MSHCP reserve and buffer development
requirements, and shall require compliance with the following MSHCP Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines: • Drainage: Proposed developments in proximity to MSHCP conservation areas shall
incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff
discharged to the MSHCP conservation areas is not altered in an adverse way when compared to existing conditions. Measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface
runoff from developed and paved areas into the MSHCP conservation areas. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic
plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes within the MSHCP conservation areas. This can be accomplished using a variety
of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems.
• Toxics: Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP conservation area that use chemicals or generate byproducts (such as manure) that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect
wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP conservation area. Measures
such as those employed to address drainage issues shall be implemented. • Lighting: Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP conservation area to protect species within the
MSHCP conservation area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient light levels within the MSHCP conservation area do not increase.
• Noise: Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP conservation area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP conservation
area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP conservation area should
not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. • Invasives: When approving landscape plans for proposed development adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area, the
City shall require revisions to landscape plans to
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-52 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 avoid the
use of invasive species defined within the MSHCP for the portions of development adjacent to the conservation area. • Barriers: Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP conservation
area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping in the
conservation area. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and/or other appropriate mechanisms. • Grading/Land Development: Manufactured
slopes associated with proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP conservation area. Since the land use designations in the proposed General Plan Amendment and pre-zoning
have designated all the land in the SMER as “Open Space”, the proposed General Plan policies and zoning include regulations to buffer the SMER from future development and avoid interference
with linkages for the species in the area and to preserve habitat for the species that now inhabit the area. After the previously identified mitigation measures identified in this section
(Section 3.2) are implemented, potential adverse impacts associated with special-status species and the loss of habitat will be reduced to a less than significant level on a project-specific
and cumulative basis. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 5.0 of this document. References In addition to other reference documents, the following documents were used in the
preparation of this section of the EIR: California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2008. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Wildlife Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Habitat
Conservation Division, CDFG, Sacramento, CA. California Native Plant Society. 2008. CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (available online). County of
Riverside, Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, Adopted June 17, 2003. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon
Street, Riverside, CA 92501, or on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at www.rcip.org) Hickman, J.C. (ed.), 1993. The Jepson Manual of Higher Plants of California. University of California
Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. Holland, R.F. 1986.California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Mayer,
Kenneth E., and William F. Laudenslayer. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Biological Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.2-53 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 San Diego
State University, Field Station Program, Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve Internet Site. (Available on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://fs.sdsu.edu/kf/reserves/smer/) San
Diego State University, Field Station Program, Linkage Report and Evaluation, Santa Ana-Palomar Mountains Special Linkage Area, April 2008 South Coast Wildlands, South Coast Missing
Linkages – A Wildland Network for the South Coast Ecoregion, Undated San Diego State University, Masters Thesis – Determining Suitable Wildlife Crossing Locations across a Southern Califoria
Interstate, Philip Gibbons, Spring 2008 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. (Available on the Internet
on February 8, 2008 at http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/ssurgo/) United States States Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan Biological and Conference Opinion (FWS-WRIV-870.19), June 22, 2004. (Available for review on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at www.fws.gov/carlsbad/WRV_MSHCP_BO.htm) United States
Fish and Wildlife, Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit No. TE088609-0, June 22, 2004. (Available for review on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at www.fws.gov/carlsbad/WRV_MSHCP_BO.htm)
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.3-1 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 3.3 Cultural Resources 3.3.1 Introduction
This section presents the environmental setting and impact assessment for cultural and paleontological resources. Cultural resources are defined as prehistoric and historic sites, structures,
and districts, or any other physical evidence associated with human activity considered important to a culture, a subculture, or a community for scientific, traditional, religious or
any other reason. For analysis purposes, cultural resources may be categorized into three groups: archaeological resources, historic resources, and contemporary Native American resources.
Archaeological resources are places where human activity has measurably altered the earth or left deposits of physical remains. Archaeological resources may be either prehistoric-era
(before the introduction of writing in a particular area) or historic-era (after the introduction of writing). The majority of such places in California are associated with either Native
American or Euro-American occupation of the area. The most frequently encountered prehistoric or historic Native American archaeological sites are village settlements with residential
areas and sometimes cemeteries; temporary camps where food and raw materials were collected; smaller, briefly occupied sites where tools were manufactured or repaired; and special-use
areas like caves, rock shelters, and sites of rock art. Historic-era archeological sites may include foundations or features such as privies, corrals, and trash dumps. Historic resources
are standing structures of historic or aesthetic significance that are generally 50 years of age or older (i.e., anything built in the year 1958 or before). In California, historic resources
considered for protection tend to focus on architectural sites dating from the Spanish Period (1529-1822) through the early years of the Depression (1929-1930). Historic resources are
often associated with archaeological deposits of the same age. Contemporary Native American resources, also called ethnographic resources, can include archaeological resources, rock
art, and the prominent topographical areas, features, habitats, plants, animals, and minerals that contemporary Native Americans value and consider essential for the preservation of
their traditional values. Paleontology is a branch of geology that studies the life forms of the past, especially prehistoric life forms, through the study of plant and animal fossils.
Paleontological resources represent a limited, non-renewable, and impact-sensitive scientific and educational resource. As defined in this section, paleontological resources are the
fossilized remains or traces of multi-cellular invertebrate and vertebrate animals and multi-cellular plants, including their imprints from a previous geologic period. Fossil remains
such as bones, teeth, shells, and leaves are found in the geologic deposits (rock formations) where they were originally buried. Paleontological resources include not only the actual
fossil remains, but also the collecting localities, and the geologic formations containing those localities.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.3-2 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 3.3.2 Setting
General Setting The SMAA project is located in the unincorporated area of Temecula along the northern side of the San Diego-Riverside County line and west of I-15 and the city limits
of the city of Temecula. The project area consists of approximately 4,997 acres of publicly and privately owned land, most of which is undisturbed natural open space within the SMER.
The SMER is a key part of preserving the entire Santa Margarita River, one of the last free-flowing rivers with a rich ecosystem in southern California. The Santa Margarita River officially
begins northeast of the project area, at the confluence of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek at the Temecula city limits. The river flows through the Temecula Gorge and ultimately empties
into the Pacific Ocean through the largely undisturbed lands of Camp Pendleton. Prehistoric Setting It is not definitively known when human habitation in California first began, though
research has identified this event as occurring before 10,000 B.C. (Chartkoff & Chartkoff, 1984:37). These early occupants were faced with ecologic-climatic environments different than
those familiar to modern-day Californians. Fagan describes this paleo-environment as much colder and wetter, with Redwood forests reaching significantly farther south and dense pine
forests covering the majority of southern coastal California, and the Pacific Ocean “about three hundred feet below modern levels” (2003:22). This first period of human occupation is
commonly referred to as the Paleoindian Period, characterized by small groups of nomadic hunter gatherers. The Paleoindian assemblage included a limited collection of rough and simplistic
tool types, each used for multiple tasks or purposes; key artifacts within the later Paleoindian Period assemblage are fluted projectile points. The Archaic Period follows, dated by
Chartkoff & Chartkoff to approximately 9000 to 2000 B.C., and is divided into three major subperiods (Early, Middle, and Late) representing a continuation of earlier Paleo-Indian traditions
in conjunction with an increase in population size, a change in subsistence strategy, and the development of new technologies. In the Early Archaic (9000 to 6000 B.C.), a shift in subsistence
and settlement strategies occurred, illustrating the abandonment of Paleoindian traditions for a more diverse exploitation of a broader natural environment, including a more successful
utilization of coastal chaparral zones. These populations, commonly categorized as the San Dieguito Tradition, were semi-nomadic with a heavy dependence on the hunting of smaller game
and the gathering of chaparral vegetal resources (Chartkoff & Chartkoff, 1984:102). Archaeologically this tradition is represented by large, coarsely fashioned stone knives, choppers,
and scrapers, as well as bone awls, and needles. It is uncertain whether vegetal processing implements such as milling stones or mortars were part of the San Dieguito assemblage. During
the Middle Archaic (6000 to 4000 B.C.), the diversification of prehistoric traditions continued with populations further exploiting local or regional resources all across California,
creating more explicit regional differences. Many culturally-related groups identified through archaeological research have been grouped into regional traditions, one of which is of
particular
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.3-3 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 interest to
the current project. The Encinitas Tradition dominated the southern California coast from north of Point Conception to San Diego, continuing well into the Late Archaic (4000 B.C. to
2000 B.C.). Population groups within the Encinitas Tradition continued hunting and gathering strategies of the preceding San Dieguito, with an increased exploitation of marine resources
resulting in the formation of large shell mounds or middens, and a heavy reliance on the procurement and processing of hard seeds. It is during the Middle Archaic that vegetal foodprocessing
artifacts appear for the first time at coastal chaparral sites. Archaeologically the Encinitas Tradition is identified by a more diversified stone tool assemblage in addition to the
continued use of basic Early Archaic forms, the development of fine-worked projectile points, a large number of milling slabs, the first appearance of numerous formal burials, as well
as the more prevalent appearance of ornamental and ceremonial objects (Chartkoff & Chartkoff, 1984). Ethnographic Background Native Americans living in the project area at the time of
Spanish contact are now known as the Luiseño, after the Mission San Luis Rey to which many of them were relocated. The language of the Luiseño people has been identified as part of the
larger Uto-Aztecan language family (Bean and Shipek, 1978:550). Luiseño territory was comprised of approximately 1500 square miles along the coast of southern California, bordered by
Agua Hedionda Creek on the south and Aliso Creek on the northwest, and encompassing most of the drainage of the San Luis Rey River and the Santa Margarita River (Bean and Shipek, 1978:550)
and extending east to include Palomar Mountain. Today this area is located within northern San Diego, southern Orange, and Riverside counties. The Luiseño subsided on small game, coastal
marine resources, and plant foods such as grass seeds and acorns. Luiseño houses were conical thatched reed, brush, or bark structures. Little is known of the Luiseño political structure,
but it appears that villages were centered on clans, and that each village was headed by a chief (Bean and Shipek, 1978:555). Temecula and the surrounding area is a community with a
rich history. Due to the presence of reliable water sources and a fertile valley floor, the Temecula area has always been a desirable place to live. The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians
(Pechanga Tribe) has called the Temecula Valley home for more than 10,000 years. Pursuant to Pechanga Tribe tradition, life on earth began in the Temecula Valley, which they call ‘éxva
Teméeku (the place of the union of Sky-Father and Earth-Mother). Historical Context The Riverside County area received its first European visitors during the early and mid-1770s, shortly
after the beginning of Spanish colonization of Alta California in 1769. The first known European to set foot in this area was a Franciscan padre, Father Juan Norberto de Santiago, who
traveled into the Temecula Valley in October of 1797. Santiago was on an expedition out of Mission San Juan Capistrano seeking a site for a new mission. With his exploring party of seven
soldiers, he came upon what is now Lake Elsinore, and then traveled southward through the Temecula Valley and on to the Pacific Ocean. In 1798, he founded the Mission of San Luis Rey
de Francia, forever altering Luiseño tribal life. The Roman Catholic Church established ranchos that encompassed the Native American villages. The Spanish missionaries identified the
tribes living in this territory, claimed for Mission San Luis Rey as Sanluiseños, or simply Luiseños.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.3-4 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Little is known
about Temecula during the early 1800s because so many records were destroyed in the fire that followed the great San Francisco earthquake in 1906. In 1821, Jose Sanchez, a Franciscan
priest, recorded that he had accompanied Mariano Payeras, Prefect of the Missions, on a visit to Temecula. It was during this period that the Pala Mission was built and Christianization
of the natives was begun. Also in 1831, thirty-four years after Juan Santiago had first visited the village of Temecula, American trappers wandered into the valley. Following conclusion
of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), the process of making land grants available to individuals began. In 1845 Rancho Temecula was granted to Felix Valdez. The passing of the ranchos
into private ownership brought the era of rancheros and vaqueros, for which early California is best known. On January 23, 1882, a rail line from National City to Temecula was completed.
Regular service was started between National City and Temecula two months later and local residents had access to San Diego. A minor business boom began in Temecula with the advent of
rail service and several new stores were built and started to garner trade. In 1883 the line was extended to San Bernardino. In the late 1880s, a series of floods washed out the tracks
and the railroad was finally abandoned. At the turn of the 20th century Temecula gained a place of importance as a shipping point for grain and cattle. Through the mid-1960s the economy
of the Temecula Valley centered on the cattle business and agriculture. The last years of the 1960s and early 1970s witnessed the beginnings of dramatic change in the Temecula Valley
as the area began to experience its growth as an urban area. This urban growth continued through the area’s incorporation as the City in December 1989 into the present time. Paleontological
Setting During the Quaternary Period, the actual dates of which are still debated, Riverside County was affected by increased Pleistocene rainfall which filled basins and fault zones
and turned depressions into lakes. The influx of new sediment buried remains of large and small animals. Deposition of fossiliferous sediment occurred along the margins of the Salton
Sea and along the Colorado River. The climate changed drastically ten thousand years ago from the end of the wet Pleistocene to the very dry Holocene. The record of changing plants and
animals is preserved as mummified samples in the nests built by pack rats. Based on the Paleontological Sensitivity map (Figure 2-8) in the RCIP General Plan, the proposed annexation
area is located within an area that has an undetermined to low potential for finding paleontological resources based upon an inventory of geologic formations known to potentially contain
paleontological resources. According to the RCIP General Plan Final Program EIR and Draft Program EIR (RCIP EIR), these categories encompass lands for which previous field surveys and
documentation demonstrated as having a low potential for containing significant paleontological resources subject to adverse impacts, as well as underlain sedimentary rocks for which
literature and unpublished studies are now available have undetermined potential for containing significant paleontological resources.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.3-5 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 3.3.3 Methodology
Archival Record Search Albert A. Webb Associates requested that an historical/archaeological resource records search be performed by the Eastern Information Center (EIC) located at the
University of California, Riverside. This records search request was completed by the EIC on June 29, 2007 (RS #4006). The EIC is the State of California’s official cultural resource
records repository for Riverside County. Sources referenced by this record search include site records, previous cultural resource assessment reports, historical maps, as well as the
National Register of Historic Places, the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility and Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data
file. Among maps consulted for this study were the U.S. General Land Office’s (GLO) land survey maps maps and the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) topographic maps at the University of
California, Riverside Science Library and the California Desert District of the BLM, located in Moreno Valley. Native American Consultation Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) requires local agencies
to consult with tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process thereby providing tribes an opportunity
to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage. Pursuant to the provisions of SB 18, on September 12, 2007 the City Planning Department invited other local tribes
from a list provided by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (Pala Band of Mission Indians, Ramona Band of Mission Indians, Cahuilla Band of Indians, Soboba Band
of Luiseño Indians, Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians) to participate in consultation regarding the proposed project in accordance with the requirements of SB 18. Requests for SB 18
consultation were received from the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. Document Review The reports and archival searches reviewed for this EIR included
the Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report (April 2007) and subsequent Santa Margarita Area Annexation Environmental Impact Report or EIR (Albert A. Webb Associates, 2008).
The previous archival record search results were used to confirm the number of previously identified cultural resources that are within the overall project area and the extent of previous
survey coverage. 3.3.4 Results Archival Record Search Results The records search indicated that 87 cultural resource studies have been conducted within a onemile radius of the project
area. The EIC determined that fifteen of these studies involved portions of the project area, ten of which are within the project area and another five that involve a small portion of
the project area; another four studies present overviews of cultural resources in the general project vicin
ity. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.3-6 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Seven cultural
resource sites are recorded within the overall project boundary (Table 3.3-1). The Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District, a listed resource on both the National and California
Registries, is within the project area. A more detailed discussion of the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District is provided below (see Results Summary). TABLE 3.3-1 CULTURAL RESOURCES
WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA Sites Description Recommended Significance Relative Location CA-RIV-4264 Moderately dense lithic scatter and groundstone. Possible chert stone and core. Small
fine-grained granite mano & metate fragment Not Evaluated Possibly within “Hillside Residential” parcel CA-RIV-3063 Scattered basalt flakes, half of mano and metate fragments Not Evaluated
Within “Conservation” parcel CA-RIV-4265 Remains of ranch structures, portions of a crude stone platform. A defined dump area. Historic debris; sawcut boards with wire nails, corrugated
metal fragments, & brown glass fragments. Not Evaluated Within “Conservation” parcel P33-12340 Disturbed area due to flooding of river. Granite/alluvium soil deposits; remains likely
to exist in association. Not Evaluated Within “Conservation” parcel P33-14892 Prehistoric site. Natural rock outcropping, consisting of a possible rock shelter with a single exfoliated
grinding slick. Possible sensitivity for buried remains. Recommended “Not Significant” Within “Hillside Residential” parcel P33-14893 Prehistoric site. Natural sandstone outcrop with
a single exfoliated slick and six bedrock mortars; rock art panel. Not Evaluated Within “Hillside Residential” parcel P33-14894 Prehistoric site. Steep terrain with a sandstone outcrop
with a single exfoliated slick. Recommended “Not Significant” Within “Hillside Residential” parcel Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District This archaeological area consists of three
midden sites that collectively may represent a single occupation, as well as territory and open-space surrounding these sites. Significant Within “Conservation” parcel SOURCE: Eastern
Information Center – Cultural Resources Records Search Native American Consultation Results In responses to initiation of the consultation process by the City dated September 27, 2007
and November 6, 2007, the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians requested consultation. The City held a telephone consultation with Mr. Darren Hill of the Soboba Cultural Resources Department
on November 26, 2007. As a result of this telephone consultation, the Soboba Band determined that no further consultation was required. Another response was received from the Soboba
Band on August 5, 2008 stating that the project is considered within their Tribal Traditional Use Area. In this letter it was requested that consultation with Native American Tribes
continue and that the
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.3-7 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Tribe be provided
copies of all project-related documentation referring to archaeological or cultural resources. The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, in their response to the NOP (Appendix A) dated May
23, 2007, requested consultation with the City pursuant to SB 18. Consultation was held with the Pechanga Band on July 26, 2007. The
Band responded to the City on July 31, 2007 and stated that they wished to continue consultation primarily to ensure the review of the Draft EIR and to submit comments at that time.
Further response was received from the Pechanga Band on April 7, 2008, stating that Tribal cultural traditions, including oral histories, songs, and creation accounts, directly refer
to the project area and its immediate surrounds. Specific instances demonstrating the importance of the project area to the traditions of the Pechanga people are addressed at length
in the April 7, 2008 letter and include the presence of a large Native American village complex, ‘éxva Teméeku, which is “probably the single most important area to the Tribe; it is
the place of our creation”. The area surrounding ‘éxva Teméeku has been recorded within the California Historic Resources Information System as the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District
and has been nominated for the National Register of Historic Places. The Origin Story and other ancestral songs recount that this area is where Luiseño history begins, where all things
were created and from whence dispersed into the rest of creation. The portion of the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District that enters into the project area is located within parcels
to be designated as “Conservation”. Even though ‘éxva Teméeku refers to a specific place, the Pechanga Tribe recognizes that “many locational terms refer to a much larger area and often
incorporate many square miles of land”. In conjunction with ‘éxva Teméeku, the project area contains landmarks, places, and destinations of Luiseño ancestors mentioned in Tribal songs
and lore. In their April 7, 2008 letter, the Pechanga Tribe highlights one such place of importance, Wexéwxi Pu’eska, which in the Luiseño language means “where the rock cries”. This
place refers to a sheer granite hill-slope that borders the eastern project boundary, where the natural water run-off over the granite face has formed a visible patina and is considered
a “prominent rock-face which helped the Luiseño Ancestors define their sense of place in this region”. It is also in the vicinity of Wexéwxi Pu’eska, that many natural rock shapes “contain
outlines of animals which, according to oral tradition…are the first Kaamalam” or Tribal ancestors. The specific location of these places and landmarks in relation to the portions of
the project area to be designated as “Hillside Residential -Santa Margarita” or “Conservation” could not confidently be determined. Results Summary As a result of the document and archival
record search review, it was determined that only an approximated 18 percent of the entire 4,997 acres within the project area has been evaluated for cultural resources. As illustrated
in Figure 2-8 of the Santa Margarita Annexation EIR, parcels to be assigned a proposed land use classification of “Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita” were identified and compared
to the archival record search results It was determined that the majority of these parcels have been previously evaluated for cultural resources.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.3-8 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Document review
results confirmed that seven previously recorded cultural resources are located within the entire project area (see Table 3.3-1, above). Portions of the Murrieta Creek Archaeological
Area/District are within parcels to be designated as “Conservation” land use by the current project. A brief resource description pertaining to this district was obtained via the National
Register Information System online, searchable database (ParkNet, 2008). This archaeological area consists of three midden sites that collectively may represent a single occupation,
as well as territory and open-space surrounding these sites. It further describes this collective site as “one of the major Luiseno Indian villages of the Temecula Valley” (ParkNet,
2008). Three of the seven cultural resources identified by the archival record search are within parcels to be designated as “Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita” (P33-14892, P33-14893,
and P33-14894), while one resource could not specifically be placed within these parcels (CA-RIV-4264). The specific location of CA-RIV-4264 in relation to proposed “Hillside Residential-Santa
Margarita” parcels could not be confirmed, although its close proximity to such a parcel warrants its inclusion among previously recorded cultural resources. 3.3.5 Regulatory Framework
Cultural Resources Numerous laws and regulations require federal, State, and local agencies to consider the effects a project may have on cultural resources. These laws and regulations
stipulate a process for compliance, define the responsibilities of the various agencies proposing the action, and prescribe the relationship among other involved agencies (e.g., State
Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended; the California Register of Historical
Resources, Public Resources Code (PRC) 5024 and the CEQA, are the primary federal and State laws governing and affecting preservation of cultural resources of national, State, regional,
and local significance. The applicable regulations are discussed below. Federal Level National Register of Historic Places First authorized by the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the National
Register was established by the NHPA of 1966, as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s historic
resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (CFR, 36 Section 60.2.). The National Register recognizes both historical-period
and prehistoric archaeological properties that are significant at the national, State, and local levels. In the context of this project, which does not involve any historical-period
structures, the following National Register criteria are given as the basis for evaluating archaeological resources. To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a resource must
be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures,
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.3-9 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 and objects
of potential significance must meet one or more of the following four established criteria (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1995): 1. Are associated with events
that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; 2. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; 3. Embody the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity
whose components may lack individual distinction; or 4. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Unless the property possesses exceptional
significance, it must be at least fifty years old to be eligible for National Register listing. For more specific discussion of exceptional significance criteria, refer to National Register
Criteria Consideration G: Properties That Have Achieved Significance within the Past Fifty Years (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1995). In addition to meeting
the criteria of significance, a property must have integrity. Integrity is defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance” (U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Park Service 1995: 44). The National Register recognizes seven qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. To retain historic integrity a property must possess several,
and usually most, of these seven aspects. Thus, the retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance (U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service 1995: 44). The seven factors that define integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. State Level The State implements
the the NHPA through its statewide comprehensive cultural resources surveys and preservation programs. The OHP, as an office of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, implements
the policies of the NHPA on a statewide level. The OHP also maintains the California Historic Resources Inventory. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is an appointed official
who implements historic preservation programs within the State’s jurisdictions. California Register of Historical Resources The California Register is “an authoritative listing and guide
to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected,
to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.” (California Public Resources Code § 5024.1(a)) The criteria for eligibility for the California Register are based
upon National Register criteria. and certain resources are determined by the statute to be be automatically included in the California Register,
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.3-10 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 including California
properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register (§ 5024.1 (b) and § 5024.1(d)). To be eligible for the California Register, a prehistoric or historical-period
property must be significant at the local, state, and/or federal level under one or more of the following criteria: • Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution
to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; • Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or • Has yielded, or may be likely to
yield, information important in prehistory or history. A resource eligible for the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above, and retain enough
of its historic character or appearance (integrity) to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reason for its significance. It is possible that a historic resource
may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but it may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. Additionally, the
California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automatically
includes the following: • California properties listed on the National Register and those formally Determined Eligible for the National Register. • California Registered Historical Landmarks
from No. 770 onward. • Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the OHP and have been recommended to the State Historical Commission for inclusion on
the California Register. Other resources that may be nominated to the California Register include: • Historical resources with a significance rating of Category 3 through 5 or those
properties identified as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and/or a local jurisdiction register. • Individual
historical resources. • Historical resources contributing to historic districts. • Historical resources designated or listed as local landmarks, or designated under any local ordinance,
such as an historic preservation overlay zone. California Environmental Quality Act The CEQA is the principal statute governing environmental review of projects occurring in the State.
CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect on archaeological resources. CEQA is codified at Public Resources Code sec. 21000 et seq.
As defined in Section 21083.2 of CEQA a “unique” archaeological resource is an archaeolo
gical 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.3-11 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 artifact,
object, or site, about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following
criteria: • Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. • Has a special and particular
quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. • Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event
or person. In addition, the State CEQA Guidelines recognize that certain historical resources may also have significance. The Guidelines recognize that a historical resource includes:
(1) a resource in the California Register; (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a
historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); and (3) any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines
to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California
by the lead agency, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. If a lead agency determines that an archaeological site
is a historical resource, the provisions of Section 21084.1 of CEQA and Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines apply. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria for a
historical resource contained in the State CEQA Guidelines, then the site is to be treated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA Section 21083, which is a unique archaeological resource.
The State CEQA Guidelines note that if an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor a historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not
be considered a significant effect on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)). Paleontological Resources Federal Level A variety of federal statutes specifically
address paleontological resources. They are generally applicable to a project if that project includes federally owned or managed lands or involves a federal agency license, permit,
approval, or funding. Federal legislative protection for paleontological resources stems from the Antiquities Act of 1906 (PL 59-209; 16 United States Code 431 et. seq.; 34 Stat. 225),
which calls for protection of historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest on federal lands. State Level Paleontological
resources are also afforded protection by environmental legislation set forth under CEQA. Appendix Appendix G (Part V) of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance relative to significant
impacts on paleontological resources, stating that a project will normally result in a significant impact on the environment if it will “…disrupt or adversely affect a paleontologic
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.3-12 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 resource or
site or unique geologic feature, except as part of a scientific study.” Section 5097.5 of the Public Resources Code specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological remains
is a misdemeanor. Further, the California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets the penalties for the damage or removal of paleontological resources. Professional Standards The Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology (SVP) has established standard guidelines that outline acceptable professional practices in the conduct of paleontological resource assessments and surveys, monitoring and
mitigation, data and fossil recovery, sampling procedures, and specimen preparation, identification, analysis, and curation. Most practicing professional paleontologists in the nation
adhere closely to the SVP’s assessment, mitigation, and monitoring requirements as specifically provided in its standard guidelines. Most California state regulatory agencies accept
the SVP standard guidelines as a measure of professional practice. 3.3.6 Impacts and Mitigation Significance Criteria For the purposes of this EIR and consistent with Appendix G of the
CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project is considered to have a significant impact if it would result in any of the following: • A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource that is either listed or eligible for listing in the National Register, the California Register, or a local register of historic resources; • A substantial adverse change in
the significance of a unique archaeological resource; • Disturbance or destruction of a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or • Disturbance of any human
remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. CEQA provides that a project may cause a significant environmental effect where the project could result in a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource (Public Resources Code, Section 21084.1). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines a “substantial adverse change” in the significance
of a historical resource to mean physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical
resource would be “materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[b][1]). CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(b)(2), defines “materially impaired” for purposes of the definition
of “substantial adverse change” as follows: The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project: • Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those
physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register;
or
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.3-13 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 • Demolishes
or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the
Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing
the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or • Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse
manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register as determined
by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3), a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings is considered to have mitigated impacts to historic resources to a less-than-significant level. Historic resources are usually 50 years old or older and must meet
at least one of the criteria for listing in the California Register (such as association with historical events, important people, or architectural significance), in addition to maintaining
a sufficient level of physical integrity (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a][3]). Impact Analysis The approval and implementation of the previously outlined planning applications by
the City and LAFCO would result in the ability of the underlying private landowners to potentially develop on a 718 acre area under the “Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita” zoning
designation. A variety of open space/conservation compatible land uses would also be allowed under these proposed general plan and zoning designations. A total of 81single-family dwelling
units is considered a worst case scenario, as the actual development of these dwelling units is heavily constrained by numerous environmental and physical design constraints. It should
be noted that it is considered highly unlikely that any residential parcel could meet these development requirements on an individual basis. As such, individual dwelling units would
be constructed as custom homes and would be required to incorporate sensitive design considerations into the planning of each site. As a result of the archival record search review and
the document review, eight previously recorded cultural resources are identified within the current project area. Four of the eight resources are located within areas of the project
to be designated as “Conservation” land use and therefore are unlikely to be adversely impacted by the proposed project (CA-RIV-3063, CA-RIV-4265, and P33-12340). Of the eight previously
recorded cultural resources, four could potentially be adversely impacted (CA-RIV-4264, P33-14892, P33-14893, and P33-14894), as these resources are located within areas of the project
to be assigned a “Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita” zoning designation. With this designation, the probability of future residential development is increased, which could result
in significant adverse impact. Only two of these resources had significance recommendations included in formal site records (P33-14892 and P33-14894). Remarks within
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.3-14 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 the site records
for both of these resources state the “Site is not significant”, however due to conflicting descriptions and a noted potential for buried deposits, P33-14892 should be investigated further
in order to properly assess the significance rating assigned at the time of recordation. Previously recorded resources identified via the archival search have not been formally evaluated.
Impacts to cultural resources caused by the land use designation and re-zoning changes of the current project were identified and recommended mitigation measures (see below) were developed
to avoid or minimize identified impacts to cultural resources. To follow is the discussion of identified impacts and associated mitigation measures. Please refer to Table 3.3-2 at the
end of this section for a summary of cultural resource impacts and mitigation measures. TABLE 3.3-2 CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SUMMARY Proposed Project Impact Mitigation
Measure Significance after Mitigation Impact 3.3-1: Project construction could adversely impact unknown cultural resources, including unique archaeological resources and historic resources
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1a; Mitigation Measure 3.3-1b Less than significant with mitigation Impact 3.3-2: The proposed project could adversely affect known cultural resources, including
unique archaeological resources and historic resources Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 Less than significant with mitigation Impact 3.3-3: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse
change to areas of traditional cultural significance to local Native American individuals and groups, as defined by Senate Bill 18 Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 Less than significant with
mitigation Impact 3.3-4: The project could result in damage to previously unidentified human remains Mitigation Measure 3.3-4 Less than significant with mitigation Impact 3.3-5: The
proposed project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, or site, or unique geologic feature Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 Less than significant with mitigation
Impact 3.3-1: Project construction could adversely impact unknown cultural resources, including unique archaeological resources and historic resources. Results of the document review
noted that fifteen previous cultural resource studies were completed with the project area. The majority of the areas to be assigned a “Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita” zoning designation,
as illustrated in Figure 2-8 of the Santa Margarita Annexation EIR document, have been surveyed for cultural resources. However, some parcels within the planned “Hillside Residential-Santa
Margarita” areas have not previously been surveyed for cultural resources. Also, only an approximated 18 percent of the total 4,997 acres within the current project area have been previously
evaluated for cultural resources. Therefore, any future development within within the overall project area not previously assessed for cultural resources could result in the adverse
impact to unknown cultural resources. Implementation of
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.3-15 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Mitigation
Measures 3.3-1a and 3.3-1b would minimize this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1a: All areas not previously assessed for cultural resources within the
718 acres to be designated as “Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita” must be assessed by a qualified archaeologist prior to the approval of Hillside Development Plans, and in consultation
with local Native Tribes. Should any future change in land use designation for areas designated by the current project as “Conservation” must also be assessed for cultural resources
prior to the approval of development plans and in consultation with local Native Tribes. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1b: During construction should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural
resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist will be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, the project proponent and the archaeologist will determine, and in consultation with local Native Tribes, appropriate
avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. The project proponent (as applicable) will make the final determination. All significant cultural materials recovered will be, as
necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant Impact 3.3-2: The proposed project could adversely affect known cultural resources, including unique archaeological resources and
historic resources. A cultural resources records search and subsequent document review indicated that four previously recorded cultural resources are within portions of the project area
to be assigned a “Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita” zoning designation (CA-RIV-4264, P33-14892, P33-14893, and P33-14894). The re-zoning of the project area could result in significant
adverse impact to known cultural resources. Likewise, the archival record search, Native American consultation, and document review determined that the Murrieta Creek Archaeological
Area/District, a listed resource on both the California Registry and the National Registry is within a portion of the current project area. The portion of the project area that includes
part of the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District will be classified as “Conservation” land use and therefore, potential impact to this resource by the current project is minimal.
In addition, the purpose and intent of the development standards under the proposed HR-SM zone is to protect the value of the community and the subject
property of ridgelines, prominent landforms, rock outcroppings, open space areas, hydrologic features, wildlife communities, unique and sensitive habitat and vegetation communities,
and other natural, biological, and scenic resources. In addition, it is the intent of development and design under the proposed HR-SM zone to preserve and enhance the visual and aesthetic
quality of hillsides from the surrounding community as well as promote and encourage a variety of high quality, alternative architectural and energy efficient development designs and
concepts appropriate for hillside areas by utilizing the highest quality of
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.3-16 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 prescribed
standards. Lastly, the proposed HR-SM zone is intended to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare and specifically protect the public and property from hazards such as seismic,
geologic, and fire. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 would minimize this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: CA-RIV-4264, P33-14892, P33-14893,
P33-14894, and the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District should be avoided and preserved. If avoidance is not feasible, further investigation of these resources by a qualified
archaeologist will be required to determine the significance of these resources that have not been fully evaluated. The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report evaluating each
known cultural resource, noting the significance determination of the resource. The report will determine determine whether additional evaluation would be required prior to the alteration
or destruction of each resource. A Cultural Resource Treatment Plan should be developed for identified significant cultural resources, particularly the Murrieta Creek Archaeological
Area/District, in consultation with local Native American Tribes and a qualified archaeologist, prior to the commencement of any future development within the current project area. Significance
after Mitigation: Less than Significant Impact 3.3-3: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change to areas of traditional cultural significance to local Native American
individuals and groups, as defined by Senate Bill 18. Both the Pechanga Band and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians recognize the project 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 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 near proximity of the project area to a large
Native American village complex‘éxva Teméeku, which is within the listed Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District, further supports the significance of the current project area. Specific
landmarks, places, and destinations of Luiseño ancestors identified by the Pechanga Tribe as within the project area could be impacted by future development of the current project area.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Consultation will occur with the Pechanga Tribe and other local Native American groups regarding any future development to occur within the project area. A
Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement should be developed by a qualified archaeologist on behalf of the project proponent and in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe, as well as other
local Native American groups. This agreement will address and detail the treatment and disposition of areas of traditional tribal significance, cultural resources, and human remains
that may be potentially impacted. Provisions for Tribal monitors will also be addressed in the Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement. If
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.3-17 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 agreement with
the Tribes cannot be reached, the project proponent will determine the required treatment. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant Impact 3.3-4: The project could result
in damage to previously unidentified human remains. There is no indication that any particular site in the project area has been used for human burial purposes in the recent or distant
past. Therefore, it is unlikely that human remains would be encountered as a result of the proposed project. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries, the human remains could be inadvertently damaged, which could be a significant impact. However, this impact would be minimized by implementation
of Mitigation Measure 3.3-4. Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: 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, the project proponent 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) and the Most Likely Descendant will be identified. The Most Likely Descendant is required to make recommendations for the
treatment of any human remains. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. Impact 3.3-5: The proposed project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource, or site, or unique geologic feature. The Riverside County General Plan’s, Paleontological Sensitivity Map (Figure OS-8) defines areas that have undetermined to low potential
for for finding paleontological resources. The undetermined to low rating is based upon an inventory of geologic formations known to potentially contain paleontological resources. Low
potential areas encompass “lands for which previous field surveys and documentation demonstrates as having a low potential for containing significant paleontological resources subject
to adverse impact.” Previous geological mapping of the proposed annexation area is located almost entirely upon a surface of Cretaceous granitic rocks, including tonalite and heterogeneous
tonalite. None of these rock units has potential to contain significant fossil resources, and so these rocks are assigned low paleontological sensitivity. Based upon the records search
and background research, the proposed annexation’s potential to impact paleontological resources is determined to be low. It is possible that future development
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.3-18 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 within parcels
of the current project area to be assigned a “Hillside Residential” land use designation could result in the inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure 3.3-5:
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 project proponent 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 project proponent for review and approval prior to
implementation. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. References In addition to other reference documents, the following documents were used in the preparation of this
section of the EIR: Albert A. Webb Associates. 2008. Santa Margarita Area Annexation, Planning Application PA07-02225, Planning Application PA07-0226, Environmental Impact Report EA-128
(SCH No. 2007041085). Prepared for the City of Temecula. Bean, L.J., and F.C. Shipek. 1978. “Luiseño in California” in the Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. W. C. Sturtevant,
general editor. Smithsonian Institution: Washington, D.C. Chartkoff, J.L., and K.K. Chartkoff. 1984. The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press: Stanford, California. City
of Temecula. 2005. Temecula General Plan. Available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 or on the Internet at www.cityoftemecula.org/Tem
ecula/Government/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm. Accessed on January 10, 2008. County of Riverside. 2007. Riverside General Plan. Adopted October 7, 2003. Available for review at the
County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, or on the Internet at http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/index.html. Accessed on February 11, 2008. County
of Riverside. 2002. Riverside County Integrated Project General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available for review at the Riverside County Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street,
Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200 or on the Internet at http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/index.html. Accessed on February 11, 2008.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.3-19 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 County of Riverside.
2003. Riverside County Integrated Project General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2002051143). Available for review at the Riverside County Planning
Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200 or on the Internet at http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/index.html. Accessed on February 11, 2008. Eastern Information
Center California Historical Resources Information System, Cultural Resources Records Search, RS #4006, June 29, 2007. (The results of this records search are considered to be confidential
by the Eastern Information Center and are on file at the City of Temecula Planning Department. They are only available for review by qualified archaeologists.) Fagan, B.M. 1995. Ancient
North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames & Hudson: New York Fagan, B.M. 2003. Before California: An Archaeologist Looks at Our Earliest Inhabitants. AltaMira Press: Walnut
Creek, California. The History of Temecula. Available for review on the City of Temecula Internet site at www.cityoftemecula.org/temecula/visitors/about/history. Accessed on February
8, 2008. ParkNet. 2008. National Register Information System, Search by Location with links to Web pages. http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrloc1.htm . Search Parameters “CA” state code, “Temecula”
city. Accessed on September 3, 2008. Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians – History. Available for review on the Pechanga Tribe Internet site at http://www.pechanga-nsn.gov. Accessed on
February 8, 2008. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1995. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington,
DC: National Park Service. Warren C. N. 2004. “The Desert Region” in California Archaeology. By M. J. Moratto. Coyote Press: Salinas, California. Reprinted from 1984, Academic Press,
Orlando, Florida.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-1 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 3.4 Land Use and Planning 3.4.1
Introduction Potential impacts related to the potential to disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community were found to be less than significant in the NOP prepared
for this project (Appendix A). The NOP also determined that proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan;
however this issue is nevertheless described below and addressed in detail within the Biological Resources section (Section 3.2) of this EIR. The focus of the following discussion is
related to the potential impacts related to potential conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 3.4.2 Setting The
SMAA project site is located in the unincorporated portion of Riverside County along the northern side of the San Diego-Riverside County line and west of I-15 and southwest of the city
limits of the city of Temecula (see Figure 3.4-1). The project site consists of approximately 4,997 acres of publicly and privately owned land, most of which (4,279 acres) is undisturbed
natural open space within the SMER. The SMER is a key part of preserving the entire ecosystem of Santa Margarita River, one of the last free-flowing rivers in coastal southern California.
The Santa Margarita River officially begins northeast of the project site, at the confluence of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek at the Temecula city limits. The river flows through
the Temecula Gorge and ultimately empties into the Pacific Ocean through the largely undisturbed lands of Camp Pendleton. The upper watershed of the Santa Margarita River is thus the
combined watersheds of Temecula and Murrieta Creeks. There are six single-family homes located within the boundaries of the annexation area. Four of these homes are located within the
718 acres of privately owned land. The other two homes are located within the SMER and are used by those persons conducting research within the area. The occupied private properties
are primarily large ranch estates involved with some agriculture or equestrian activities. The majority of the annexation area (4,279 acres) currently has a Riverside County General
Plan Land Use designation of OS-CH; while the remaining 713 acres are designated RM, with a 10-acre minimum lot size. Almost all of the project area is currently zoned R-R by the County
of Riverside, which has a 0.5-acre minimum lot size. A small area of approximately 118 acres, currently zoned R-A-20 (Residential Agriculture with a 20-acre minimum lot size), comprises
the remainder of the project area. The private properties currently have a Riverside County General Plan Land Use
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.4-1 The Santa Margarita Area Annexation SOURCE: County of Riverside, 2007 North Not to Scale
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-3 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Designation
of RM with the exception of approximately 5 acres which is designated OS-CH (see Figure 3.4-2 and Figure 3.4-3). 3.4.3. Regulatory Framework The proposed project area is presently subject
to the applicable provisions of the County of Riverside’s Land Use Ordinance No. 348 (zoning), the Riverside County General Plan, the Western Riverside MSHCP, and the Community and Environmental
Transportation Plan (CETAP). Approval of the proposed project will result in the project area becoming subject to the rules and regulations of the City which include the Temecula General
Plan, Temecula Municipal Code, and the MSHCP. County of Riverside Regulations General Plan On October 7, 2003, the County of Riverside approved the General Plan component of the RCIP.
The General Plan includes the land use policies and land use maps to guide the future development within unincorporated Riverside County. The SMAA site is located within the Southwest
Area Plan of the County of Riverside’s General Plan. As shown on Figure 3.4-2, the project site currently has a land use designation of OS-CH and RM. According to the Southwest Area
Plan, the OS-CH designation applies to public and private lands conserved and managed in accordance with adopted MSHCP and other conservation plans. The RM designation is for single-family
residential uses with a minimum lot size of 10 acres. This designation is further defined as areas of at least 10 acres where a minimum of 70% of the area has slopes of 25% or greater.
Within this designation there is an allowance for limited animal keeping, agriculture, recreational uses, compatible resource development (which may include the commercial extraction
of mineral resources with approval of a surface mining permit) and associated uses and governmental uses. Zoning Development of the project site is currently regulated by the County
of Riverside zoning ordinance (Land Use Ordinance No. 348). This ordinance contains the regulatory framework that specifies allowable uses for real property and development intensities;
technical standards such as site layout, building setbacks, heights, lot coverage, parking, etc.; aesthetics-related standards regarding the physical appearance of structures, landscaping,
and lighting standards; a program that implements policies of the General Plan; and the procedural standards for amending or establishing new zoning regulations. Community and Environmental
Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) As part of the RCIP the CETAP will identify improvements for highways and transit systems. An important goal of the CETAP is to complete
environmental documentation to allow for the preservation of right-of-way for regional transportation facilities. The main purposes of the CETAP are to identify and set aside areas for
major transportation facilities (both highway and transit) that will be necessary to support support the future growth in western Riverside County, and to
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.4-2 County of Riverside Southwest Area Plan-Land Use Designations SOURCE: Riverside County General Plan, October 2003 North
Not to Scale
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.4-3 Riverside County-Zoning Designations SOURCE: County of Riverside, 2003 North Not to Scale
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-6 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 ensure that
the transportation infrastructure will be in place to foster the economy of Riverside County and provide access for its citizens to jobs, schools, shopping, and other daily activities.
Through early CETAP planning studies, four major transportation corridors have been identified for more detailed analysis, including Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore, Banning/Beaumont to
Temecula, Riverside County to Orange County, and Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County. The project site is not located within or near any one of these four major transportation corridors.
Therefore, development of the proposed project will not interfere with the development of the CETAP. City of Temecula Regulations General Plan The city of Temecula's General Plan was
initially adopted in 1993 and was updated in 2005. Considered a blueprint for development in the city, the General Plan provides long-term policy guidance for the community’s physical,
economic, social and environmental changes. The SMAA includes approximately 318 acres within the City sphere of influence designated OS by the City’s General Plan and approximately 236
acres within the sphere of influence that is designated HR. Approval of the proposed project will change the general plan land use designations on the approximately 4,443 acres of the
annexation area located outside of the city’s current sphere of influence from the county’s OC-HP and RM designations to the city’s OS and HR land use designations (see Figure 3.4-4
and Figure 3.4-5). Municipal Code If the proposed project is approved, future development within the project area will be subject to the regulations of the City’s Municipal Code sections
related to property development concerning grading, subdividing, and zoning. These sections contain the regulatory framework that specifies allowable uses for real property and development
intensities; as well as technical standards such as site layout, building setbacks, heights, lot coverage, parking, landscaping, lighting, grading, and subdivision of land. Relevant
provisions of the proposed HR-SM pre-zoning require any hillside development plan to be designed to protect sensitive wildlife habitat areas, biological corridors, native plants, and
plant communities. The HR-SM zone supports interconnected, contiguous, and integrated open space systems within an area, particularly when located contiguous to open space preserves
as well as containing grading limitations, ridgeline protections and standards to reduce green house gas emissions. The purpose and intent of the development standards under the proposed
HR-SM zone are to protect the value of the community and the subject property of ridgelines, prominent landforms, rock outcroppings, open space areas, hydrologic features, wildlife communities,
unique and sensitive habitat and vegetation communities, and other natural, biological, and scenic resources. In addition, it is the intent of development and design under the proposed
HR-SM zone to preserve and enhance the visual and aesthetic quality of hillsides from the surrounding community as well as promote and encourage a variety of high quality, alternative
architectural and energy efficient development designs and concepts appropriate for hillside areas by utilizing the highest quality of prescribed standards. Lastly, the proposed HR-SM
zone is intended to preserve the public health, safety, and
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.4-4 City of Temecula General Plan -Land Use Map SOURCE: City of Temecula, June 2007, Riverside County GIS, 2007 North Not to
Scale
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.4-5 Proposed City of Temecula General Plan Amendment Land Use Designations SOURCE: City of Temecula, June 2007, Riverside County
GIS, 2007 North Not to Scale
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-9 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 welfare and
specifically protect the public and property from hazards such as seismic, geologic, and fire. Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive,
multi-jurisdictional HCP focusing on conservation of species and associated habitats in Western Riverside County and was enacted on June 17, 2003. The MSHCP will serve as an HCP pursuant
to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the FESA of 1973, as amended, as well as a NCCP under the NCCP Act of 2001. The MSHCP will result in an MSHCP Conservation Area in excess of 500,000 acres and
focuses on Conservation of 146 species. Both the County of Riverside and the City are participating jurisdictions, along with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority,
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Riverside County Regional Parks and Open Space District, Riverside County Waste Management District, Riverside County
Transportation Commission, Caltrans, California Department of Parks and Recreation, and the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley,
Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, and San Jacinto. Therefore, the provisions of the MSHCP apply to the proposed annexation area as part of unincorporated western Riverside County and
will continue to apply to the subject property if the proposed project is approved and the property becomes part of the City. The MSHCP establishes “Criteria Area” boundaries for conservation
that correspond to the Riverside County General Plan. These boundaries were established to facilitate the process by which properties are evaluated for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation
Area. The Criteria Area is an analytical tool which assists in determining which properties require conservation under the MSHCP. Although most of the project site is located outside
of criteria areas, the project site is located in proximity to three subunits: Subunit 1 (Murrieta Creek) to the north, Subunit 2 (Temecula and Pechanga Creeks) to the east and Subunit
6 (Santa Rosa Plateau) also to the north. Pursuant to the provisions of the MSHCP, all discretionary development projects within the Criteria Area are to be reviewed for compliance with
the “Property Owner Initiated Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy” (HANS) process or equivalent process. This process “ensures that an early determination will be
made of what properties are needed for the MSHCP Conservation Area, that the owners of property that is needed for the MSHCP Conservation Area are compensated, and that owners of land
not needed for the MSHCP Conservation Area shall receive Take Authorization of Covered Species Adequately Conserved through the Permits issues to the County and Cities pursuant to the
MSHCP. The SMAA project site is not within an identified Criteria Area and will therefore therefore not be required to follow the HANS process. In accordance with the MSHCP, proposed
projects outside of the criteria area are to be reviewed for consistency with the MSHCP Section 6.1.2 (“Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool”
guidelines), the MSHCP Section 6.1.3 (“Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species” guidelines), MSHCP Section 6.1.4 (“Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface”) and the
MSHCP Section 6.3.2 (“Additional Survey Needs and Procedures”). Within identified NEPSSA, site-specific focused surveys for Narrow Endemic
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-10 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Plant Species
area may be required as shown on Figure 6-1 of the MSHCP. The MSHCP also requires additional surveys for certain species if the project is located in criteria areas shown on Figure 6-2
(Criteria Area Species Survey Area), Figure 6-3 (Amphibian Species Survey Areas with Critical Area), Figure 6-4 (Burrowing Owl Survey Areas with Criteria Area) and Figure 6-5 (Mammal
Species Survey Areas with Criteria Area) of the MSHCP. Based upon the analysis of consistency with the MSHCP contained within Section 3.2 of this EIR, it is concluded that the proposed
project will not conflict with the provisions of the adopted MSHCP. 3.4.4. Design Considerations No specific design measures have been incorporated into the proposed project, other than
the policies and regulations contained within the City’s General Plan and development code. Design issues would be addressed when future development proposals are made to implement the
proposed general plan and proposed pre-zoning controls contemplated by the annexation. Relevant provisions of the proposed HR-SM pre-zoning require any hillside development plan to be
designed to protect sensitive wildlife habitat areas, biological corridors, native plants, and plant communities. The HR-SM zone supports interconnected, contiguous, and integrated open
space systems within an area, particularly when located contiguous to open space preserves as well as containing grading limitations, ridgeline protections and standards to reduce green
house gas emissions. The purpose and intent of the development standards under the proposed HR-SM zone is to protect the value of the community and the subject property of ridgelines,
prominent landforms, rock outcroppings, open space areas, hydrologic features, wildlife communities, unique and sensitive habitat and vegetation communities, and other natural, biological,
and scenic resources. In addition, it is the intent of development and design under the proposed HR-SM zone to preserve
and enhance the visual and aesthetic quality of hillsides from the surrounding community as well as promote and encourage a variety of high quality, alternative architectural and energy
efficient development designs and concepts appropriate for hillside areas by utilizing the highest quality of prescribed standards. Lastly, the proposed HR-SM zone is intended to preserve
the public health, safety, and welfare and specifically protect the public and property from hazards such as seismic, geologic, and fire. 3.4.5. Impacts and Mitigation Significance Criteria
The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines. However, Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates
that impacts related to land use and planning issues may be considered potentially significant if the proposed project would: • Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-11 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Impact Analysis
Impact 3.4-1: Project implementation would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The agency that currently has
land use jurisdiction over the project site is the County of Riverside. The County of Riverside land use plan, policies and regulations currently applicable to the project site are the
County of Riverside General Plan, the MSHCP, and the County’s Land Use Ordinance (Ordinance No. 348.) If the proposed project is approved, the agency with land use jurisdiction over
the project site will change and become the City. At that time, the applicable land use plan, policies and regulations applicable to the project site will include the Temecula General
Plan, Temecula Municipal Code, and the MSHCP. The potential for conflicts with the MSHCP is discussed in Section 3.2 (Biological Resources) of this EIR. The following analysis addresses
the proposed project’s potential for conflicts between the applicable County of Riverside and City of Temecula General Plan and zoning policies and regulations. General Plan Analysis
The proposed project will result in a change of the land use designations for approximately 554 acres located within the city’s sphere of influence from the County of Riverside OS-CH
and RM designations to OS and HR as currently shown on the City’s General Plan (Figure 3.4-4). The proposed project also includes a General Plan Amendment that will adopt land use designations
for approximately 4,443 acres of the subject property located outside of the city’s current sphere of influence. The County’s General Plan’s current land use designations for these 4,443
acres are OSCH and RM. Similar land use designations, being proposed for adoption by the City, are OS and HR (see Figures 3.4-2 and 3.4-5). Riverside County defines RM as a: Land use
designation (that) allows single-family residential uses, limited animal-keeping and agricultural uses, with a maximum residential density of 1 DU/10 AC. This designation applies to
areas of at least 10 acres where a minimum 70% of the area has slopes of 25% or greater. It also applies to remote areas that are completely or partially surrounded by slopes greater
than 25%, and that do not have both county-maintained access and access to community sewer and water systems. Limited recreational uses, compatible resource development (which may include
the extraction of mineral resources with approval of a surface mining permit) and associated uses, and governmental uses are also allowed within this designation. In comparison, the
City of Temecula General Plan land use designation proposed to replace the county’s RM designation is HR which is described as: Hillside Residential category provides for the development
of very low density singlefamily detached housing in areas that are best suited for open space or have severe constraints to development, such as steep hillsides with slopes over 25
percent, limited access and public services, fire hazards and other environmental concerns. The typical lot
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-12 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 size for
the HR designation is 10 acres for sites with minimal slopes with one dwelling unit permitted per lot, however, clustering of development may be appropriate to minimize grading requirements
and impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. Larger lot sizes are anticipated in areas with substantial site constraints. Both land use descriptions define the same level of residential
use intensity in an area expected to have steep slopes and development constraints; that is to limit land use activities to 1 DU/10 AC with ancillary uses. The designations do, however,
have a few differences related to alternative and ancillary uses. The major difference between the jurisdictions is that mining operations are permitted under the county’s RM land use
designation and the City does not include this activity under the HR land use designation. designation. The City’s HR designation does allow a number of uses other than residential (i.e.
churches, educational facilities, libraries, day care centers, bed and breakfast establishments). The open space designations under both the County and the City General Plans intend
the preservation of land for habitat and/or limited public recreation activities. A comparison of the County of Riverside land use designations and the Temecula land use designations
is shown in Table 3.4-1, General Plan Land Use Designation Comparison. TABLE 3.4-1 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION COMPARISON County of Riverside General Plan City of Temecula General
Plan Rural Mountainous (RM) Maximum Density: 1 DU/10 AC.a Uses: Single-family residential (1 du), limited animalkeeping, agriculture and recreational uses, compatible resource development
(which may include the extraction of mineral resources with approval of a surface mining permit) and associated uses, and governmental uses. Hillside Residential (HR) Maximum Density:
1 DU/10 AC.a Uses: Single-family residential. The City’s HR designation does allow a number of uses other than residential (i.e. churches, educational facilities, libraries, day care
centers, bed and breakfast establishments). Open Space – Conservation Habitat (OS-CH) Uses: Land designated for preservation of non-MSHCP habitat lands, protection from natural hazards,
and preservation of scenic and other natural resources. Ancillary structures or uses may be permitted provided that they further the intent of this designation and do not substantially
alter the character of the area. Actual building or structure size, siting, and design are determined on a case by case basis. Open Space (OS) Uses: Public and private areas of permanent
open space for recreational uses, utility easements, active fault zones, and un-developable portions of floodplains. a It is noted that each existing lot, regardless of size, may be
developed with one dwelling unit. Therefore, when the maximum number of lots that can be created from existing 20-acre and larger lots is added to the number of lots smaller than 10
acres (that cannot be further subdivided), a maximum of 80 new dwelling units may be developed within that portion of the project area currently designated RM, while 81 new dwelling
units may be developed within that portion of the project area proposed for the HR designation. (The additional dwelling unit is the result of the inclusion of a 5-acre privately owned
parcel currently designated OS-CH in the proposed HR designation.)
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-13 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 The SMAA
is relatively consistent with the land use designations and policies of the Riverside County General Plan and the Southwest Area Plan. Although the project proposes to change the existing
County land use designations of the project site from OS-HC and RM to OS and HR land use designations, the allowable uses are comparable with one another and both sets of uses can currently
be found in the area around the project site within Riverside County, the City, and San Diego County. All of the surrounding properties to the north and west in unincorporated Riverside
County have a General Plan designation of RM. To the east of the project site, the County of Riverside designations are primarily OS-C and RM, with a small amount of “Light Industrial”
and “Medium High Density Residential” along the east side of I-15. To the east of the project site, the City of Temecula General Plan land use designations are primarily HR and OS, with
a small amount of “High Density Residential” and “Neighborhood Commercial” located east of I-15 (see Figure 3.4-5). South of the project site, in San Diego County the general plan land
use designations are primarily “Multiple Rural Use” with some “Public/Semi-Public Lands” and “Impact Sensitive” designated property (see Figure 3.4-6). The consistency of the proposed
project with the policies of the Riverside County General Plan and with the policies of the City of Temecula General Plan are described in Table 3.4-3, City of Temecula General Plan:
Land Use Policies and Table 3.4-4, Riverside County General Plan, Land Use Policies and Southwest Area Plan Policies. The SMAA can be viewed as being consistent with most of the relevant
policies of both the City’s General Plan and the County’s General Plan. Table 3.4-3 evaluates the proposed project consistency with relevant policies in the City of Temecula General
Plan. Policies deemed not relevant to the project, based on proposed land uses, are not included in Table 3.4-3. Table 3.4-4 evaluates the proposed project with relevant policies in
the Riverside County General Plan, as well as any relevant policies from the Riverside County General Plan’s Southwest Area Plan (SWAP). Policies deemed not relevant to the project,
based on proposed land uses, are not included in Table 3.4-4. Zoning Analysis The entire project area is currently zoned R-R with the exception of the118 acres, located along the northern
most boundary of the project area, which are zoned R-A-20 by the County of Riverside. All properties to the northwest of the project site are zoned either A-1-10 (Light Agriculture with
a 10-acre minimum lot size), R-A-10, or R-A-20 (Residential Agriculture with 10-acre and 20-acre minimum lot sizes, respectively) (Refer to Figure 3.4-3.). To the west, in unincorporated
Riverside County, the zoning is R-R. To the east, the county zoning is primarily R-R with a small amount amount of M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) on the east side of I-15. The
City borders the northeastern limits of the project site. Within the City the zoning designations adjacent to the project site includes OS-C and HR. A small amount of Medium Density
Residential (M) and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) is located within the City, east of I-15. (see Figure 3.4-8). The southern boundary of the site is the Riverside/San Diego County line
where the adjacent zoning within the San Diego County is “Limited Agriculture” and OS. Zoning within San Diego County along Interstate 15, southeast of the project site, includes R-R,
“Residential Variable” and “Freeway Commercial” (see Figure 3.4-9).
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.4-6 County of San Diego General Plan Land Use Map SOURCE: San Diego County GIS, June 2007, Riverside County GIS, 2007 North
Not to Scale
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-15 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.4-3
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Land Use Element Goal 4 Orderly annexation and development of unincorporated
areas within Temecula's Sphere of Influence. Policy LU-4.1 Annex lands to the City that can be developed in accordance with the General Plan and can be adequately served by public facilities
and utility services. Due to the remote location of most of the area, property development within this area will be required to utilize imported service (propane) and wells and septic
systems for water and sewer services. Policy LU-4.2 Evaluate proposed annexations using City Fiscal Impact and Traffic Impact Models. The proposed project is being evaluated using the
city’s Traffic Impact Models. The results of that evaluation are described in Section 3.6 (Transportation and Traffic) of this EIR. An evaluation of the proposed annexation with the
city’s fiscal impact model is being completed in accordance with this policy and the requirements of the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission. Policy LU-4.3 Evaluate the
land use pattern intensity/density of proposed annexations in terms of: • Links to open space and trails from adjacent developments. Approximately 4,279 acres of the project site is
already managed as the Riverside County portion of the SMER. The remaining 718 acres of the project site are privately-owned lands. The purpose of the SMER is to conserve sensitive ecological
and biological resources. Therefore, the public lands contained within the SMER are not available and not suitable for recreational purposes. Therefore, the proposed project does not
include the designation of trails within the project area. The open space portions of the project site are connected to adjacent open space areas, as described in Section 3.2 (Biological
Resources) of this EIR. • Compatibility of the annexation to adjacent uses in the City. The proposed annexation consists of property that will either remain in open space and conservation
usage or will be developable with rural residential land uses. Uses within the adjacent portions of the City of Temecula have similar current and planned land uses. Therefore, the proposed
project is compatible with adjacent uses in the city. • Demonstrated needs for additional housing, industrial, commercial and other uses. The proposed project includes 718 acres for
development as rural residential development at a density of 1 DU/10 AC. This density contributes to the city’s ability to provide for a mix of residential densities in order to meet
the different lifestyle needs of its residents. Policy LU-4.4 Create distinctive open space and other areas around the City to prevent urban sprawl. The proposed project consists of
approximately 4,997 acres of which 4,279 acres will be preserved for open space and conservation uses. The remaining 718 acres will allow development of large lot rural residential uses
at a density of 1 DU/10 AC. Thus the proposed project will prevent urban intensity uses within the project area and is consistent with this policy. Policy LU-4.5 Influence and limit
impacts on the City of development occurring beyond the Sphere of Influence. This annexation will achieve this goal by providing the City with direct decision-making capability regarding
development of the area being annexed.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning TABLE 3.4-3 (continued) CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE POLICIES City of Temecula Santa Margarita
Area Annexation 3.4-16 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Goal 5 A land use pattern that protects and enhances residential
neighborhoods. Policy LU-5.1 Consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping,
preservation of existing vegetation and landform, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions. The proposed project will establish
land use designations and zoning on approximately 4,997 acres that will recognize the existing Santa Margarita Conservation Area (SMER) on approximately 4,279 acres and permit development
of approximately 718 acres with rural residential land uses at a density of 1 DU/10 AC. These land uses are of similar intensity and character as existing land uses on properties surrounding
the project site. Policy LU-5.2 Require parcels developed for commercial or industrial uses to incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity and
vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. The proposed project does not include the development of commercial and/or industrial uses. Therefore, the buffers required by this
policy are not applicable to the planned development of the project area in accordance with the proposed project. Policy LU-5.3 Require proposed development to evaluate the incremental
traffic impacts on local roads throughout the proposed project phasing in order to ensure that any adverse impacts to local roads in residential areas are avoided or adequately mitigated.
The potential incremental traffic impacts of the proposed project are evaluated in Section 3.6 (Transportation and Traffic) of this EIR. Goal 6 A development pattern that preserves preserves
aesthetics and enhances the environmental resources of the Planning Area. Policy LU-6.1 Preserve the natural aesthetic quality of hillsides and reduce hazards associated with hillside
development within the Planning Area. The proposed project recognizes the preservation of approximately 4,279 acres of the project site as natural open space within the SMER. The remaining
718 acres of the project site will allow rural residential development at a density of 1 DU/10 AC. This density allows for the siting of houses in a manner that will preserve the aesthetic
quality of the site Policy LU-6.3 Conserve the natural resources of area watercourses, including Santa Gertrudis, Temecula and Murrieta Creeks, through appropriate development densities,
managing stormwater runoff, and conservation site planning. The proposed project will conserve the natural resources of a significant watercourse within the area (Santa Margarita River)
by designating approximately 4,279 acres including and adjacent to the river for open space and conservation purposes. The approximately 718 acres of developable land within the project
area will be zoned to allow land uses that are compatible with the SMER and preclude land uses that have the potential to adversely impact watercourses and water quality within the annexation
area. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy LU-6.4 Protect and enhance significant ecological and biological resources within and surrounding Temecula.
The proposed project includes approximately 4,279 acres of the SMER. Proposed general plan and zoning designations will preserve the 4,279 acres in open space and conservation uses and
will limit land uses within approximately 718 acres adjacent to the SMER to large lot rural residential land uses that are compatible with the ecological and biological resources within
the SMER. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Goal 8 A City compatible and coordinated with regional land use and transportation patterns. patterns. Policy
LU-8.1 Provide a pattern of land uses that maintains and enhances the viability of neighboring communities including the City of Murrieta, and the counties of Riverside and San Diego,
through compatible uses and links. The proposed project recognizes the existing land uses within the project area and establishes land use designations and zoning that are consistent
with the land use patterns established in the adjacent unincorporated portions of the counties of Riverside and San Diego. Therefore the proposed project is consistent with this policy.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning TABLE 3.4-3 (continued) CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE POLICIES City of Temecula Santa Margarita
Area Annexation 3.4-17 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Policy LU-8.2 Expand the City system of open space and coordinate
with regional open space uses to comprehensively address the management of conservation resources. This annexation would bring approximate 4,279 acres of open space land into the city,
thereby significantly expanding the City’s system of open space. The uses allowed within the annexation area compatible with the ecological and biological resources within the annexation
area and facilitate the long-term management of these conservation resources. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Open Space and Conservation Element Goal
1 A high quality parks and recreation system that meets the diverse recreation needs of residents. Policy OSC-1.2 Pursue the joint use of public lands available and suitable for recreation
purposes, including lands under the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control District, Southern California Edison, water districts, school districts, and other public agencies.
Approximately 4,279 acres of the project site is already managed as the Riverside County portion of the SMER. The remaining 718 acres of the project site are privately-owned lands. The
purpose of the SMER is to conserve sensitive ecological and biological resources. Therefore, the public lands contained within the SMER are not available for recreational purposes. Policy
OSC-1.3 Encourage the enhancement and preservation of historic structures and landscape, and significant natural features, such as riparian areas, rock outcroppings, sensitive habitat
areas, and viewpoints through park design and site development. The proposed project recognizes the preservation of approximately 4,279 acres of the project site, which includes riparian
areas, rock outcroppings and sensitive habitat areas, as natural open space within the SMER. The remaining 718 acres of the project site will allow rural residential development at a
density of 1 DU/10 AC. This density allows for the siting of houses in a manner that will allow the preservation of additional rock outcroppings and potential riparian areas and sensitive
habitat. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy OSC-1.6 Encourage the establishment of natural habitat spaces for recreational hiking and nature education. Approximately
4,279 acres of the project site is already managed as the Riverside County portion of the SMER. Through the administration of this area by SDSU, the area is available for educational
purposes to K-12 students and higher education students for field trips and classes. The general community can also visit the SMER through docentlead tours. Goal 2 Conservation and protection
of surface water, groundwater and imported water resources. Policy OSC-2.1 Coordinate with the Riverside County Flood Control District to design flood control improvements that preserve,
to the maximum extent feasible, important natural features and resources of the local creeks and riparian forest of the Santa Margarita River. The majority of the area (4,279 acres)
proposed for annexation will be designated OS and will remain undeveloped and will not require flood control improvements. The development potential on the remaining area (718 acres)
which will be designated HR is limited to 1 DU/10 AC and which will permit a maximum of 81 new dwelling units to be built. This density allows for the siting of houses in a manner that
will allow the preservation of important resources within the vicinity of the Santa Margarita River. It is unlikely that Riverside County Flood Control District flood control improvements
will be required for development within this area.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning TABLE 3.4-3 (continued) CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE POLICIES City of Temecula Santa Margarita
Area Annexation 3.4-18 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Policy OSC-2.2 Identify and protect groundwater resources
from depletion and sources of pollution in cooperation with the Rancho California Water District and the San Diego Water Quality Control Board. The proposed project will protect groundwater
resources from depletion and sources of pollution through the preservation of approximately 4,271 acres within the Santa Margarita River watershed for open space and conservation purposes.
The development of the remaining 718 acres of the project area at a maximum density of 1 DU/10 AC will limit the demand for groundwater resources. Development of these 718 acres will
be required to comply with established regulatory requirements to prevent pollution of groundwater resources. Policy OSC-2.5 Require the use of soil management techniques to reduce erosion,
eliminate off-site sedimentation, and prevent other soil-related problems that may adversely affect waterways in the community. Development within the project area will comply with standard
city regulations regarding soil-related problems. Policy OSC-2.6 Regulate and manage lands adjacent to or affecting watercourses as stipulated by the RWCD. The proposed project consists
of approximately 4,997 acres of which 4,279 acres adjacent to or within proximity to the Santa Margarita River will be preserved for open space and conservation uses. The remaining 718
acres will allow development of large lot rural residential uses at a density of 1 DU/10 AC. Development within the 718 acres will comply with standard city and RWQCB regulations, and
the requirements of the federal CWA in order to prevent adverse impacts to affected watercourses. Therefore the proposed project complies with this policy. Policy OSC-2.7 Ensure that
approved projects have filed a Notice of Intent and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with the Federal CWA, prior to issuance of grading permits. See the above analysis
for Policy OSC-2.6. Policy OSC-2.8 Ensure adequate inspection and enforcement of the requirements of general construction permits, particularly related to erosion control during grading
and construction. Development within the project area will comply with standard city regulations including inspections and enforcement of the requirements of general construction permits.
Policy OSC-2.9 Participate in regional planning for the Santa Margarita River Watershed in conjunction with federal, State, regional and local agencies, and non-profit organizations.
This annexation will continue to comply with this policy by providing the city with direct decision-making capability regarding development of the area being annexed and thus a more
direct role in regional planning for the Santa Margarita River Watershed. Goal 3 Conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern,
wildlife movement corridors, and general biodiversity. Policy OSC-3.1 Require development proposals to identify significant biological resources and provide mitigation, including the
use of adequate buffering and sensitive site planning techniques, selective preservation, provision of replacement habitats; and other appropriate measures. The proposed project recognizes
the preservation of approximately 4,279 acres of the project site as natural open space within the SMER. The remaining 718 acres of the project site will allow rural residential development
at a density of 1 DU/10 AC. Development within the annexation area will be required, through compliance with the City’s standard development review procedures, to identify significant
biological resources that will be affected by said development and provide mitigation.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning TABLE 3.4-3 (continued) CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE POLICIES City of Temecula Santa Margarita
Area Annexation 3.4-19 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Policy OSC-3.2 Work with State, regional and non-profit agencies
and organizations
to preserve and enhance significant biological resources. The proposed project includes approximately 4,279 acres of the SMER, an area with significant biological resources managed by
SDSU. Proposed general plan and zoning designations will preserve the 4,279 acres in open space and conservation uses and will limit land uses within approximately 718 acres adjacent
to the SMER to large lot rural residential land uses that are compatible with the ecological and biological resources within the SMER. Project approval would give the City of Temecula
direct land use control over the project site and facilitate future cooperation with those agencies and organizations that seek to preserve significant biological resources within this
area, in compliance with this policy. Policy OSC-3.5 Maintain an inventory of existing natural resources in the City. The proposed project includes approximately 4,279 acres of the SMER.
Proposed general plan and zoning designations will preserve the 4,279 acres in open space and conservation uses. This acreage will be added to the City’s inventory of existing natural
resources, in accordance with this policy. Policy OSC-3.6 Limit recreational use of designated open space areas where there are sensitive biological resources as needed protect these
resources. The proposed project includes approximately 4,279 acres of the SMER. Proposed general plan and zoning designations will preserve the 4,279 acres in open space and conservation
uses. The purpose of the SMER is to conserve sensitive ecological and biological resources. The designated open space lands contained within the SMER are not available for recreational
purposes. Therefore the proposed project complies with this policy. Policy OSC-3.7 Maintain and enhance the resources of Temecula Creek, Pechanga Creek, Murrieta Creek, Santa Gertrudis
Creek, Santa Margarita River, and other waterways to ensure the long-term viability of the habitat, wildlife, and wildlife movement corridors. The proposed project recognizes the preservation
of approximately 4,279 acres of the project site, which includes Santa Margarita River resources, as natural open space within the SMER. The remaining 718 acres of the project site will
allow as rural residential development at a density of 1 DU/10 AC. This density allows for the siting of houses in a manner that will contribute to the long-term viability of habitat
and wildlife and will allow the continued viability of the SMER as a portion of regional wildlife movement corridors. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Goal 5 Conservation
of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features. Policy OSC-5.1 Conserve the western escarpment and southern ridgelines,
the Santa Margarita River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and other important landforms and historic landscape features through the development review process. The proposed project
recognizes the preservation of approximately 4,279 acres of the project site, which contributes to the conservation of the western escarpment, southern ridgelines and the Santa Margarita
River. The remaining 718 acres of the project site will allow rural residential development at a density of 1 DU/10 AC. This density allows for the siting of houses in a manner that
will facilitate the conservation of these sensitive areas. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Policy OSC-5.2 Identify significant viewsheds to proposed projects that
may be preserved through the dedication of open space or the use of sensitive grading, site design, and building techniques. The preservation of approximately 4,279 acres of the project
site for open space and conservation purposes and the rural residential development of 718 acres will facilitate the city’s preservation of identified viewsheds, including the western
escarpment and southern ridgelines.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning TABLE 3.4-3 (continued) CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE POLICIES City of Temecula Santa Margarita
Area Annexation 3.4-20 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Policy OSC-5.8 Require re-vegetation of graded slopes concurrent
with project development to minimize erosion and maintain the scenic character of the community. The proposed project includes approximately 718 acres that can be developed with large
lot rural residential development. In accordance with adopted city regulations, the City will require the re-vegetation of any graded slopes created as this 718 acres develops. Policy
OSC-5.12 Identify and develop natural habitat areas for low impact hiking and nature education. See the above analysis for Policy OSC-1.6. Policy OSC-5.13 Utilize natural, undeveloped
greenbelts as buffers between developments and on outskirts of the City to preserve the rural and unique character of Temecula The annexation area and the proposed land uses will help
to maintain this area as a greenbelt with an increased opportunity to oversee the development of undeveloped land to better assure the preservation of this area’s rural character. Goal
6 Preservation of significant historical and cultural resources. Policy OSC-6.1 Maintain an inventory of areas with arc haeological/paleontological sensitivity, and historic sites in
the Planning Area. The EIC was contacted for an inventory of known archaeological and historic sites within the project area. The results of the records search are summarized in the
Cultural Resources Section (Section 3.3) of this EIR. In accordance with this policy, the results of the records search will be added to the city’s inventory of areas with archaeological/paleontologi
cal sensitivity and historic sites, Policy OSC-6.2 Work to preserve or salvage potential archeological and paleontological resources on sites proposed for future development through
the development review and mitigation monitoring processes. See the above analysis for Policy OSC-6.1. Compliance with the statutory requirements, as summarized in Section 3.3 (Cultural
Resources) of this EIR will assure compliance with this policy. Goal 9 Protection of dark skies from intrusive light sources which may impact the Palomar Observatory. Policy OSC-9.1
Coordinate with the County of Riverside and California Institute of Technology to ensure preservation procedures for dark skies are implemented within the City development review process.
The City recognizes the procedures for dark skies and will apply the necessary restrictions on development within the project area to assure that this policy is met. Policy OSC-9.2 Participate
in Palomar Observatory's dark sky conservation requirements. See the above analysis for Policy OSC-9.1. Growth Management/Public Facilities Element Goal 1 Cooperative management of growth
among local governments within Riverside County. Policy GM-1.3 Achieve economic growth and prosperity while preserving natural beauty and the social quality of life in southwestern Riverside
County. This annexation provides the City with the opportunity to better preserve the natural beauty of southwestern Riverside County through its less intrusive development standards
in areas intended for rural residential development. Policy GM-1.4 Encourage and assist in the establishment of natural reserves for the preservation of sensitive and endangered species,
and to provide open space for residents Approximately 4,279 acres of the project site is already managed as the Riverside County portion of the SMER. The remaining 718 acres of the project
site are privately-owned lands. The purpose of the SMER is to conserve sensitive ecological and biological resources. The proposed project complies with this policy through its acknowledgement
of the importance of the SMER and its designation of the SMER property with open space and conservation general plan and zoning designations.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning TABLE 3.4-3 (continued) CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE POLICIES City of Temecula Santa Margarita
Area Annexation 3.4-21 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Noise Element Goal 1 Separate significant noise generators
from sensitive receptors. Policy N-1.1 Discourage noise sensitive land uses in noisy exterior environments unless measures can be implemented to reduce exterior and interior noise to
acceptable levels. Alternatively, encourage less sensitive uses in areas adjacent to major noise generators but require sound-appropriate interior working environments. The proposed
project includes approximately 4,279 acres of the SMER. Proposed general plan and zoning designations will preserve the 4,279 acres in open space and conservation uses and will limit
land uses within approximately 718 acres adjacent to the SMER to large lot rural residential land uses that are compatible with the ecological and biological resources within the SMER.
All of the proposed land uses within this area can be considered to be noise sensitive uses, but there are no existing major noise generators adjacent to the project site. The proposed
project is not located within a noise exterior environment. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Goal 3 Minimize the impact of noise levels throughout the
community through land use planning. Policy N-3.1 Enforce and maintain acceptable noise limit standards. The proposed project will give the City of Temecula jurisdiction over the land
uses within the annexation area and will enable the City to implement this policy through its land use decision-making process and the City’s enforcement of acceptable noise limit standards.
Air Quality Element Goal 2 Improve air quality through effective land use planning in Temecula. Policy AQ-2.1 Encourage new development that provides employment opportunities for Temecula
residents to to improve the balance of jobs relative to housing. The proposed project does not include the development of commercial and/or industrial uses. The proposed project contains
property intended for use as open space or large lot rural residential development (a maximum of 81 new dwelling units) that would have a minimal impact on the city’s overall jobs/housing
balance. Policy AQ-2.3 Minimize land use conflicts between emission sources and sensitive receptors. The majority of the area (4,279 acres) proposed for annexation will be designated
OS and will remain undeveloped and will not be an emission source. The development potential on the remaining area (718 acres) which will be designated HR is limited to 1 DU/10 AC and
which will permit a maximum of 81 new dwelling units to be built. The residential uses are considered to be sensitive receptors. The proposed project will not result in the establishment
of point source emission sources. Therefore there will be no land use conflicts between emission sources and sensitive receptors. The only air quality emissions generated within the
project site will be from mobile sources (automobiles and construction equipment) resulting from the rural residential uses within the project area. The potential impacts of these emissions
are addressed in Section 3.1 (Air Quality) of this EIR. Policy AQ-2.4 Mitigate air quality impacts associated with development projects to the greatest extent feasible. The potential
impacts of project-related air emissions are addressed in Section 3.1 (Air Quality) of this EIR. Appropriate mitigation measures are set forth in that section.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning TABLE 3.4-3 (continued) CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE POLICIES City of Temecula Santa Margarita
Area Annexation 3.4-22 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Community Design Element Goal 5 Protection of public views
of significant natural features. Policy CD -5.2 Retain critical escarpment and major hillside areas to preserve open space areas on the west and south edges of the City. The preservation
of approximately 4,279 acres of the project site for open space and conservation purposes and the rural residential development of 718 acres will facilitate the City’s preservation of
open space areas, including the western escarpment, on the west edges of the city.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-23 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.4-4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE POLICIES AND SWAP POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Countywide Policies Efficient Use of Land -Policies
LU.2.1 Accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use and density depicted on the General Plan Land Use Map and the Area Plan Land Use Maps,
in accordance with the following: g. Prevent inappropriate development in areas that are environmentally sensitive or subject to severe natural hazards. The majority of the annexation
area (4,271 acres) currently has a Riverside County General Plan Land Use designation of OS-CH; while the remaining 703 acres are designated RM, with a 10-acre minimum lot size. The
proposed project will conserve approximately 4,279 acres, including the Santa Margarita River and adjacent land that contain sensitive environmental resources by designating the property
OS and through the adoption of OS-C zoning. The approximately 718 acres of developable land within the project area will be designated and zoned HR to allow land uses that are compatible
with the SMER and preclude land uses that have the potential to adversely impact watercourses and water quality within the annexation area. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent
with this policy. Project Design -Policies LU 4.1 Require that new developments be located and designed to visually enhance, not degrade the character of the surrounding area through
consideration of the following concepts: o. Preserve natural features, such as unique terrain, drainage ways, and native vegetation, wherever possible, particularly where they provide
continuity with more extensive regional systems. The proposed project recognizes the preservation of approximately 4,279 acres of the project site, which includes Santa Margarita River
resources, as natural open space within the SMER. The remaining 718 acres of the project site will allow rural residential development at a density of 1 DU/10 AC. This density allows
for the siting of houses in a manner that will contribute to the long-term viability of habitat and wildlife and will allow the continued viability of the SMER as a portion of the more
extensive regional biological habitat system. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Economic Development – Policies LU 7.1 Accommodate the development of a balance of
land uses that maintain and enhance the County’s fiscal viability, economic diversity, and environmental integrity. The Riverside County General Plan’s SWAP provides the Temecula Valley
community with a variety of land use designations that, when taken as a whole, accommodate the development of a balance of land uses. Within the proposed project there is land designated
for conservation and rural residential uses. The area permitting residential uses also permits more intensive uses that at best may offer incremental fiscal viability at the loss of
environmental integrity to the region of Riverside County. Therefore, the less intrusive uses proposed with the annexation will be a better balance of land uses to enhance the County.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning TABLE 3.4-4 (continued) RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE POLICIES AND SWAP POLICIES City of Temecula
Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-24 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy LU 7.2 Promote and market the development
of a variety of stable employment and business uses that provide a diversity of employment opportunities. The proposed project does not provide for the development of commercial and/or
industrial uses. The proposed project contains property intended for use as open space or large lot rural residential development (a maximum of 81 new dwelling units) that are more suitable
for the subject property due to environmental sensitivity of the project area and its geographic location in relation to the more intensely populated portions of the nearby unincorporated
Riverside County and the City of Temecula. The proposed project will not adversely affect implementation of this policy by the County of Riverside. Open Space, Habitat & Natural Resource
Preservation – Policies LU 8.1 Provide for permanent preservation of open space lands that contain important natural resources, hazards, water features, watercourses, and scenic and
recreational values. The proposed project recognizes the preservation of approximately 4,279 acres of the project site within the SMER, which contributes to the permanent preservation
of open space lands. The remaining 718 acres of the project site will allow rural residential development at a density of 1 DU/10 AC. This density allows for the siting of houses in
a manner that will facilitate the conservation of these sensitive areas. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. LU 8.2 Require that development protect environmental resources
by compliance with the Multipurpose Open Space Element of the General Plan and Federal and State regulations such as CEQA, NEPA, the CAA, and the CWA. The proposed project and future
development within the annexation area will be subject to applicable federal, state and local regulations that protect environmental resources, including the Western Riverside MSHCP,
federal CAA and the federal CWA. The subject project and development pursuant to adopted general plan and zoning designations will comply with all applicable provisions of the CEQA.
LU 8.3 Incorporate open space, community greenbelt separators, and recreational amenities into Community Development areas in order to enhance recreational opportunities and community
aesthetics, and improve the quality of life. Approximately 4,279 acres of the project site is already managed as the Riverside County portion of the SMER. The purpose of the SMER is
to conserve sensitive ecological and biological resources. The remaining 718 acres of the project site are privately-owned lands which are designated by the proposed general plan designation
and zoning to allow land uses that are compatible with the SMER. Therefore, although the public lands contained within the SMER provide open space and greenbelt separation from development,
these lands are not available for recreational purposes. The open space portions of the project site are connected to adjacent open space areas, as described in Section 3.2 (Biological
Resources) of this EIR. LU 8.4 Allow development clustering and/or density transfers in order to preserve open space, natural resources, and/or biologically sensitive resources. The
proposed project consists of approximately 4,997 acres of which 4,279 acres will be preserved for open space and conservation uses. The remaining 718 acres will allow development of
large lot rural residential uses at a density of 1 DU/10 AC. Clustered development which could result in the preservation of additional open space, natural resources and/or biologically
sensitive resources, will be allowed pursuant to Policy 5.3 of the City of Temecula General Plan’s Open Space Element. Hillside Development & Slope -Policies LU 11.1 Apply the following
policies to areas where development is allowed and that contain natural slopes, canyons, or other significant elevation changes, regardless of land use designation:
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning TABLE 3.4-4 (continued) RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE POLICIES AND SWAP POLICIES City of Temecula
Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-25 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy a. Require that hillside development minimize
alteration of the natural landforms and natural vegetation. a. Those areas designated for residential development will be required to comply with the city’s development and grading standards
so as to minimize the impact of development on the natural land form of the area. b. Allow development clustering to retain slopes in natural open space whenever possible. b. See the
above analysis for Policy LU 8.4. c. Require that areas with slope be developed in a manner to minimize the hazards from erosion and slope failures. c. Compliance with standard city
regulations will assure that development within the project area will minimize the hazards from erosion and slope failures. d. Restrict development on visually significant ridgelines,
canyon edges, and hilltops through sensitive siting and appropriate landscaping to ensure development is visually unobtrusive. d. The proposed project recognizes the preservation of
approximately 4,279 acres of the project site as natural open space within the SMER. The remaining 718 acres of the project site will allow rural residential development at a density
of 1 DU/10 AC. This density allows for the siting of houses in a manner that will preserve the aesthetic quality of the site and will facilitate the city’s preservation of identified
viewsheds, including the western escarpment and southern ridgelines. Rural Area Plan Land Use Designations LU 17.3 Ensure that development does not adversely impact the open space and
rural character of the surrounding area. The proposed project will establish land use designations and zoning on approximately 4,997 acres that will recognize the existing SMER on approximately
4,279 acres and permit development of approximately 718 acres with rural residential land uses at a density of1 DU/10 AC. These land uses are of similar intensity and character as existing
land uses on properties surrounding the project site. Open Space-Conservation LU 18.1 Require that structures be designed to maintain the environmental character in which they are located.
Where future development within the project area is tied to discretionary approvals, the design of structures will be reviewed for compatibility with the project area’s environmental
character. LU 18.2 Cooperate with the CDFG, USFWS, and any other appropriate agencies in establishing programs for the voluntary protection, and where feasible, voluntary restoration
of significant environmental habitats. The proposed project includes approximately 4,279 acres of the SMER, an area with significant biological resources managed by SDSU. Proposed general
plan and zoning designations will preserve the 4,279 acres in open space and conservation uses and will limit land uses within approximately 718 acres adjacent to the SMER to large lot
rural residential land uses that are compatible with the ecological and biological resources within the SMER. Project approval would give the City of Temecula direct land use control
over the project site and facilitate future cooperation with those agencies and organizations that seek to preserve significant biological resources within this area, in compliance with
this policy.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning TABLE 3.4-4 (continued) RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE POLICIES AND SWAP POLICIES City of Temecula
Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-26 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Open Space-Mineral Resources Policies LU 21.1
Require that surface mining activities and lands containing mineral deposits of statewide or of regional significance comply with Riverside County Ordinances and the SMARA. As shown
in the Riverside County General Plan, the land in and around the annexation area has been given a MRZ-3a classification by the State Division of Mines and Geology; which indicates the
project area is a region where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits exist, however, the significance of the deposit and its location is undetermined. Under
this zone classification there is the potential for the area to contain sedimentary deposits to to supply sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate, although, these
deposits are not considered to be of significant economic value and therefore are not listed as deposits of statewide or regional significance. However, on June 14, 2007 the State Mining
and Geology Board reclassified a small portion of the area to MRZ-2a for mining Portland cement concrete aggregate. With annexation, the ability to mine mineral resources would not be
permitted which will result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources within the project area that could be of value to the region. LU 21.2 Protect lands designated as Open
Space-Mineral Resource from encroachment of incompatible land uses through buffer zones or visual screening. The project area is designated as OS-CH and RM by the Riverside County General
Plan and there are no “Open Space-Mineral Resource” designated lands in the vicinity; therefore, the standards of this policy are not applicable to the project site. LU 21.3 Protect
road access to mining activities and prevent or mitigate traffic conflicts with surrounding properties. There are neither mines nor mining roads within the project site or surrounding
area that require protection from incompatible land uses. Similarly, there are no mining-related traffic conflicts with surrounding properties within the project area. LU 21.4 Require
the recycling of mineral extraction sites to open space, recreational, or other uses that are compatible with the surrounding land uses. There are no mineral extraction sites within
the project area; therefore this policy is not applicable to the proposed project. LU 21.5 Require an approved reuse plan prior to the issuing of a permit to operate an extraction operation.
There are no mineral extraction sites within the project area; therefore this policy is not applicable to the proposed project. Mineral Resources OS 14.1 Require that the operation and
reclamation of surface mines be consistent with the SMARA and County Development Code provisions. There are no surface mining operations within the project area and therefore this policy
is not applicable to the proposed project.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning TABLE 3.4-4 (continued) RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE POLICIES AND SWAP POLICIES City of Temecula
Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-27 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy OS 14.2 Restrict incompatible land uses within
the impact area of existing or potential surface mining areas. There are no existing surface mining areas within the project area. However, there is a pending proposal on file with the
County of Riverside for a surface mining permit within the area being considered for annexation. The proposed project includes approximately 4,279 acres of the SMER, an area with significant
biological resources managed by SDSU. The existing county land uses and similar uses to be adopted by the City of Temecula are incompatible with potential surface mining activity within
the project area. Conversely, surface mining within the project area is potentially incompatible with the existing SMER. In order to avoid the placement of incompatible land uses within
the project area, the proposed general plan and zoning designations will preserve the 4,279 acres in open space and conservation uses and will limit land uses within approximately 718
acres adjacent to the SMER to large lot rural residential land uses that are compatible with the ecological and biological resources within the SMER. OS 14.3 Restrict land uses incompatible
with mineral resource recovery within areas designated Open Space-Mineral Resources. The project area is designated as OS-CH and RM by the Riverside County General Plan and there are
no “Open Space-Mineral Resource” designated lands in the vicinity; therefore, the standards of this policy are not applicable to the project site. OS 14.4 Impose conditions as necessary
on mining operations to minimize or eliminate the potential adverse impact of
mining operations on surrounding properties, and environmental resources. See the above analysis for for Policy OS 14.2. OS 14.5 Require that new non-mining land uses adjacent to existing
mining operations be designed to provide a buffer between the new development and the mining operations. The buffer distance shall be based on an evaluation of noise, aesthetics, drainage,
operating conditions, biological resources, topography, lighting, traffic, operating hours, and air quality. There are no existing mining operations within or adjacent to the project
area; therefore this policy is not applicable to the proposed project. OS 14.6 Accept California Land Conservation (Williamson Act) contracts on land identified by the state as containing
significant mineral deposits subject to the use and acreage limitations established by the County. No lands within the project area are subject to this policy. SWAP Policies Mount Palomar
Nighttime Lighting SWAP 13.1 Adhere to the lighting requirements of county ordinances for standards that are intended to limit light leakage and spillage that may interfere with the
operations of the Palomar Observatory. The City recognizes the procedures for dark skies and has adopted general plan policies OSC-9.1 and OSC-9.2 for dark skies implementation and conservation
requirements and will apply the necessary restrictions on development within the project area to assure that this policy is met.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning TABLE 3.4-4 (continued) RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE POLICIES AND SWAP POLICIES City of Temecula
Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-28 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Ridgeline Policies SWAP 16.1 Building sites
shall not be permitted on the Western Ridgeline as identified on the Area Plan Land Use map. Projects proposed within the area of the Western Ridgeline shall be evaluated on a case by
case basis to ensure that building pad sites are located so that buildings and roof tops do not project above the Ridgeline as viewed from the Temecula Basin. All projects within one-half
mile of the Western Ridgeline shall also be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if the building site will have an adverse impact to the ridgeline as viewed from the basin.
The proposed project recognizes the preservation of approximately 4,279 acres of the project site, which contributes to the conservation of a portion of the Western Ridgeline. The remaining
718 acres of the project site will allow rural residential development at a density of 1 DU/10 AC. This density allows for the siting of houses in a manner that will facilitate the conservation
of the viewshed that may otherwise be impacted by development on the Western Ridgeline. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Scenic Highways SWAP 19.1 Protect the scenic
highways in the Southwest planning area from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of adjacent properties in accordance with the Scenic Corridors sections of the General Plan
Land Use, Multipurpose Open Space, and Circulation Elements. I-15 has been identified as being eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway and any development activities that
would encroach on adjacent hillsides would diminish the aesthetic value of the area. The proposed project recognizes the preservation of approximately 4,279 acres of the project site
as natural open space within the SMER. The remaining 718 acres of the project site will allow rural residential development at a density of 1 DU/10 AC. This density allows for the siting
of houses in a manner that will preserve the aesthetic quality of the site. Local Open Space Policies Watersheds, Floodplains, and Watercourses SWAP 21.1 Protect the Santa Margarita
watershed and habitat, and provide recreational opportunities and flood protection through adherence to the Watershed Management section of the General Plan Multipurpose Open Space Element,
as well as use of Best Management Practice policies. The proposed project will conserve the natural resources of the Santa Margarita watershed and its biological resources by designating
approximately 4,279 acres including and adjacent to the river for open space and conservation purposes. The approximately 718 acres of developable land within the project area will be
zoned to allow land uses that are compatible with the SMER and preclude land uses that have have the potential to adversely impact watercourses and water quality within the annexation
area. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Oak Tree Preservation SWAP 22.1 Protect viable oak woodlands through adherence to the Oak Tree Management Guidelines
adopted by Riverside County. The proposed project will conserve the natural resources of the Santa Margarita watershed and its biological resources by designating approximately 4,279
acres including and adjacent to the river for open space and conservation purposes. These conserved areas include oak woodlands.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning TABLE 3.4-4 (continued) RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE POLICIES AND SWAP POLICIES City of Temecula
Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-29 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Key Biological Issues SWAP 23.1 Provide stepping-stone habitat linkages for the California gnatcatcher as well as other species through the preservation of land from the Santa Rosa Plateau
to the Santa Margarita Reserve in San Diego County. The proposed project recognizes the preservation of approximately 4,279 acres of the project site, which includes Santa Margarita
River resources, as natural open space within the SMER. The remaining 718 acres of the project site will allow rural residential development at a density of 1 DU/10 AC. This density
allows for the siting of houses in a manner that will contribute to the long-term viability of habitat and wildlife and will allow the continued viability of the SMER as a portion of
regional habitat linkages for the California gnatcatcher and other sensitive species. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. SWAP 23.3 Maintain habitat connectivity within
Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, Lower Tucalota Creek, Lower Warm Springs Creek, and Pechanga Creek to facilitate wildlife movement and dispersal, (especially for the California gnatcatcher
and Quino checkerspot butterfly) and conservation of wetland species. See the above analysis for Policy SWAP 23.1. SWAP 23.7 Consider the movement of larger mammals such as the mountain
lion, bobcat, and mule deer between the Santa Ana and Mount Palomar Mountains. The SMER has been designated an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Bureau of Land Management holdings
within this area are adjacent to lands owned by the Department and the SDSU Foundation. The SMER provides habitat for arroyo chub, California rufous-crowned sparrow, and Bell’s sage
sparrow and may serve as a linkage for bobcat and mountain lion moving between the Santa Ana Mountains and the Aqua Tibia Wilderness. Approximately 4,279 acres of the project site is
within the SMER. Proposed general plan and zoning designations will preserve these 4,279 acres in open space and conservation uses and will limit land uses within approximately 718 acres
adjacent to the SMER to large lot rural residential land uses that are compatible with the ecological and biological resources within the SMER. Slope SWAP 27.1 Identify and preserve
the ridgelines that provide a significant visual resource for the Southwest planning area through adherence to the Hillside Development and Slope section of the General Plan Land Use
Element. See the above analysis for Policy LU 11.1. SWAP 27.2 Protect life and property and maintain the character of the Southwest planning area through adherence to the Hillside Development
and Slope section of the General Plan Land Use Element, the Rural Mountainous land use designation, and policies in the Slope and Soil Instability Hazards section of the General Plan
Safety Element. See the above analysis for Policy LU 11.1.
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.4-8 City of Temecula Zoning SOURCE: City of Temecula, June 2005, Riverside County GIS, 2007 North Not to Scale
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.4-9 County of San Diego Zoning SOURCE: San Diego County GIS, September 2007, Riverside County GIS, 2003 North Not to Scale
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-32 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 As part
of the proposed project, the project area will be pre-zoned, with zoning designations consistent with the City’s chosen General Plan land use designations of OS and HR. This means that
areas designated OS will be pre-zoned OS-C-SM and areas designed HR will be pre-zoned HR-SM by the City (see Figure 3.4-7). Relevant provisions of the proposed HR-SM pre-zoning require
any hillside development plan to be designed to protect sensitive wildlife habitat areas, biological corridors, native plants, and plant communities. The HR-SM zone supports interconnected,
contiguous, and integrated open space systems within an area, particularly when located contiguous to open space preserves as well as containing grading limitations, ridgeline protections
and standards to reduce green house gas emissions. The purpose and intent of the development development standards under the proposed HR-SM zone are to protect the value of the community
and the subject property of ridgelines, prominent landforms, rock outcroppings, open space areas, hydrologic features, wildlife communities, unique and sensitive habitat and vegetation
communities, and other natural, biological, and scenic resources. In addition, it is the intent of development and design under the proposed HR-SM zone to preserve and enhance the visual
and aesthetic quality of hillsides from the surrounding community as well as promote and encourage a variety of high quality, alternative architectural and energy efficient development
designs and concepts appropriate for hillside areas by utilizing the highest quality of prescribed standards. Lastly, the proposed HR-SM zone is intended to preserve the public health,
safety, and welfare and specifically protect the public and property from hazards such as seismic, geologic, and fire. As described above, in the General Plan Analysis, the County’s
RM land use designation and the City’s HR land use designation define the same level of residential use intensity in an area expected to have steep slopes that impose development constraints
and limit land use activities to 1 DU/10 AC with ancillary uses. However, the majority of the project area is zoned R-R with a small area zoned R-A-20 by Riverside County. Based on Riverside
County’s Land Use Designations – Zoning Consistency Guidelines, the R-R zoning is considered to be “conditionally consistent” with the county’s RM land use designation and “inconsistent”
with the county’s OSCH designation. R-A-20 zoning is considered “inconsistent” with the county’s OS-CH designation. Therefore, current Riverside County zoning for most of the project
area is inconsistent with County’s current land use designations. Under the City’s proposed HR zoning classification and the county’s current R-R and R-A-20 zoning designations, there
are a range of allowed use. While the residential uses under both jurisdictions are about the same, the county’s additional range of land use activities under R-R and R-A-20 classifications,
as set forth in Ordinance No. 348, include numerous permitted or conditionally permitted commercial or business uses (see Table 3.4-2, Zoning – Comparison of Allowable Land Uses). However,
the County’s range of permitted or conditionally permitted land uses in the R-R and R-A-20 zoning classifications include uses that are not described in the range of uses defined in
the Riverside County General Plan’s description for the RM land use designation, which is set forth above. Additionally, both of these county zoning classifications contain uses which
are not consistent with the land use limitations imposed by the County’s General Plan within the OS-HC designation.
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.4-7 Proposed City of Temecula Pre-Zoning SOURCE: City of Temecula, June 2007, Riverside County GIS, 2007 North Not to Scale
-sm -sm
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-34 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.4-2
ZONING – COMPARISON OF ALLOWABLE LAND USES County Zoning Temecula Zoning Description of Uses R-R R-A-20 HR-SM Residential Single/One-family dwellings. Permitted Permitted Permitted Granny
flat. ------Permitted Secondary dwelling units. ------Permitted Manufactured homes. ------Permitted One mobilehome, as a principal residence only, with regulations. Permitted Permitted
---Mobilehome parks, pursuant to Section 19.92 of Ord. No. 348. CUP CUP ---Migrant agricultural workers mobilehome parks. CUP ------One family mobilehome, excluding the principal dwelling,
shall be allowed for each ten acres being farmed. Said additional mobile homes shall be located on a parcel being farmed and occupied by the owner, operator or employee of the farming
operation as a one family residence provided: with restrictions. Permitted Permitted ---Bed and breakfast establishments subject to local standards ------CUP Residential -Alcoholism/drug
abuse recovery /treatment facility (six or fewer) ------Permitted Residential -Alcoholism/drug abuse recovery /treatment facility (seven or more) ------CUP Residential -Day care homes,
family—small. ------Permitted Residential -Day care homes, family—large. ------CUP Residential -Facilities for the mentally disordered, handicapped, or dependent or neglected children
(six or fewer). ------Permitted Residential -Facilities for the mentally disordered, handicapped, or dependent or neglected children (seven to twelve). ------CUP Residential care facilities
for the elderly (six or fewer). ------Permitted Residential care facilities for the elderly (seven or more). ------CUP Transitional housing. ------CUP Planned residential developments,
pursuant Ord. No. 460 and development standards in Section 18.5 or 18.6 of Ord. No 348. Permitted Permitted ---Temporary real estate tract offices Permitted ---Permitted Rural/Agricultural
Agriculture & field crops ------Permitted Agriculture & field crops, and vegetables gardening, tree crops, and greenhouses used only for purposes of propagation and culture, including
the sale thereof from the premises. ---Permitted ---Animal keeping (noncommercial); horses, cattle, sheep, and goats on lots or parcels over 20,000 sq. ft. to 1 acre limited of 2 animals
and 2 per each additional acre. ---Permitted ---Animal keeping: Commercial breeding operations. CUP ------Animal keeping: Farms for rabbits, fish, frogs, chinchilla, or other small animals
(excluding crowing fowl). Permitted ------
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-35 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 County Zoning
Temecula Zoning Description of Uses R-R R-A-20 HR-SM Animal keeping: Pen fed cattle operations, livestock sale-yard, livestock auction yards, and dairy farms. CUP ------Animal keeping:
The grazing of cattle, horses, sheep, goats or other farm stock or animals, not including hogs, including the supplementary feeding thereof with lot and quantity restrictions. Permitted
Permitted Permitted Animal keeping: The noncommercial raising of hogs with lot and quantity restrictions per Riv. Co Ord. No. 431. Permitted ------Animal keeping: Hog ranches, per County
Ordinance No. 431. CUP ------Animal keeping: The noncommercial raising of miniature pigs on lots of not less than 20,000 square feet, subject to conditions.. Permitted Permitted ---Animal
keeping: farms or establishments for selective or experimental breeding and raising of cattle, sheep, goats, and other farm stock or animals subject to provisions set forth in Riv. Co.
Ord. 348. Permitted Permitted ---Animal keeping: female crowing fowl with quantity and lot size restrictions. ---Permitted ---Animal keeping: poultry, crowing fowl and rabbits for the
use of the occupants of the premises only. Permitted Permitted ---Animal keeping: the raising or breeding of guinea pigs, parakeets, chinchillas, or other similar small fowl or animals
(excluding crowing fowl), kept and maintained in an enclosed area. ---Permitted ---Farm labor camp. CUP ------Future Farmers of America (FFA) or 4-H projects conducted by the occupants
of the premises with provision. Permitted Permitted ---Home occupations. Permitted Permitted Permitted Nurseries, greenhouses, orchard, aviaries, apiaries (wholesale) per Ord. No. 551,
the razing of field crops and tree crops, berry and bush crops, and vegetable, flower and herb gardening on a commercial scale; the drying, packing and processing of fruits (other than
canning), nuts, vegetables and other horticultural products where such drying, packing or processing is primarily in conjunction with a farming operation. Permitted Permitted ---Produce
stand for the display and sale of the agriculture product of any permitted use that is produced upon the premises where such stand is located or upon contiguous lands owned or leased
by the owner or occupant of the premises. Permitted ------Produce stand, temporary, 200 sq. ft. or less in area, used exclusively for the sale of products grown on the premises. Permitted
Permitted ---Winery and appurtenant and incidental uses with established on-site vineyard. Permitted ------Non-Residential Uses Airport or landing field. CUP ------Animal hospitals.
CUP ------Antique shops. CUP ------Arts, crafts and curio shops. Permitted ------Auction houses and yards. CUP ------Auto wrecking yards. CUP ------
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-36 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 County Zoning
Temecula Zoning Description of Uses R-R R-A-20 HR-SM Automobile fuel/service stations/repair garages with or w/o sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption. CUP ------Bakery
shops, including baking only when incidental to retail sales on the premises. CUP ------Barber shops and beauty shops. CUP ------Bars and cocktail lounges. CUP ------Beauty shops operated
from a home by its inhabitants where no assistants are employed. Permitted Permitted ---Billiard and pool halls. CUP ------Cemetery, pet or human. CUP ------Churches, temples and other
places of religious worship. CUP CUP CUP Cleaning and dyeing shop. CUP ------Commercial fairgrounds. CUP ------Commercial stables and riding academies. CUP ------Community auction and
sales yards. CUP ------Construction trailers. ------Permitted Day care centers. CUP Disposal service operations. CUP ------Dune buggy parks. CUP ------Dwelling: Secondary dwelling units
subject to local standards. ------Permitted Educational institutions. Permitted ---CUP Emergency shelters. ------CUP Equipment rental services, including rototillers, power mowers, sanders,
power saws, cement and plaster mixers not exceeding ten cubic feet in capacity, and other similar equipment. CUP ------Feed and grain sales. Permitted ------Feed stores. CUP ------Fishing
lakes, commercial and noncommercial. Permitted ------Food, meat, poultry and produce markets. CUP ------Fraternal lodges, including grange halls. Permitted ------Frozen food lockers.
CUP ------Fruit and vegetable packing plants and similar uses. CUP ------Garden supply stores. Permitted ------Golf, tennis, polo or country clubs, archery and golf and driving ranges.
(Only Golf Course listed in Temecula.) Permitted Permitted CUP Guest ranch/house (motels in Riv. Co.). Permitted ---Permitted Hardware stores. CUP ------Hunting clubs. CUP ------Kennels
and catteries as per Riv. Co. Ord. 348, Sec. 18.45. Permitted Permitted CUP
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-37 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 County Zoning
Temecula Zoning Description of Uses R-R R-A-20 HR-SM Laundries and Laundromats. CUP ------Libraries (public). Permitted ---CUP Liquor stores pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.48
of Riv. Co. Ord. 348. CUP ------Lumber production (commercial), including: logging or timber and lumber mills. CUP ------Machine shops. CUP ------Manufacture of: Brick, tile or terra-cotta,
Cement and cement products, Gypsum, Lime or lime products. CUP ------Meat cutting and packaging plants, w/o slaughtering of animals or rendering of meat. CUP ------Menageries. CUP ------Mining
operation exempt from the provisions of the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 555. CUP ------Mining operations subject to the California
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 with permit to conduct surface mining operations per Riv. Co. Ord. 555. Permitted ------Mink farms. CUP ------Museums (art galleries in Temecula).
Permitted ---CUP Oil production, not including refining or processing. CUP ------Outdoor film studios. CUP ------Outside storage of materials on improved lot ½ -1 acre is limited to
100 sq. ft. 3 ft. high; 1 or more acres limited to 200 sq. ft. 3 ft. high. Permitted Permitted ---Packaged dry fertilizer storage, not including processing. CUP ------Parking lots and
parking structures. CUP ------Parks, playgrounds (public). Permitted Permitted ---Pet shops and pet supply shops. Permitted ------Post office. Permitted ------Professional offices. CUP
------Race tracks: automobiles, horses, go-carts, and motorcycles. CUP ------Radio broadcasting stations. Permitted ------Railroads, including the necessary facilities in connection
therewith. Permitted ------Real estate tract offices (temporary) with restrictions. Permitted Permitted ---Recreational vehicle parks. CUP ------Refreshment stands. CUP -------Restaurants
and other eating establishments. CUP ------Retail pharmacies. CUP ------Rifle, pistol, skeet, or trapshooting ranges. CUP ------Rodeo arenas. CUP ------Shoe stores and repair shops.
CUP ------
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-38 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 County Zoning
Temecula Zoning Description of Uses R-R R-A-20 HR-SM Signs, On-site advertising. Permitted ------Stations, bus, railroad and taxi. CUP ------Telephone transmission lines, telephone exchanges
and offices. Permitted ------Television broadcasting stations, antennas, and cable installations, and microwave relay stations. Permitted ------Tire sales and service. CUP ------Tourist
information centers. CUP ------Trail bike parks. CUP ------Trailer and boat storage. CUP ------Underground bulk fuel storage. CUP ---Utilities -Energy: Structures and the pertinent facilities
necessary and incidental to the development and transmission of electrical power and gas such as hydroelectric power plants, booster or conversion plants, transmission lines, pipelines
and the like. Permitted ------Utilities -Water: Structures and installations necessary to the conservation and development of water such as dams, pipelines, water conduits, tanks, canals,
reservoirs, wells and the necessary pumping and water production facilities. Permitted ------Utility facilities (public). Permitted ---CUP Water well drilling, operations and service.
CUP ------Water works facilities, both public and private, intended primarily for the production and distribution of water for irrigation purposes. Permitted ------Disposal service operations.
CUP ------P = Permitted, C = Conditional Use Permit, ---= Not permitted By comparison, the City’s proposed OS-C-SM zoning is comparable and consistent with the county’s OS-HC land use
designation with the intent of conserving open space in a natural state for the betterment and enjoyment of the community through preservation with opportunities for limited recreational
use. The City’s choice of HR-SM zoning permits single-family residential use which is consistent with the single-family residential use permitted in the county’s RM land use designation.
Although, the City’s list of permitted uses may preclude a number of uses permitted or conditionally permitted under the County zoning, the City’s proposed zoning will permit the use
of the subject property in a manner consistent with the current and proposed land use designations (some incompatible uses the County’s R-R zone currently allows include, laundries,
machine shops, oil refineries, and radio broadcast studies). Those uses lost, such as surface mining, are uses that are likely to conflict with the existing and planned “rural residential”
and “habitat conservation” uses identified for these properties. The City’s HR designation does allow a number of uses other than residential (i.e. churches, educational facilities,
libraries, day care centers, bed and breakfast establishments).
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-39 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Although
there are inconsistencies between the County’s general plan designations and zoning, the City’s proposed general plan designations and pre-zoning are generally consistent with the County’s
general plan, and thus would not constitute a significant change in land use. Further, the project site’s existing land uses consist of natural open space over the vast majority of the
area, most of which is in the SMER, and six single-family homes with some agricultural and equestrian activities. The City’s proposed general plan designations and pre-zoning would generally
preserve the existing land uses, and the introduction of low density residential development that might occur pursuant to the proposed land use regime would not constitute a significant
change from the existing conditions. Finally, although mining may be a conditionally permitted use in parts of the proposed annexation area under the County regulations, mining would
represent a significant change in land use from the open space and rural residential land uses that presently exist and that constitute the baseline condition. A change in land use from
existing uses to mining would be inconsistent with policies designed to protect the environment and the character of rural mountainous areas, including the SMER and County policies,
including but not limited to: • OS 20.1 Preserve and maintain open space that protects County environmental resources and maximizes public health and safety in areas where significant
environmental hazards and resources exist. • OS 20.2 Prevent unnecessary extension of public facilities, services, and utilities, for urban uses, into Open Space-Conservation designated
areas. And the following policies which apply to properties designated with the Rural Mountainous land use designation on the area plan land use maps. • LU 17.1 Require that grading
be designed to blend with undeveloped natural contours of the site and avoid an unvaried, unnatural, or manufactured appearance. • LU 17.3 Ensure that development does not adversely
impact the open space and rural character of the surrounding area. The proposed City land use regulations would not allow mining, therefore eliminating any potential land use impacts
that would result from mining. Although disallowing mining would result in a significant impact to mineral resources, as discussed in Section 3.5 of this EIR, it would not result in
a significant land use impact. For the above described reasons, the project will have less than significant impacts related to land use and zoning without any further need for mitigation,
regulatory compliance, or design considerations. An EIR is required to describe feasible mitigation measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines, Section
15126.4). Changing the existing Riverside County Land Use designations of OS-CH and RM to City land use designations of OS-CH and HR are considered compatible changes with minimal overall
differences and would have few impacts relevant to the general plan and zoning consistency
requirements. Therefore the land use and
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-40 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 planning
issues related to the SMAA have been determined to be less than significant and no mitigation is necessary. Mitigation: None required. References In addition to other reference documents,
the following references were used in the preparation of this section of the EIR: City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan, April 2005. (Available at the City of Temecula Planning Department,
43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, or on the Internet on January 10, 2008 at www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm) City of Temecula, Temecula
General Plan Land Use Map, Adopted April 12, 2005, Map Prepared February 1, 2007. (Available at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590,
or on the Internet January 10, 2008 at www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm) County of Riverside, General Plan, County of Riverside, Adopted October
7, 2003. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200, or on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at http://www.rctlma.org/g
eneralplan/index.html) County of Riverside, Southwest Area Plan, October 2003. (Available at County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200,
or on the Interneton February 11, 2008 at http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap1/swap.html) County of Riverside, Geographic Information System Database. (Available for review at the County
of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200, or on the Internet on February 8, 2008, at http://www3.tlma.co.riverside. ca.us/pa/rclis/index.html)
County of Riverside, Ordinance No. 348 – Regulating Land Use. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, Riverside, CA 92501,
951-955-3200, or on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/planning/content/zoning/ordnance/ord348_article.html) County of Riverside, RCIP General Plan Land
Use Designations -Zoning Consistency Guidelines. (Available for review on the Internet on February 15, 2008 at http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/zoning.html) San Diego State University,
Field Station Program, Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve Internet Site. (Available on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://fs.sdsu.edu/kf/reserves/smer/) County of Riverside,
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, Adopted June 17, 2003. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.4-41 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Department,
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, or on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at www.rcip.org) United States Department of Agriculture, On-line Soil Surveys. (Available on the Internet
on February 8, 2008 at http://www.soils.usda.gov/survey/online_surveys/california/w_riverside/maps/gsm.pdf) San Diego State University, Field Station Programs. (Available on the Internet
on February 8, 2008 at http://fs.sdsu.edu/kf/reserves/smer/habitat.php) San Diego State University Field Station Programs and South Coast Wildlands, A Linkage Design for the Santa Ana-Palomar
Mountains Connection, May 2004. (Available on the Internet February 8, 2008 at http://www.scwildlands.org/reports.aspx to http://www.scwildlands.org/reports/SCML_SantaAna_Palomar.pdf)
County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use, San Diego County General Plan, January 2, 1979. (Available on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://www.co.sandiego.ca.us/cnty/cntydepts/
landuse/planning/gpupdate/pubs/existing.htm) County of San Diego Fallbrook Planning Area Land Use Map, April 29, 2004. (Available on the Internet February 8, 2008 at http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/i
ndex.html to http://www.sangis.org/LibraryService/DownloadedFiles/1gpcpafallbrook.jpg)
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.5-1 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 3.5 Mineral Resources 3.5.1 Introduction
The proposed project’s potential to impact mineral resources was evaluated in the NOP (Appendix A) and it was determined that this issue would be addressed in this EIR. The focus of
the following discussion is related to the potential project-related impacts related to the loss of availability of known mineral resources and to the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. 3.5.2 Setting Riverside County has diverse mineral resources, including extensive
deposits of clay, limestone, iron, sand, and aggregates that have been influential in the development of the area. Numerous undeveloped aggregate resources exist throughout Riverside,
San Diego, and Imperial Counties in alluvial deposits and hard rock occurrences. Many of these materials are of sufficient quality to be used for Portland cement concrete materials.
Mineral Resources Background Geologic considerations are the dominant factor determining the ultimate availability of most minerals. Geologic factors determine the type, location, size,
and concentration of all mineral resources. There is a direct association between specific types of mineral deposits and the host rock which contains those deposits. For example, concrete
quality sand is found in the floodplains of major river valleys. Figures 3.5-1, 3.5-2, and 3.5-3 show the areas within Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial counties that have a high probability
of resource occurrence. Within Riverside County, areas include the Perris Plain, alluvial deposits of the San Jacinto River and associated/adjacent alluvial fans, and rock masses in
Homeland and Romoland areas of the Perris Plain. Riverside County (see Figure 3.5-1) consists predominantly of igneous and metamorphic rock with some sedimentary units. A variety of
rock types exist in the Santa Ana Mountains as potential sources of crushed stone for use as construction aggregate. The Cretaceous-age Woodson Mountain granodiorite exists more abundantly
in the central and northern part of the range, and Bonsall Tonalite exists in contact or amidst metasedimentary rocks in the southern part of the range. These plutonic rocks represent
about 2/3 of the exposed bedrock in the range. In addition there are older rocks, intruded by the above mentioned plutonic rocks, present as roof pendants; these are present predominantly
in the Jurassic Bedford Canyon Formation, and metavolcanics of the Jurassic and/or Triassic metavolcanic rocks of the Santiago Peak Volcanics. There is significant exposure of these
sedimentary units in the northernmost part and western flanks of the Santa Ana Mountains.
NOTE: Locations of geologic features is approximate. City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.5-1 Aggregate Locations in Riverside County SOURCE: Cato Santa Margarita
Annexation: Aggregate Mining In The Temecula Area-Current Conditions and Future Scenarios
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.5-3 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Within the Temescal
Valley Area, there are extensive areas with Cretaceous igneous rock, Jurassic metasedimentary rock (Bedford Canyon Formation) and metavolcanic rocks (Santiago Peak Volcanics). The Cretaceous
La Sierra and Estelle Tonalite are fairly dominant granitic rocks exposed throughout the area, along with significant areas exhibiting smaller areas of Woodson Mountain Granodiorite
and undifferentiated Mesozoic granitic rocks. The granitic rocks can be crushed as aggregate for Portland cement aggregate applications. The outcrops of Jurassic metasedimentary rocks,
which cover a significant area and include quartzites, conglomerates and sandstones, can be used for construction aggregate and sand aggregate-grade for Portland cement concrete applications.
There are extensive alluvial and alluvial fan deposits in this area that are used as the predominate source of aggregate production {Note: Most of the big production comes from the alluvial/alluvial
fan deposits in the Temescal/Corona areas}. More than one-third of the physiographic surface, called the Perris Plain, consists of exposed plutonic rock (Mesozoic granitic rocks) that
is potentially suitable for crushed stone and as sources of construction aggregate (including for Portland cement concrete-grade aggregate materials). A small amount of this potential
resource has been classified in the Homeland/Romoland area. Although it appears that granodiorite and tonalite (quartz diorite) are the dominant types of these rocks, there exist abundant
undifferentiated types as well as more granite and adamellite types (quartz monzonite). In the north are leucogranites of or related to Rubidoux Mountain (adamellites and specific granite).
Abundant smaller but significant areas exhibit undifferentiated granitic rocks. The unweathered portions of the rock would be hard and suitable for construction aggregate. The Cretaceous
Estelle Tonalite (or in some areas eastward, the Lakeview Tonalite) are dominate granitic rocks exposed throughout the area, often in places under shallow soils and buried in the Perris
erosion surface with ubiquitous small outcrops of hills or hillocks that comprise this surface. To the north, some of the areas dominated with tonalite exhibit smaller areas of Woodson
Mountain Granodiorite. This occurs near the higher topographic break near the Santa Ana River where some pre-Cretaceous meta-sediments are exposed. The western area near the outcrops
of Jurassic meta-sedimentary rocks, exhibits smaller but significant exposures of undifferentiated Mesozoic granitic rocks, and some significant exposures of basic intrusive rocks. In
this whole area, almost all of the rocks are exposed on the surface or at extremely shallow depths, and are suitable for construction aggregates, and for Portland cement concrete-grade
aggregates. Southwestern Riverside County involves areas located southeast southeast of Diamond Valley and Temecula. To the west and southwest, the area is defined as extending southwest
of the San Jacinto Fault to the on-lapping of Quaternary sedimentary rocks. Its southeastern extent includes Cahuilla Mountain and Little Cahuilla Mountain, and hills called Santa Rosa
Hills (southeast of Hemet). This area is dominated by a huge expanse of Cretaceous Lakeview Tonalite, and subsidiary undifferentiated Mesozoic granitic rocks. The eastern part exhibits
pre-Cenozoic granitic and metamorphic rocks that are locally intruded by gabbro, granite, granite pegmatite, quartz monzonite, granodiorite, and quartz diorite. Most of those rocks are
appropriate for construction-grade aggregates.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.5-4 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 The Aguanga/Wilson
Creek Area and the Anza-Terwilliger Valley include exposure of granitic bedrock, as well as alluvial fan deposits composed of the detritus from the surrounding predominantly granitic
highlands that occur in the Aguanga area. The California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG) classification near Aguanga represents alluvial sand and gravel from Wilson Creek. In
the Coachella and San Gorgonio Pass/San Gorgonio River drainage areas tremendous volumes of aggregate resources are present. This area contains over a thousand of sediment. San Diego
County (see Figure 3.5-2) contains resources derived from riverbed and bedrock resources. The Fallbrook area is located south of Temecula. The geologic material within the project area
is the Woodson Mountain granodiorite, an igneous intrusive rock that is part of the larger Peninsular Peninsular Ranges, Late-Cretaceous age batholithic complex. The granodiorite occurs
in many parts of the Fallbrook area. This granodiorite outcrop has considerable area in the northern San Diego County and southern Riverside County area and consists of approximately
25 square miles. The San Luis Rey valley has produced long-term production of sand and gravel, including Portland cement grade aggregate, in the San Luis Rey Valley River from near Monserate
point near Pala, and areas further west. Several Quaternary-age alluvial fan and terrace deposits exist from Pala to Pauma and Rincon that are suitable for production of Portland cement
concretegrade aggregates. Other riverbed resources exist from I-15 to the Pacific Ocean. Similarly other suitable alluvial and bedrock sources are located eastward of the Pala Reservation,
and include Warner Valley. Eastern San Diego County contains La Posta quartz-diorite/granodiorite which is nearly the same as the Bonsall tonalite. The State Department of Water Resources
identifies these as the only water-bearing bedrock formations in San Diego County. The water-bearing portions (residuum) are surficial and deep in small valleys but are minimal to nonexistent
in the larger outcrop areas at the surface. Between the local region of Alpine and eastward to beyond the Tecate Divide and generally south of the Laguna Mountains to the U.S.-Mexico
Border are extensive outcrop areas of Cretaceous granodiorite, tonalite (including La Posta Quartz diorite), and similar granitic rocks suitable for aggregates and Portland cement concrete
applications. In the community of Lakeside, there are a considerable number of operating mines. Sand and gravel, and aggregate materials are produced from the San Diego River alluvial
deposits. Igneous bedrock, south of San Vicente Reservoir, is also blasted and crushed to produce materials for Portland cement concrete applications. Imperial County (see Figure 3.5-3)
predominately contains Quaternary alluvial deposits. For decades Quaternary alluvial fan deposits in northern Imperial County, west of the Salton Sea, have been excavated for sand and
gravel and aggregate resources. The alluvium in drainage gravel washes and deposits and bajadas and terrace deposits of older fanglomerates are all suitable aggregate resources. Many
other sites exist within the same formations southsoutheastward to as far as Kane Springs east of “West Mesa” and the Superstition Hills, including older Quaternary Ocotillo Conglomerate.
Older deposits in alluvial fan gravels and fanglomerates
NOTE: Locations of geologic features is approximate. City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.5-2 Aggregate Locations in San Diego County SOURCE: Cato Santa Margarita
Annexation: Aggregate Mining In The Temecula Area-Current Conditions and Future Scenarios
NOTE: Locations of geologic features is approximate. City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.5-3 Aggregate Locations in Imperial County SOURCE: Cato Santa Margarita
Annexation: Aggregate Mining In The Temecula Area-Current Conditions and Future Scenarios
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.5-7 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 exist west of
Salton City/Desert Shores area, and likely would produce Portland cement concretegrade aggregates. In southwest Imperial County, large areas of lands on either side of Davies Valley
(southwest of the Yuha Desert) exhibit massive exposure of largely Mesozoic granitic rocks. Nearby sites have a history of sand and gravel extraction from older and younger Quaternary
alluvium that is derived from the bedrock hills. Eastward near the international border, Quaternary older alluvium is mined for sand and gravel, and further eastward and south of El
Centro sand and gravel is produced from Quaternary younger alluvium. Several operators extract mineral resources from Quaternary alluvial deposits affiliated with Palm Canyon wash along
the base of the southernmost flanks of the Coyote Mountains in and north of the town of Ocotillo on Interstate 8 (I-8). Large deposits of Mesozoic Granitic rocks exist in the Fish Creek
Mountains area, which are crushed rock sources of Portland cement concrete-grade aggregate. In southeast Imperial County, sand and gravel is produced along the strip of lands associated
with the alignment of ancient Lake Cahuilla, which sub-parallels the East Highline Canal. Sand and gravel is produced from Quaternary older alluvium in the southern part of the Algodones
Dunes, and also west and southwest of Araz Junction. At Pilot Knob aggregate is produced from the Chuckwalla Complex of quartz diorite gneiss and foliated hybrid granitic rocks and granophyres.
Along the west flank of the Cargo Muchacho Mountains there are active and several inactive aggregate sites that excavate from Quaternary older alluvium derived from Mesozoic granitic
rocks (quartz diorite and quartz monzonite) in the adjacent highlands. East-northeast of the Algodones Dunes, are deposits of Quaternary alluvium near Glamis east of Niland, along the
highway to the Colorado River, and in the area called Mesquite. In northeast Imperial County, extensive lands with strand-line deposits of near-shore gravels are located along the ancient
shoreline of former Quaternary-age Lake Cahuilla, from the Niland area southeastward. Numerous sand and gravel deposits exist near the Niland and Frink areas in alluvial fan deposits
derived from the Chocolate Mountains. This area is roughly bounded by the onlapping lakebed sediments and the beach-strand-line gravel deposits. The alluvium deposits emanating from
the Chocolate Mountains are suitable for sand and gravel. The alluvium is derived from the huge exposures of Mesozoic granitic rocks and the Chuckwalla Complex of quartz diorite gneiss
and granitic rocks. Aggregate materials are presently being produced from the area from the alluvial fan deposits, and a store of reserves involved with gold heap leach crushed rock
is available. 3.5.3 Mineral Classification The state legislature adopted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act Act (SMARA) in 1975, which provides for the designation of MRZ for areas
possessing minerals which are of statewide or regional significance. The County of Riverside is rich in mineral deposits, and many areas have been assigned MRZ classifications in order
to preserve the availability of mineral deposits for production purposes and to protect mining operations from inconsistent land use decisions.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.5-8 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 The County of
Riverside General Plan shows that the SMAA is located within an MRZ-3 zone (see Figure 3.5-4) (MRZ-3 -the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data);
indicating that available geologic information indicates that mineral resources are likely to exist, but the significance of the deposit is undetermined. The General Plan, however, recognizes
that further exploration work could result in the reclassification of all or part of these areas into the specific localities into MRZ-2 category (MRZ-2 -adequate information indicates
that significant mineral deposits are present or there is a high likelihood for their presence and development should be controlled). Granite Construction Company submitted a petition
to the SMGB dated December 18, 2006, for mineral land classification of the proposed Liberty Liberty Quarry project located in Riverside County. In accordance with the “Guidelines for
Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands”, the State Geologist reviewed the petition and recommended acceptance of the petition by the SMGB. At its regular business meeting held
on March 8, 2007, the SMGB accepted the petition and instructed the State Geologist to commence the classification study. The State Geologist subsequently investigated and reclassified
a portion of the Temecula 7.5 minute Quadrangle, Riverside County, from MRZ-3a to MRZ-2a for PCC aggregate, as documented in California Geological Survey Special Report 200, “Mineral
Land Classification of the Granite Construction Company Liberty Quarry Site, Temecula, Riverside County, California”. On June 14, 2007, the SMGB found that the report had been prepared
in accordance with the SMGB’s guidelines and policies, and accepted the report. 3.5.4 Mineral Import Currently the region receives aggregate resources from the Pacific Northwest and
Mexico. These imports are expected to increase, and the impact will be most significantly felt in San Diego and Los Angeles County. However, this may also result in a lower demand of
exported aggregate that is produced in Riverside County. While imported aggregate tends to be at a higher price, its cost is not significantly greater than existing aggregate already
being obtained locally and used in San Diego County. This is because the greater bulk transport of imported aggregate can be transported at a cheaper rate than truck transport. Significant
amounts of aggregate are currently being imported from British Columbia, Canada. These materials have been imported to the San Francisco bay area for several years, but more recently
imports to San Diego and Los Angeles have begun. The cost of this aggregate is not significantly higher than aggregate that is transported by truck at distances over 20 to 30 miles,
due to the high ship volume yielding a lower transport cost. The Port of San Diego currently receives 400,000 metric tons of sand per year and 500,000 metric tons of bulk cement per
year sent by barge from Ensenada. Hanson Materials, in a joint venture with Petreos del Pacifico, ships blasted rock, crushed aggregate and sands from shipping docks at Ensenada, Mexico,
by ocean barge to the Port of San Diego. Sand and gravel and aggregate are also being imported by conveyor from Mexico. The Carrizo Gorge Railway, a U.S. Company, ships sand and gravel
by rail car from Valle de las Palmas (near Tecate), Mexico in disrupted
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.5-4 Mineral Resources Zones SOURCE: Riverside County GIS, 2006 California Geological Survey, 2007 North Not to Scale
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.5-10 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 shipments at
the International Border. Conveyor belt transport between Mexico and Imperial County or eastern San Diego County is being explored. The Imperial County Planning Department indicated
that an operator has a conveying belt system across the International Border in Calexico, moving aggregate materials into the United States. Mining operations for sand, gravel, and stone
exist within both enclosed coastal waters and in some near shore waters along the California coastline. The federal government is exploring the most appropriate locations to initiate
new offshore mining of sand and gravel resources, although no new offshore operations are currently being proposed in California. Mineral extractions, in deep-ocean waters off California’s
coast, has been considered in the past, but were dismissed due to technical, economic, and environmental considerations. However, deep ocean operations may be proposed again in the future.
That would further lessen the need for exports from Inland area aggregate mines. Existing mineral extraction operations in California's enclosed and nearshore ocean waters have proven
to be economically viable, but less is known regarding the resource potential or economic viability of deep ocean mineral extraction. In southern California offshore mining stone for
rip rap and aggregate has occurred on Santa Catalina Island. And sand and gravel for aggregate has been mined from the outer continental shelf of southern California along the San Pedro
Shelf and the San Diego Shelf. It should also be noted that continuing and increased asphalt recycling into new asphalt finished products will reduce the demand for new aggregates for
road construction and repair. The use of recycled demolition concrete, for fill and road base, will further reduce the need for new aggregate. 3.5.5. Regulatory Framework SMARA requires
that all cities incorporate into their general plans mapped mineral resources designations approved by the SMGB. SMARA was enacted to limit new development in areas with significant
mineral deposits. The State Geologist classifies land in California based on the availability of mineral resources. Because available aggregate construction material is limited, five
designations have been established for the classification of sand, gravel, and crushed rock resources. In order to communicate information concerning the existence of mineral resources
within lands subject to classification, the classification categories set forth in SMGB guidelines have been adapted from the California Mineral Land Classification System Diagram (see
Table 3.5-1). These adaptations are presented below: SZ Scientific Resource area containing unique or rare occurrences of rock, minerals, or fossils that are of outstanding scientific
significance. MRZ-1 Adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or likely to be present. MRZ-2 Adequate information indicates that significant mineral
deposits are present or there is a high likelihood for their presence and development should be controlled. MRZ-3 The significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available
data. MRZ-4 There is insufficient data to assign any other MRZ designation.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.5-11 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.5-1
CALIFORNIA MINERAL LAND CLASSIFICATION DIAGRAM Areas of Identified Mineral Resource Significance Demonstrated: Measured/Indicated Inferred Areas of Undetermined Mineral Resource Significance
Areas of Unknown Mineral Resources Significance Economic MRZ-2a Reserves MRZ-2b Inferred Resources Marginally Economic MRZ-2a Marginal Reserves MRZ-2b Inferred Marginal Resources Sub-Economic
MRZ-2b Demonstrated Subeconomic Resources MRZ-2b Inferred Subeconomic Resources MRZ-3a Known Mineral Occurrence MRZ-3b Inferred Mineral Occurrence MRZ-4 No known Mineral Occurrence Non-Economic
MRZ-1 No Resources SOURCE: Cato Geoscience, Inc., 2008 The classification system is intended to ensure consideration of statewide or regionally significant mineral deposits by jurisdictions
in planning and development administration. These mineral designations are intended to prevent incompatible land use development on areas determined to have significant mineral resource
deposits. Updated in 2005, the City of Temecula General Plan includes land use policies and land use maps to guide the future development of the City. The Open Space/Conservation Element
of the City’s General Plan contains the following discussion regarding mineral resources: State law requires the General Plan to address the need for conserving mineral resources within
the General Plan Planning Area. The State Division of Mines and Geology has prepared mineral resource reports designating the mineral deposits of Statewide or regional significance that
are to be used to address mineral resources within the Planning Area. The report entitled, Mineral Land Classification of the Temescal Valley Area, Riverside County California, Special
Report 165, evaluates the mineral deposits of the Temecula Planning Area. This report was prepared in accordance with SMARA. The State Geologist has classified areas into MRZ and Scientific
Resource Zones (SZ). The zones identify the Statewide or regional significance of mineral deposits based on the economic value of the deposits and accessibility. Within the Temecula
Planning Area, the zoning classification of MRZ-3a has been applied by the State. MRZ-3 areas contain sedimentary deposits that have the potential to supply sand and gravel for concrete
and crushed stone for aggregate. However, these areas are not considered to contain deposits of significant economic value, based on available data. (Temecula General Plan, Page OS-21)
Although the City’s General Plan accurately reflects the mineral resource zone classifications existing at the time of its adoption, as described above a portion of the project
site was
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.5-12 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 reclassified
in 2007 from MRZ-3a to MRZ-2a for PCC aggregate. The MRZ-2a area is partially located within the existing City sphere of influence and thus within the current Temecula Planning Area
covered by the general plan (see Figure 3.5-4.) The balance of the MRZ-2a area would be added to the Temecula Planning Area as a result of the proposed project. 3.5.6 Design Considerations
No specific design measures would be implemented that would avoid or reduce significant impacts to mineral resources. 3.5.6 Impacts and Mitigation Significance Criteria The City has
not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines. However, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that impacts on
mineral resources may be considered potentially significant if the proposed project would: • Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state; or • Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan. Impact Analysis Impact 3.5-1: The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state. The project area is located within an area that until recently was classified as an MRZ-3 area, indicating that the significance of mineral deposits
are undetermined from available data. With the exception of the 155 acre Liberty Quarry site which is now classified MRZ-2a, the annexation area is still classified MRZ-3. There are
four major aggregate production areas in Riverside County that are recognized by the State (see Figure 3.5-1). The Temescal Valley area is mainly located along the Elsinore Fault graben
and Temescal Creek drainage and there are 9 active mines in this area (about 20 pit excavations, 1 idle). The Palm Springs production area comprises much of the Coachella Valley and
there are 17 active mines in this area. The Romoland/Homeland area, west of Hemet contains 2 active mines. The Wilson Creek area, near Aguanga contains 1 active mine. There are many
additional active mines in the County that are located outside of these defined production areas. In total there are 58 active mines in Riverside County that produce some type of aggregate
or sand and gravel. Table 3.5-2 below shows the status and general location of each permitted mines.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.5-13 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.5-2
SURFACE MINES IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Mine Name Location Mine Status Resource 3M Corona Temescal Canyon Active Sand & Gravel Mayhew Canyon Quarry Temescal Canyon Active Sand & Gravel Coldwater
Plant Temescal Canyon Active Mobile Sand & Gravel Temescal Canyon Active Sand & Gravel Eagle Valley Quarry Temescal Canyon Active Liston Clay Pit Temescal Canyon Active Ben’s Mine Temescal
Canyon Active Clay Corona Clay Pit Temescal Canyon Active Clay Recyc Mine Temescal Canyon Active – Applied for an IMP Not a source for mineral resources Glen Ivy #1 Temescal Canyon Active
Sand & Gravel Glen Ivy #2 Temescal Canyon Active Sand & Gravel Glen Ivy #3 Temescal Canyon Active Sand & Gravel Sierra Plant (Pao Verde) Corona Active Sand & Gravel Prado Pit Corona
IMP MCA’s Alberhill Shale Clay Mine Lake Elsinore Active Clay Mountain Ave Pit #2 Lake Elsinore IMP Mountain Ave Pit 2 Lake Elsinore Active Sand & Gravel Pacific Clay Pits Lake Elsinore
Active Murdock Ranch Mine Lake Elsinore Active Alberhill Mine Lake Elsinore IMP Bundy Canyon Pit Lake Elsinore Active Decomposed Granite WYROC-Lake Street Lake Elsinore IMP E.Benton
Pit Temecula Active Decomposed Granite Pyrite Quarry Riverside Active Rock Philadelphia Recycling Mine Mira Loma Active Sand & Gravel Juniper Flats Mine Homeland IMP Juniper Flats Pit
Homeland Active Decomposed Granite Brookside Materials Yard Beaumont Active Sand & Gravel Markham Materials Yard Mead Valley Active Decomposed Granite Markham Pit Mead Valley Active
Sand & Gravel Kennedy Hills Materials Moreno Valley Active Rock, Limestone Little Lake Pit Hemet Active Decomposed Granite Terwilliger Road Pit Anza Active Decomposed Granite A-1’s Dillion
Rd. Mine Indio Active Clay Coachella Valley Aggregates Indio Active Sand & Gravel Palm Desert Rock Indio Active Sand & Gravel Fargo Canyon Mine Indio Active Sand & Gravel
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.5-14 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.5-2
(continued) SURFACE MINES IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Mine Name Location Mine Status Resource Mesa Blanca Mine Indio Approved – Not Active Fill, Sand & Gravel Indio Mine Indio Active Sand &
Gravel Vista Mine Indio Active Sand & Gravel Simon Mine Indio Active Sand & Gravel R Bar C Indio Active Sand & Gravel Thermal Pit Thermal IMP Clay, Sand & Gravel, Rock New Thermal Pit
Thermal Active Sand & Gravel Valley Rock & Sand Thermal Active Sand & Gravel Crawford’s Mine Blythe Active Sand & Gravel PVID North Gravel Pit Blythe Active Gravel, Rock Blackstone Mine
Blythe Active Ore Bradshaw Pit Blythe Active Sand & Gravel Midland Pit Blythe IMP Sand & Gravel Williams Pit Blythe IMP/ACTIVE Sand & Gravel Garnet Rock Pit Palm Springs Active Sand
& Gravel Painted Hills Quarry Whitewater Active Thousand Palms Thousand Palms Active Sand & Gravel Sam Jones Mine Thousand Palms IMP Sand & Gravel Standard Gypsum Mine Midland Active
Mountain View Road Pit Cathedral City Active Sand & Gravel Cabazon Quarry Cabazon Active Rock, Sand & Gravel IMP = Integrated Management Plan SOURCE: County of Riverside Transportation
and Land Management Agency-Surface Mining 2007. (http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/building/permitlist2.shtml). The Temescal Valley Production-Consumption (P-C) area covers approximately
1,000 square miles of western Riverside County and includes Corona, Lake Elsinore, Norco, Perris, Riverside, Temecula and some unincorporated County of Riverside areas such as the Santa
Margarita Area Annexation project site. In 1991 there were 19 active aggregate mineral operations that had produced a historic cumulative total of 924,000,000 tons (nearly a billion
tons) of aggregate. Presently the area is estimated to produce approximately 24 to 36 million tons/year. This compares with approximately ½ million tons/year in 1960 and greater than
12 million tons/year in 1989 (from 1979 to 1989 production averaged 7,530,000 tons/yr). According to the Mineral Land Classification of the Temescal Valley Area, Riverside County, the
current permitted reserves of construction aggregate in the Temescal Valley geologic area may be depleted by the year 2028. However, at a lower rate of production (less than 12 million
tons/year) then the reserves are
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.5-15 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 projected to
last until 2066. The expected longevity of these reserves is based on the assumption that mining will continue to be permitted until the reserves are depleted. It is reasonable to assume
that a moderate percentage of the existing mines will be re-permitted and that the existing operators will obtain additional properties in the adjacent areas. Thus, a greater longevity
will result. The Palm Springs Production Area is located east of the Temescal Valley Production Area. By 2003, 156.1 million tons were projected to be produced from this production area
(based on 1985 projections). Fifty-four percent (54%) of this or 84.4 Million tons was projected to be used for PCC aggregate demand. By 2012 the entire permitted amount of 67 million
tons is projected to be depleted. However, far greater than 3 billion tons exists in potential reserves. There are still numerous locations in Riverside County that the State has classified
as MRZ-3, known or inferred mineral occurrence with mapped delineation near many existing mines. The Winchester aggregate site (in the Romoland/Homeland production area) is a 160-acre
area on the southwest flank of Double Butte, south of SR 74 and east of Interstate 215 (I-215), near the community of Homeland. The site was classified by the State with bedrock is classified
as MRZ-2a (tonalite of the Cretaceous Domenigoni Valley pluton), weathered granitic alluvial as MRZ-3a, and the alluvial valley area classed as MRZ-4. Aggregate from this site is designated
for asphaltic-concrete-grade aggregate and base-grade aggregate fill material. The Wilson Creek Property (Wilson/Lancaster Valley production area) located east of Vail Lake in Temecula
includes about 4-square miles of land classified by the State with bedrock and alluvium classified MRZ-3a and MRZ-2a, respectively, for Portland cement-grade and asphaltic-grade concrete
aggregate. Current Resources-San Diego County In San Diego County, the annual aggregate demand is approximately between 15 and 19 million tons per year. Currently, there is an uneven
distribution of sand resources that will result in a short fall in about 32 years. Permitted aggregate reserves in the county have declined from 430 million tons in 1980 to 352 million
tons in 1995 to 202 million tons in 2005, and predictions anticipate 117 million tons of permitted reserves in 2010 and 5.3 million tons in 2015. While there are current permitted reserves
of about 200 million tons, there are an estimated 11 billion tons that occurs in the area. Seventy percent (70%) of local sand originates from the San Luis Rey River. As stated in the
San Diego County General Plan, if all the river sand in the Metropolitan area were recoverable, there would be no problem with supply of construction quality sand well beyond the foreseeable
future. In the western portion of San Diego County there are at least 21 areas that that appear to be suitable for extraction of sand, gravel, or rock. There are nine deposits within
the unincorporated area that the general plan states should be protected as reserves of
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.5-16 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 aggregate by
application of resource conservation areas, extractive land use designation, or appropriate land use regulations.1 San Diego County had 49 quarries in 1970 and 48 quarries in 1980 but
only 24 by 1995 and 14 by 2005. Due to permit expirations and supply exhaustion, the U.S. Geological Survey predicts that San Diego County will have only 11 quarries in 2010 and five
by 2030. New anticipated quarries include the National Quarries site (Bonsall) and Rosemary Mountain (Pala). The permitting process for Rosemary’s Mountain, near Pala, is almost complete
and anticipated to begin production within the next few years. There are 25 active mines in San Diego County (See Table 3.5-3 for listing). TABLE 3.5-3 SURFACE MINES IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Mine Name Location Status Resource Palo Verde Ranch Desiltation & Reclamation Project Alpine Active Active Fill Dirt Burnand Borrow Pit Borrego Springs Active Decomposed Granite Buckman
Springs Borrow Pit Buckman Springs Active Decomposed Granite Hillsdale Pit El Cajon Active Sand and Gravel Hester’s Granite El Cajon Active Decomposed Granite Cottonwood Golf Course
El Cajon Active Sand Inland Valley Materials Escondido Active Stone T.T.T Quarry Lakeside Active Stone Enniss Enterprises, Inc. Lakeside Active Sand Lakeside Sand Pit Lakeside Active
Sand and Gravel Tunnel Hill Lakeside Active Fill Dirt Slaughterhouse Canyon/Asphalt Inc. Lakeside Active Fill Dirt HWY 67 (Pit 12/Vigilante) Lakeside Active Sand and Gravel El Monte
Pit Lakeside Active Sand and Gravel Woodward Sand Lakeside Active Sand and Gravel Lakeside Land Company Lakeside Active Sand and Gravel Baxter Quarry Lakeside Active Fill Dirt Channel
Road Lakeside Soon Online Sand Rosemary’s Mountain Pala Soon Online Decomposed Granite Pauma Valley Country Club Pauma Valley Active Sand Olive Street Borrow Pit Ramona Active Decomposed
Granite National Quarries San Marcos Active Stone McCain Borrow Pit Vallecito Active Decomposed Granite Warner Borrow Pit Warner Springs Active Decomposed Granite SOURCE: County of San
Diego Department of Planning and Land Use-2007. 1 Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2007, Final Mineral Resource Report, Merriam Mountains Property, San Diego County, California: Prepared
for the Merriam Mountains Specific Plan (NNP-Stonegate Merriam, L.L.C), draft report released 2005, Leighton and Associates, Inc., 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 310, San Diego, CA 92123,
21 p. (see Appendix D)
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.5-17 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Other Resources
There are a number of large areas with geologic rock types suitable for Portland-cement concrete applications in Imperial County. Not all of the materials produced are consumed in Imperial
County. Of what is moved outside the county, a large percent produced in the northwestern portion of the county is used locally to the north in the Coachella Valley. Some production
in northeastern Imperial County is transported locally in the Coachella Valley; however, much is transported to San Diego County. For the larger operations in the southwest and southeast
parts of the county, a large percentage of the production is transported to San Diego County. Historically the sand and gravel industry in Imperial County accounted for over a third
of the total value of mineral production in the county from 1958 to 1968, with 11,165,041 tons of aggregate produced. At that time the principle source was the shoreline deposits of
ancient Lake Cahuilla (presently the area surrounding the Salton Sea). Other sources were primarily alluvial fan deposits such as at Glamis. Aggregate is currently being imported from
Canada and Mexico. The greater bulk transport of imported aggregate results in a significantly lower transport cost than by truck delivery. Hanson has focused its attention on the Port
of San Francisco and ships aggregates there from British Columbia; deliveries to southern California may be considered in the future. The Port of San Diego recently adopted a negative
declaration for Polaris to import aggregate from Canada. The declaration would allow as much as 7 million tons per year, but imports will likely be in the 1 to 3 million tons per year
range. The Port of San Diego currently receives 400,000 metric tons per year of sand and 500,000 metric tons per year of bulk cement sent by barge from Ensenada. Hanson Materials, in
a joint venture with Petreos del Pacifico, ships blasted rock, crushed aggregate and sands from shipping docks at Ensenada, Mexico, by ocean barge to the Port of San Diego. Sand and
gravel and aggregate are also being imported by conveyor from Mexico. The Carrizo Gorge Railway, a U.S. company, ships sand and gravel by rail car from Valle de las Palmas (near Tecate)
Mexico in disrupted shipments at the International Border. Mining operations for sand, gravel, and stone exist within both enclosed coastal waters and in some nearshore waters along
the California coastline. The federal government is exploring the most appropriate locations to initiate new offshore mining of sand and gravel resources, although no new offshore operations
are currently being proposed in California. Mineral Demand The significance and value of aggregate as basic construction materials have multiplier effects. Aggregate is an essential
part of the construction industry. Developers, building and freeway/road contractors, cement manufactures, asphault producers, carpenters, etc., depend directly or indirectly on the
flow of aggregate. About 35 percent of all construction aggregate produced is used to build and repair highways and streets, while 45 percent is used to build industrial, commercial
and residential projects. Each new 1,500 square foot home requires about 114 tons of aggregate, while each mile of four-lane highway needs approximately 18,000 tons of aggregate.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.5-18 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Based on CDMG
analysis, it is estimated that 5.5 tons of aggregate per person is needed each year. In the 1970s and 1980s and continuing to the present, the CDMG initiated a statewide program that
focused on specific aggregate production and consumption areas instead of all mining activities in an entire county. The purpose of this program is that by analyzing long-term production
and consumption trends in the aggregate industry an ample supply of aggregate can better be assured in order to meet construction demands for the state’s population. The state initially
reviewed seven southern California areas (production-consumption areas), and since has updated information about those areas. In the study area there are currently fourteen areas that
have been studied by the state; these study areas represent a small part of southern California’s lands where other abundant mineral resources exist. The California Geological Survey
has stated that the aggregate study areas with the greatest projected future need for aggregate are the Temescal Valley-Orange County P-C Region2, the Western San Diego County P-C Region,
South San Francisco Bay P-C Region, San Gabriel Valley P-C Region, and the San Bernardino P-C Region. Each is expected to require more than a billion tons of aggregate by the end of
2055. The Temescal Valley-Orange County P-C Region covers all or part of six incorporated cities; Corona, Lake Elsinore, Norco, Perris, Riverside, Temecula, and unincorporated areas
of Riverside County (see Figure 3.5-1). The Temescal Valley-Orange County region also includes all of Orange County. The Western San Diego County P-C Region includes county and incorporated
city governments of the Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San
Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and unincorporated County of San Diego (see Figure 3.5-2). Aggregate use in the Temecula and southwestern Riverside County areas has risen
as population and housing has grown. The state has summarized information regarding production/consumption and expected reserves for certain areas of California in a statewide Map (Map
Sheet 52, California State Publication). This provides a rough estimate of aggregate need and indicates that Riverside County needs between 200 to 500 million tons of aggregate over
the next 50 years and San Diego County needs more than 800 million tons of aggregate over the next 50 years. To estimate aggregate demand on a more precise timeline, estimates have been
derived based on current estimated population growth (Table 3.5-4). Based on these populations, Table 3.5-5 shows the estimated aggregate consumption for these areas. Project Impacts
The County of Riverside currently zones the majority of the project site as R-R, which allows for mining operations subject to appropriate Surface Mining and Reclamation Act related
permits. The majority of the annexation area (4,284 acres) currently has a Riverside County General Plan Land Use designation of OS-CH; while the remaining 713 acres are designated RM,
with a 2 Temescal Valley P-C Region is combined with Orange County because Orange County’s permitted resources are almost exhausted and the county relies on Temescal Valley for much
of its aggregate needs.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.5-19 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.5-4
ESTIMATED POPULATION Entity Population Date % Change Source Riverside County 2,026,803 2006 +31% in last 6 years U.S. Census Bureau San Diego County 2,941,454 2006 +4.5% in last 6 years
U.S. Census Bureau Temecula 76,836 2003 +21% in last 3 years U.S. Census Bureau SOURCE: Cato Geosciences, “Aggregate Resources In The Temecula And Surrounding Inland Empire Area”, pg.
2-3. TABLE 3.5-5 ESTIMATED AGGREGATE DEMAND Entity Range of Aggregate Consumption (tons/year) Riverside County 10,344,020 to 13,174,220 San Diego County 14,707,270 to 19,119,451 Temecula
384,180 to 499,434 SOURCE: Cato Geosciences, “Aggregate Resources In The Temecula And Surrounding Inland Empire Area”, pg. 2-3. 10-acre minimum lot size. The proposed project will conserve
approximately 4,279 acres, including the Santa Margarita River and adjacent land that contain sensitive environmental resources by designating the property OS and through the adoption
of OS-C-SM zoning. The approximately 718 acres of developable land within the project area will be designated and zoned HR-SM. These proposed zoning classifications do not allow for
mining and quarry operations. Aggregate use in the Temecula and southwestern Riverside County areas has risen as population and housing has grown. It is estimated that Riverside County
will have an aggregate demand of 10 to 13 million tons per year. San Diego County is estimated to have an aggregate demand of 15 to 19 million tons per year. Within the City, it is estimated
that there is between 384,180 to 499,434 tons of aggregate resources. This quantity, when combined with existing regional aggregate production, will be insufficient to meet anticipated
aggregate demand in Riverside and San Diego counties. However, there are undeveloped aggregate resources that exist throughout Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial counties. Many of these
materials are of sufficient quality to be used for Portland cement concrete materials. Nonetheless, the amount of aggregate resources is unknown at this time and cannot be accounted
for. Imported aggregate from Canada and Mexico will continue to be supplied to the region at comparable costs to the current production. Currently, available supplies are insufficient
to meet demand; however, when one factors in the undeveloped resource that exists, there is no shortage. Although most of the annexation area is located within a MRZ-3 area, a portion
of the site (Liberty Quarry) has recently been designated as a MRZ-2a zone. The proposed project will result in zoning and general plan land use designations that do not allow mining
operations being
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.5-20 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 placed upon
the project site. This prohibition of mining of the known aggregate resources located within the project area would result in regional demand for aggregate resources being met by other
existing and planned aggregate mine facilities/deposits. The inability to mine mineral resources within the annexation area as a result of the proposed project would result in the loss
of known mineral resources within the project area that would be of value to the region. Therefore, impacts to mineral resources are considered to be significant. Mitigation: None Available.
Significance: Significant and Unavoidable. Impact 3.5-2: The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. As stated above, a portion of of the annexation area is classified as being within a MRZ-2a area, while most of the subject
property is within a MRZ-3 area and the proposed project will result in zoning and general plan land use designations that do not allow mining operations being placed upon the project
site. The inability to mine mineral resources within the annexation area as a result of the proposed project means that approval of the project will result in the loss of availability
of known mineral resources within in the project area that would be of value to the region and impacts to mineral resources are considered to be significant. Nevertheless, the City’s
General Plan and the County of Riverside’s General Plan do not identify any locally important mineral resource recovery sites within the SMAA. Although there will be a loss of availability
of known mineral resource, the proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery sites delineated on a General Plan, specific
plan or other land use plan. Therefore, although there will be a significant impact to mineral resources, the proposed project will have no significant impact upon locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. Mitigation: None required. An EIR is required to describe feasible mitigation
measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.4). Changing the existing County of Riverside General Plan land use designations of property
from a land use designation RM and OS that is considered compatible with surrounding land uses to land uses designations that are similar uses which are also considered to be compatible
with the surrounding land uses, will create potential impacts to mineral resources. Mitigation measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate the potential significant adverse
impacts upon mineral resources. None were identified that could reduce the impacts from loss of mineral resources to below the level of significance.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.5-21 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Mitigation strategies
have been considered, and none were determined feasible to completely avoid or reduce the loss of mineral resources. The implementation of the annexation will result in significant environmental
impacts to mineral resource availability, and a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required in order for the proposed project to be approved. References In addition to other
reference documents, the following references were used in the preparation of this section of the EIR: California Department of Conservation. California Surface Mining and Reclamation
Policies and Procedures, Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands, 2000. (Available for review on the internet on February 8, 2008 at http://www.consrv.ca.gov/SMGB/Guidelines/Cl
assDesig.pdf) California Department of Conservation, Mineral Land Classification of The Temescal Valley Area, Riverside County. Special Report 165, 1991. (Available for review at the
City of Temecula Planning Department.) California Department of Conservation, Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Western San Diego County Production-Consumption
Region, 1996. (Available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department.) California Department of Conservation, Aggregate Availability In California, Map Sheet 52 (updated 2006),
2006. (Available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department and on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/information/publications/ms/MS_52_map.pdf.)
California Department of Conservation. Mineral Land Classification of the Granite Construction Company Liberty Quarry Site, Temecula, Riverside County, California-For Portland Cement
Concrete-Grade Aggregate. Special Report 200, 2007 (Available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department). Cato Geoscience, Inc., Aggregate Resources in the Temecula and
Surrounding Inland Empire Areas – Development Opportunities & Current Conditions, January 25, 2008. (This report is contained in its entirety in Appendix D of this document.) County
of Riverside, Riverside County General Plan, Adopted October 7, 2003. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200,
or on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/index.html) County of Riverside, General Plan: Existing Settings Report, Revised in March 2000, Adopted October
7, 2003. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200, and at the City of Temecula Planning Department.)
County of Riverside, Geographic Information System Database. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200,
or on the Internet on February 8, 2008, at http://www3.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/pa/rclis/index.html)
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Mineral Resources City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.5-22 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 County of San
Diego Department of Planning and Land Use, San Diego County General Plan, January 2, 1979. (Available on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://www.co.sandiego.ca.us/cnty/cntydepts/landuse/planni
ng/gpupdate/pubs/existing.htm) Claude, Hart T., County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use, E-mail communication in regards to Surface Mines in San Diego County dated August
23, 2007. City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan Land Use Map, Adopted April 12, 2005, Map Prepared February 1, 2007. (Available at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business
Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, or on the Internet on January 10, 2008 at www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm) City of Temecula Internet Site. (Available
on the Internet on January 10, 2008 at http://www.cityoftemecula.org) Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2007, Final Mineral Resource Report, Merriam Mountains Property, San Diego County,
California: Prepared for the Merriam Mountains Specific Plan (NNP-Stonegate Merriam, L.L.C), draft report released 2005, Leighton and Associates, Inc., 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite
310, San Diego, CA 92123, 21 p. Kohler, Susan, 2006, Aggregate Availability in California: California Geological Survey, Map Sheet 52 and report. (Available on the Internet on February
8, 2008 at http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/ms/Documents/MS_52.pdf)
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.6-1 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 3.6 Public Services and Utilities
3.6.1 Introduction The proposed project’s potential to impact public services and utilities was evaluated in the NOP (Appendix A). The NOP determined that the proposed project will have
no impact or a less than significant impact upon fire services, sheriff services, school services, library services, water and sewer services, solid waste disposal services, electricity,
natural gas, communications systems, storm water drainage, and other governmental services. The following discussion describes the findings of the NOP. 3.6.2 Setting The project site
consists of approximately 4,997 acres in unincorporated Riverside County being considered for annexation into the city of Temecula. The project area is made up of publicly and privately-owned
primarily undeveloped land; most of which is undisturbed natural open space within the SMER. The project site has been considered as being within a rural setting and is located within
an area predominately comprised of steep hills in their natural vegetative state. At the present time police and fire protection services are provided by the County of Riverside and
utility service into the project area is limited or unavailable in the primarily undeveloped areas. The project site’s proposed city of Temecula General Plan land use designations are
OS and HR. These land use designations closely match the current Riverside County general plan designations which identify the majority of the area for open space conservation with a
small area, 718 acres, permitting single family home development. The proposed HR designation permits one dwelling unit per 10 acres. If optimal development occurs, the project area
can expect development of approximately 81 new single-family homes. 1 Based on the city’s standard single-family occupancy rate of 3.24 persons per home the project area could become
home to approximately 263 additional residents.2 Fire Protective Services The SMAA site is currently within the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Fire Department. The Riverside County
Fire Department in cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) provides fire protection services in the county. Fire protection services are
provided in the City through a contract with CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire Department. The City has four existing fire stations within the city limits. Upon annexation of the area,
emergency response will be handled in the same manner as currently 1 Each existing lot, regardless of size, may be developed with one dwelling unit. Therefore, when the maximum number
of lots that can be created from existing 20 acre and larger lots is added to the number of lots smaller than 10 acres (that cannot be further subdivided), an estimated 81 new dwelling
units may be developed within that portion of the project area with the Hillside Residential designation 2 It is noted that the County of Riverside General Plan utilizes a population
generation rate of 3.01 persons per dwelling unit. Use of the County of Riverside generation rate results in an estimated population increase of 244 persons within the project area.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services and Utilities City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.6-2 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 provided
by the County; under a contract between the City and CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire Department. Police Services Currently, the police protection is provided in the City through a contract
with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. Upon annexation, police protection and law enforcement services will be handled in the same manner; under a contract between the City
and the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. Park Facilities The City owns 38 parks with a total area of approximately 309 acres and about 117,000 square feet of recreational and cultural
facilities. These facilities include a recreational center, community center, senior center, history and children’s museums; chapel; performing arts theater and library. Schools That
portion of the project site currently within the City’s sphere of influence is located within the boundaries of the Temecula Valley Unified School District. The balance of the project
site is located within the Murrieta Valley Unified School District’s boundaries. The school district boundaries would not change upon annexation of the area into the City. Library Services
The project site is served by existing libraries within the Riverside City/County Public Library system, which operates two libraries with the City. This service would not change upon
annexation of the area. Water The RCWD is the water service provider to only a small portion of the northern portion of the project area. The remaining portion project area is outside
of the service area of RCWD and outside of the service areas of neighboring water districts (Rainbow Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Western Municipal Water
District, and the Fallbrook Public Utilities District). Existing inhabited properties in the area utilize private water wells for potable water. Due to the terrain and the limited demand,
private water wells are anticipated to continue to be the only source of potable water for developable property within the annexation area. Sewer EMWD is the wastewater service provider
for the City and the project area. However, no wastewater service is provided within the annexation area due to the geographic location and terrain. Inhabited property as well as future
development in the project area will utilize septic tank systems for wastewater treatment.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services and Utilities City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.6-3 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Solid
Waste Currently solid waste service to the annexation area is being provided to the County by Fallbrook Disposal. Solid waste disposal service within the City limit is provided by CR&R
which is a privately operated company under contract with the City. Upon annexation to the City, solid waste disposal services for the annexation area will ultimately be provided by
CR&R; however, due to the geographic location and accessibility of the annexation area, CR&R may choose to contract with Fallbrook Disposal to continue providing solid waste disposal
services to this area. CR&R has the option of hauling residential waste to any permitted waste facility in Riverside County (i.e., transfer station or landfill). Transfer stations can
process waste prior to disposal at landfills. The project site is located in western Riverside County County which is primarily served by three landfills that are all Class III3 municipal
solid waste landfills. The nearest facility is the El Sobrante Landfill, a Riverside County regional municipal solid waste landfill, located east of I-15 and Temescal Canyon Road to
the south of the City of Corona at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road. The landfill is owned and operated by USA Waste of California, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. The El Sobrante Landfill
is currently permitted to receive 10,000 tons of refuse per day (tpd), of which 4,000 tpd is reserved for refuse generated within Riverside County. The landfill has a total capacity
of approximately 109 million tons of which approximately 48 million tons are reserved for in-County waste. As of December 31, 2007, the landfill had a remaining in-County disposal capacity
of approximately 36,449 million tons. The Lamb Canyon Landfill is located between the city of Beaumont and the city of San Jacinto at 16411 Lamb Canyon Road (Temecula Pkwy), south of
I-10 and north of SR 74. The landfill is owned and operated by Riverside County. The landfill is currently permitted to receive 3,000 tpd and had an estimated total disposal capacity
of approximately 16.244 million tons, as of June 30, 2006. As of December 31, 2007, the landfill had a total remaining capacity of approximately 11.076 million tons. The Badlands Landfill
is located northeast of the city of Moreno Valley at 31125 Ironwood Avenue. The Badlands Landfill is owned and operated by Riverside County. The landfill is currently permitted to receive
4,000 tons of solid waste per day and had an estimated total capacity of approximately 15.237 million tons, as of June 30, 2006. The landfill had a total remaining disposal capacity
of approximately 8.033 million tons, as December 31, 2007. A portion of Temecula’s waste is also sent to the Commerce Refuse-to-Energy Facility in Los Angeles County, which is operated
by the County of Los Angeles Sanitation Districts. The facility has a capacity of 1,000 pounds per day as cited in Temecula’s General Plan EIR. 3 Landfills that are permitted to accept
only nonhazardous solid waste.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services and Utilities City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.6-4 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Electricity
Southern California Edison is the electrical service provider in this area of the county and across the proposed project area. Existing service exists in the development areas north
of the project area with limited service availability into the primarily undeveloped areas. Gas The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas service within the City and into
some of the areas unincorporated areas west of the city limits. The farthest reach of service is north of the of the project area in Via Santa Rosa. Due to the limited service available
in the area some existing homes desiring gas service must rely on propane service. Telephone Verizon is the telephone service provider for the project area. Development into some of
the primarily undeveloped areas will require the extension of additional infrastructure. 3.6.3 Regulatory Framework Fire Regulations The Wildfire Susceptibility map in the Riverside
County General Plan (Figure S-11) indicates that the site is within an area having high susceptibility for wildfires. Future development within the project area will be required to comply
with California Public Resources Code, Sections 4291-4299, the fire policies and regulations of the City including the Uniform Fire Code and the Uniform Building Code and the Riverside
County Master Fire Protection Plan. a) California Public Resources Code, Sections 4291-4299, require property owners to conduct periodic maintenance to reduce the fire danger. b) The
Riverside County Master Fire Protection Plan outlines the fire protections performance standards for both rural and urban areas, and establishes guidelines for facility and personnel
minimum requirements of the Riverside County Fire Department. Solid Waste The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) redefined solid waste management in terms of
both objectives and planning responsibilities for local jurisdictions and the state. The act was adopted in an effort to reduce the volume and toxicity of solid waste that is landfilled
and incinerated by requiring local governments to prepare and implement plans to improve the management of waste resources. AB 939 required each of the cities and unincorporated portions
of the counties to divert a minimum of 25% of the solid waste sent to landfills by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. To attain goals for reductions in disposal, AB 939 established a planning
hierarchy utilizing new integrated solid waste management practices. These practices include source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe landfill disposal and
transformation. Other state statutes pertaining to solid waste include
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services and Utilities City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.6-5 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 compliance
with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 (AB 1327), which requires adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials within the project site. Pursuant
to AB 939, the City prepared a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SSRE) in compliance with the state’s established standards. The Element contains source reduction, recycling and
composting strategies to meet the diversion goal. In October 1991, the City began implementation of a curbside residential waste separation program. Recyclable and compost materials
are separated from household trash. Household waste is transported to a processing center in Stanton, and commercial/industrial waste is transported to a processing center in Perris.
According to the most recent data (2005) available from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), 52 percent of the total waste generated in the City is diverted from
landfills. In compliance with Section 42912(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, the CIWMB adopted a model construction and demolition (C&D) diversion ordinance on March 16, 2004. Local
jurisdictions are not required to adopt their own construction and demolition ordinance and may adopt the CIWMB model ordinance as their own by default. Schools Pursuant to state law,
developers of property within the annexation area will be required to pay school impact fees, which are designed to off-set impacts associated with new development and its impact on
area schools, to the applicable school district (Murrieta Valley Unified School District or Temecula Valley Unified School District.) Development Impact Fees The City adopted Resolution
No. 03-63 and subsequent amendments establishing Developer Impact Fees (DIF) to mitigate the cost of providing or expanding public facilities (police, fire, streets, traffic control,
parks, open space and trails, libraries, and corporate facilities) needed to serve new development in the community. The DIF collected is based on the type of development proposed and
the land use designations established for the project area. Since the project area is primarily limited to the development of single family homes, future residential development will
be required to pay the “residential – detached” DIF which is currently $7,484.92 per dwelling. 3.6.4 Design Considerations Pursuant to City development standards, policies, and standard
conditions of approval, development in the project area will be properly designed and where necessary infrastructure will be installed to assure that health and public safety issues
to persons and property will be met. These measures will be address on a case by case basis as development occurs.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services and Utilities City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.6-6 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 3.6.5
Impacts and Mitigation Significance Criteria The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines. However, Appendix
G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that impacts on public services and utilities may be considered potentially significant if the proposed project would: • Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire services. • Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered sheriff facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection services. • Result
in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, or the need for new or physically altered school facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for school services.
• Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities, or the need for new or physically altered park facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for park services.
• Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered library facilities, or the need for new or physically altered library facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for library services.
• Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects.
• Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or require new or expanded entitlements. • Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable RWQCB. • Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects. • Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services and Utilities City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.6-7 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 •
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may service the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments. • Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste needs. • Comply with federal, state, and
local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes (including the CIWMP). Impact Analysis Impact 3.6-1: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire service facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire services. With annexation, fire protection services will
be the responsibility of the City and emergency responses will be handled in the same manner as currently provided throughout the city. Fire protection services are provided under contracts
between Temecula and CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire Department. The project site will be primarily served by Station 12 (28330 Mercedes, Temecula, 92590). This station is located approximately
3 miles northeast of the project site. It is staffed with a minimum of four fire fighters. This station has one engine and one Cal Fire Type 3 engine. If the Riverside County Fire Department
is called to respond to an emergency within the annexation area, the call is also routed to Cal-Fire, San Diego Unit; emergency response teams from both Station No. 12 and from Red Mountain
Station, located on Mission Road in North San Diego County will respond. Upon annexation of the area, emergency responses would be handled in the same manner under a new contract between
the City and CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire Department. Pursuant to the City development code, policies and standard conditions of approval, future development will be assessed for the
availability of fire hydrants, building code compliance for fire-resistant exterior building materials, development of fire protection zones from high fire areas, all-weather access,
street design, orientation of entryways, siting of structures, landscaping, lighting and other security features. Additionally, water service in the area, serving residential development,
will require a minimum fire flow. Chapter 15.16 of the Temecula Municipal Code sets forth the following fire-flow requirements for single-family residential development: • Single-family
homes of 3,600 square feet or less need to be served by a super hydrant (three outlets) and have a flow of 1,000 gallons per minute (GPM) at 20 pounds per square inch (PSI) for a two-hour
duration. • Single-family homes greater than 3,600 square feet need to be served by an approved water system that is capable of providing 1,500 GPM at 20 PSI for a two-hour duration.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services and Utilities City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.6-8 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 All
lots of record pulling new permits or future subdivisions within the annexation area will be required to comply with these requirements. Homes served by wells will need to put in a tank
system that meets the requirements. These measures will address fire and public safety issues by reducing the potential for fire damage to properties in the project area. With the limited
potential for additional dwelling units and compliance with city and state building codes and the city’s established development review, and building permit procedures, the proposed
project will not require a change in existing fire protection services provided within the project area. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities and will not create the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire services. Therefore, project
impacts upon fire services will be less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Although the proposed project’s impacts upon fire services are less than significant, development
in the project area will be required to comply with city DIF for the payment of fire mitigation fees. Fees collected through the development of single-family detached homes will be utilized
to upgrade or develop new fire facilities and could total approximately $46,533.69 (81 d.u. @$574.49 per single-family detached dwelling unit). Significance after Mitigation: Less than
significant. Impact 3.6-2: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police facilities,
or the need for new or physically altered sheriff facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives for police protection services. The Riverside County Sheriff Department currently provides law enforcement service through a contract
with the City and will continue to provide service to the project site through an amended contract. The Southwest Station located at 30755 Auld Road, Murrieta, is the closest primary
response facility to the proposed project, although, there are two storefront offices located in the city at 27540 Ynez Road, Suite J-9 and 28410 Old Town Front Street, Suite 105. The
project area is almost entirely vacant land with the potential to permit approximately 81 single family dwelling units. Temecula General Plan Policy GM/PFE 3.1 requires that development
does not exceed the ability to adequately provide supporting police services and to ensure an adequate response time for emergencies and to strive to provide one full-time officer per
1,000 residents for police (sheriff) protection services. If the project built to its maximum capacity the area would result in an estimated additional 263 persons living within the
project area, which equates to the need for approximately 0.26 of an additional police officer. The Temecula Police Department employs officers at the rate of
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services and Utilities City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.6-9 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 approximately
1 Officer per 930 residents. Additionally, the Temecula General Plan EIR states that the city has 107 sworn officers. At this ratio the city can easily absorb the additional population
without the need to add an additional officer. With the limited increase in population growth and the current staffing levels, impacts to the police protection services will be less
than significant. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities and
will not create the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection services. Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Although the proposed project’s impacts upon police services
are less than significant; development within the project area will be required to pay the DIF. Fees collected through the development of single-family detached homes will be utilized
to upgrade or develop new police facilities and could total approximately $19,593.90 (81 dwelling unit @$241.90 per single-family detached dwelling unit). Significance after Mitigation:
Less than significant. Impact 3.6-3: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities,
or the need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives for school services. That portion of the project site currently within the City’s sphere of influence is located within the boundaries
of the Temecula Valley Unified School District. The balance of the project site is located within the Murrieta Valley Unified School District’s boundaries. There is the potential for
development of additional residential dwellings
(81 dwellings). Due to the limited number of residences that will be constructed within the project area, the proposed project will contribute a limited number of additional students
to the district. However, residential development is required to pay a school impact fee which is designated to offset the cost of constructing new schools. The total school impact fees
that will be paid by future development within the project area are in accordance with State law and will be based on the fee for single family home in place at the time of development.
The payment of school impact fees will give the Districts the funding necessary to expand or build new facilities as the need arises. Therefore, potential impacts to schools are considered
to be less than significant. The proposed project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities,
or the need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives for school services. Mitigation: None required.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services and Utilities City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.6-10 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008
Impact 3.6-4: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for park services. The basic park acreage standard for the City is 5.0 acres of usable City-owned parkland per 1,000 residents. Since the project area could
be developed with approximately 81 single-family homes there would be a minor impact on park facilities. Based on the city’s standard of 3.24 persons per household there could be 263
additional people living within the project area. Using the City’s park allocation criteria, there would would be a need for 1.3 acres of additional park land needed to serve the project
area. Through the collection of the DIF, the city can expect to receive $2,762.58 per single-family home for park and recreation improvements for a total of $223,768.98 (81 homes x $2,762.58)
and will utilize the collected fees towards the purchase and development parkland necessary to provide service to the project area. In addition to payment of the DIF, any subdivision
of property within the project area will be conditioned to dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, at the option of the city, for neighborhood and community park or recreational
purposes in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16.33 of the Temecula Municipal Code, which implements the Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477 et. seq.) With the
payment of the required fees, development within the project area will provide the necessary funding for use in expanding the existing parks system. The payment of these mandatory regulatory
fees will offset the proposed project’s impacts to park facilities and therefore the project will have less than significant impacts to parks services. Mitigation: None required. Impact
3.6-5: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or
physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public services. Library Facilities The project site is served by existing libraries within the Riverside County Library System, which operates
two libraries within the City. The project area with the possibility for development of approximately 81 additional single-family dwellings and a projected population of 263 people would
create an incremental demand for library services. Due to the small increase in potential demand for library services, the project will have a less than significant impact upon library
facilities.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services and Utilities City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.6-11 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008
It is noted that although the proposed project’s impacts upon library services are less than significant; development in the project area will be required to comply with city DIF which
includes designated public library fees. Total developer impact fees for public libraries, if all 81 single-family dwellings (detached) were developed, using the current rate of $602.19
per detached dwelling would be approximately $24,477.39. Other Governmental Facilities No other governmental facilities are expected to be required for the project. Therefore, no further
impacts are expected to occur. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government
facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services. Mitigation: None required. Impact 3.6-6: The project would not require or result in the construction
of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects. The project area is not currently served
by the RCWD due to the topography and limited service needs in the area. Development in the area will have to rely on private wells as a source of potable water and therefore will not
increase demand on RCWD nor require the construction of new water treatment facilities. This project will have no impact regarding demand for existing water treatment facilities. Mitigation:
None required. Impact 3.6-7: The proposed project would not have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or require new or
expanded entitlements. Future development in the project area will have to rely on water from private wells and will not impact the existing entitlements of RCWD. As discussed above,
homes served by wells will need to put in a tank system that meets the City’s fire-flow requirements. Therefore, this project site is considered to have no impacts to available water
supplies. Mitigation: None required.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services and Utilities City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.6-12 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008
Impact 3.6-8: The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
would cause significant environmental effects. The project site is within the service area of EMWD however, the remoteness and the topographical constraints limit the serviceability
of the area to current public wastewater facilities. Therefore, development in the area will have to rely on septic systems for wastewater discharge. Since no new service will be added
to EMWD existing facilities there will be no need for construction of new or expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, the project is considered to have no impact
to available wastewater treatment capacity. Mitigation: None required. Impact 3.6-9: The proposed project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may service the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Although the project area
is under the jurisdiction of EMWD, wastewater treatment service is not provided into the project area. Existing properties rely on septic systems for wastewater as will future development
in the project area. Since no new service will be added from expected development in the annexation area, the proposed project will not affect the capacity of EMWD’s existing facilities.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated that would affect the wastewater treatment provider’s current capacity or existing service commitments. Mitigation: None required. Impact 3.6-10:
The proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. Construction-Related Solid Waste Statewide,
C&D debris constitutes approximately 22 percent of solid waste disposed in California in 2004. In Riverside County, C&D waste alone constitutes approximately 8.8 percent of the countywide
waste stream by weight. Table 3.6-1, Estimated Construction-Related Solid Waste Generation and Contribution, shows the amounts of construction-related waste anticipated to be generated
if the projected 81 dwelling unit are constructed in the project area. Given the limited contribution of construction-related solid waste anticipated to be generated by the proposed
project when construction occurs, development of the project site will not
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services and Utilities City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.6-13 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008
TABLE 3.6-1 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION-RELATED SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND CONTRIBUTION Proposed Project Total Square Footage Generation Factora (lbs per sq. ft.) Proposed Project Total (tons)
Disposal Facility – Disposal Capacityb (tons per year) Proposed Project Percent of Yearly Intakec Badlands Landfill – 1,460,000 0.450 El Sobrante Landfill – 3,650,000 0.180 Lamb Canyon
Landfill – 1,095,000 0.600 RESIDENTIAL 81 Single-family Dwelling Units 8,113 lbs per dwelling unit 657,153 TOTAL LANDFILL CAPACITY – 6,205,000 0.106 a Generation rate from “Characterization
of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States” prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Franklin Associates, June 1998; as referenced by CIWMB.
This rate includes all materials discarded, whether or not they are later recycled or disposed of in a landfill. b Daily disposal capacity multiplied by 365 days per year. c (Proposed
Project Total/Disposal Facility Capacity) x 100 substantially contribute to the exceedance of the permitted capacity of the designated landfills. Less than significant impacts to the
existing landfills are expected. Operational Solid Waste Table 3.6-2, Anticipated Solid Waste Disposal and Contribution, shows the amounts of waste anticipated to be generated from the
project area if 81 new dwelling units are constructed within the project area. TABLE 3.6-2 ANTICIPATED SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND CONTRIBUTION Proposed Project Total Square Footage Generation
Factora (lbs per 1,000 sq. ft. per day Proposed Project Total (tons/year) Disposal Facility – Disposal Capacityb (tons per year) Proposed Project Percent of Yearly Intakec Badlands Landfill
– 1,460,000 0.0023 El Sobrante Landfill – 3,650,000 0.0009 Lamb Canyon Landfill – 1,095,000 0.0030 RESIDENTIAL 81 Single-family Dwelling Units 0.41 tons annually per residence 33.21
TOTAL LANDFILL CAPACITY – 6,205,000 0.0005 a Waste disposal rates from State Integrated Waste Management Board (www.ciwmb.ca.gov/wastechar/disprate.htm). b Daily disposal capacity multiplied
by 365 days per year. c (Proposed Project Total/Disposal Facility Capacity) x 100
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services and Utilities City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.6-14 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008
Given the limited contribution of solid waste anticipated to be generated from the project area, future development in the project area will not substantially contribute to the exceedance
of the permitted capacity of the designated landfills. Also, considering the project's participation in the source reduction programs required by the City, County, and State, the solid
waste stream generated by the project may be reduced over time. Impacts to the existing landfills will be below the level of significance. Mitigation: None required. Impact 3.6-11: The
proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes (including the CIWMP). In 1972, the State Legislature adopted the California
Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act, requiring each county within the State to prepare a solid waste management plan for all waste generated in the county and disposed of
in or outside of the county. In compliance with the Act, the Riverside County Solid Waste Management Plan was prepared, and serves as the general guideline for waste management in the
County. Pursuant to the AB 939, the City prepared a SSRE. The purpose of the SSRE was to establish a local plan to reduce solid waste by 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by the year
2000. The Element contains source reduction, recycling and composting strategies to meet the diversion goal. In October 1991, the City began implementation of a curbside residential
waste separation program. Recyclable and compost materials are separated from household trash. Household waste is transported to a processing center in Stanton, and commercial/industrial
waste is transported to a processing center in Perris. Such existing City practices ensure compliance with the SSRE. Therefore, the project will be in conformance with the SSRE and potential
impacts impacts to county landfills will be further reduced through compliance with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste generation, transport
and disposal. The project site is considered to have no impacts to federal, state or local statutes or regulations related to solid waste. Mitigation: None required. Impact 3.6-12: The
proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects. The project area is primarily undeveloped and all storm waters within the area drain to the Santa Margarita River. This area is managed by Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District; however, they have no existing facilities in the project area. It is not likely that extensive drainage systems will be installed or necessary
in the area due to the topography and the limited development intensity of the land use designations. Storm water/surface water in
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services and Utilities City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.6-15 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008
the area is currently discharged into the existing watershed area. As future development occurs construction plans will be assessed for anticipated storm water run-off and appropriate
containment methods will be implemented to limit off-site impacts or the need for off-site drainage facilities. Storm water drainage on-site will not require the expansion of County
Flood Control, nor require new facilities, and potential impacts to storm water drainage facilities are considered to be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. Impact 3.6-13:
The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new electrical, gas, and communications facilities or the expansion of existing facilities; where the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects. Electricity Future development in the project project area will use existing electricity service provided by Southern California
Edison. Some extension of service may be necessary into undeveloped areas and will require assessment at the time of development review. Based on the current availability of electrical
service in portions of the project area, extensive infrastructure is not necessary and the project will not significantly affect electrical services. Natural Gas The proposed project
area in not currently served by Southern California Gas Company natural gas service. Therefore development in the project area will be required to install propane systems to meet their
service needs, without adversely affecting the existing natural gas system. Therefore, future development in the project area will not affect the current service provider or natural
gas services. Communications Systems Future development in the project area will use existing service provided by Verizon. Some extension of service may be necessary into primarily undeveloped
areas and will require assessment at the time of development review. Based on the current availability of communication service in portions of the project area, extensive infrastructure
is not necessary and the project will not create a significant impact in electrical services. Mitigation: None required. An EIR is required to describe feasible mitigation measures which
could minimize significant adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.4). The project area has the potential for a limited number of dwelling units to be built (approximately 81
dwelling units). However,
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services and Utilities City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.6-16 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008
implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to public services and utilities. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. However, payment
of development impact fees to offset any potential public service-related impacts will be required through compliance with adopted regulatory requirements. References In addition to
other reference documents, the following references were used in the preparation of this section of the EIR: City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan, April 2005. (Available at the City
of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, or on the Internet on January 10, 2008 at www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm)
City of Temecula, Final Environmental Impact Report, Temecula General Plan Update, March, 2005, 2005, Certified April 12, 2005. (Available the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200
Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, 951-694-6444.) City of Temecula Internet Site. (Available on the Internet on January 10, 2008 at http://www.cityoftemecula.org) County of Riverside,
General Plan, Adopted October 7, 2003. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200, or on the Internet
on February 11, 2008 at http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/index.html) County of Riverside, Southwest Area Plan, October 2003. (Available at County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080
Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200, or on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap1/swap.html) County of Riverside, Geographic Information
System Database. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200, or on the Internet on February 8, 2008, at
http://http://www3.tlma.co.riverside. ca.us/pa/rclis/index.html) City of Temecula, (Draft) Plan for Provision of Municipal Services, Planning Applications No. P07-0225 and PA07-0226,
Annexation of the Santa Margarita Area to the City of Temecula, California, December, 2007. (Available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, CA 92590.) The Gas Company, E-mail correspondence from Bruce R. Waddell for service availability, December 13, 2007. California Integrated Waste Management Board, Jurisdictional
Profile for Riverside County (Unincorporated). (Available on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfile1.asp?RG=U&JURID=410&JUR=River side%2DUnincorporated
) California Integrated Waste Management Board, Jurisdictional Profile for City of Temecula. (Available on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfile2.asp?
RG=C&JURID=529&JUR=Temecula)
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Public Services and Utilities City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.6-17 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008
California Integrated Waste Management Board, Residential Waste Disposal Rates. (Available on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at www.ciwmb.ca.gov/wastechar/ResDisp.htm) California
Integrated Waste Management Board, Construction and Demolition Materials. (Available on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ConDemo/Materials/default.htm) California
Integrated Waste Management Board, Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling. (Available on the internet on February 11, 2008 at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ConDemo/) Riverside County
Waste Management Department, E-mail correspondence from Sung Key Ma, Planner IV for landfill capacity, January 14, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal and Industrial
Solid Waste Division, Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the the United States, by Franklin Associates, Office of Solid Waste Report No. EPA 530-R-98-010,
June 1998. (Available on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/sqg/c&d-rpt.pdf
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-1 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 3.7 Transportation and Traffic
3.7.1. Introduction Section 3.7 of this Draft EIR evaluates the changes in vehicular traffic attributable to the development of the SMAA. This section uses data contained in a traffic
impact study prepared by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants completed in September 2008. The completed traffic study is provided in Appendix C in the Draft EIR. This section also
documents existing traffic and circulation system conditions, identifies significant impacts associated with the site and recommends potential mitigation measures. As the study area
includes facilities located within the city of Temecula, Riverside County, and San Diego County, significance criteria and impact assessment methodologies specific to those jurisdictions
are applied in this study. 3.7.2. Setting The project site consists of approximately 4,997 acres of publicly and privately owned primarily undeveloped land; most of which is undisturbed
natural open space within the SMER. The majority of the area is comprised of steep hills with scattered outcroppings of granite boulders, sloping in a southwesterly direction with elevations
ranging from approximately 530 feet to 2,330 feet above mean sea level. Within the lower reaches of the project area is the Santa Margarita River which flows year round. Within the entire
4,997-acre project area there are only four occupied dwelling units with two additional dwelling units occasionally used by the SDSU Field Station Program to house researchers. The remaining
privately-held properties, outside of the SMER, are currently vacant. The following roadways currently provide service to the area: Interstate 15. I-15 is a major north-south interstate
that provides connections to other regional freeways in Riverside County, San Diego County, San Bernardino County and beyond. I-15 is classified as a Freeway with lanes ranging from
eight to twelve lanes. It is located to the east of the project. Within the study area, I-15 has four lanes in each direction for a total of eight lanes. Temecula Parkway. Temecula Pkwy
South provides access to eastern Riverside and San Diego Counties. Temecula Pkwy is classified within the City of Temecula General Plan as an Urban Arterial with eight lanes from its
Intersection with I-15 east to Pechanga Parkway and as a Principal Arterial with six lanes east of Pechanga Parkway through the city of Temecula. Temecula Pkwy South is now called Temecula
Parkway within the City limits. Within the study area, this roadway currently has six lanes. Pechanga Parkway. Pechanga Parkway is a northwest-southeast roadway located east of the project.
The city of Temecula General Plan classifies Pechanga Parkway as a Principal Arterial with six lanes from Temecula Pkwy south to Wolf Valley Road, and as a Major Arterial with four lanes
south of Wolf Valley Road. Within the study area, this roadway currently has four lanes.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-2 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Rainbow
Canyon Road. Rainbow Canyon Road is a north-south roadway. The portion of Rainbow Canyon Road which is located within the city of Temecula is classified in the City of Temecula General
Plan as a Secondary Arterial with four lanes. Within the city of Temecula, this roadway currently has two lanes. The portion of the Rainbow Canyon Road which is located within the boundaries
of Riverside County (outside of the city of Temecula) is classified as a two-lane collector. The location of the proposed project site and the existing roadway system are shown in Figure
3.7-1. Based on a review of the existing roadway system, the location of the project, the likely project trip generation, and consultations with City Staff, the following intersections
and roadway segments were considered for inclusion in the analysis: 1. I-15 Southbound Ramps/Temecula Pkwy 2. I-15 Northbound Ramps/Temecula Pkwy 3. La Paz Road/Temecula Pkwy 4. Pechanga
Parkway/Temecula Pkwy 5. Rainbow Canyon Road/Pechanga Parkway 6. Rainbow Canyon Road/Birdie Court 7. Rainbow Canyon Road/Bayhill Drive 8. Old Highway 395/Rainbow Valley West Boulevard
9. I-15 Northbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley West Boulevard 10. I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley West Boulevard The study area includes the following roadway segments: 1. I-15, from SR
76 to Stewart Canyon Road (underpass) 2. I-15, from Stewart Canyon Road (underpass) to Mission Road 3. I-15, from Mission Road to Rainbow Glen Road (overpass) 4. I-15, from Rainbow Glen
Road (overpass) to Rainbow Valley Boulevard 5. I-15, from Rainbow Valley Boulevard to County Line 6. I-15, from County Line to Temecula Pkwy South 7. I-15, Temecula Pkwy South to Rancho
California Road 8. I-15, Rancho California Road to Temecula Pkwy North 9. Temecula Pkwy, Pechanga Parkway to La Paz Road 10. Temecula Pkwy, La Paz Road to I-15 Ramps 11. Pechanga Parkway,
Rainbow Canyon Road to Temecula Pkwy 12. Rainbow Canyon Road, Rainbow Valley W Blvd to Pechanga Parkway The roadway segments and intersection above represent the likely routes that would
be used to access the site. This study can be considered to be a conservative representation of any likely traffic impacts in that the anticipated trip generation associated with the
project would be less than 100 trips per peak hour, as noted below.
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.7-1 Existing Roadway System SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, 2008 North Not to Scale
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-4 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 The
existing LOS calculations are based upon actual AM and PM peak hour traffic counts that were compiled as part of the Traffic Study. As shown in Table 3.7-4, Existing Level of Service
for Study Intersections (2007) and Table 3.7-5, Existing Level of Service for Study Roadways (2007), existing LOS within the study area varies from LOS B to LOS E. While a majority of
the intersections and roadway segments operate at LOS D or better, a number of facilities operate at LOS E or F. As shown on the tables below, currently the I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow
Valley W Boulevard intersection operates at LOS E. Additionally, four I-15 roadway segments, the two Temecula Pkwy roadway segments and the Pechanga Parkway roadway segment currently
operate at LOS F. 3.7.3. Methodology This discussion describes existing and future traffic circulation, circulation, and evaluates the impact of the proposed project on these conditions
summarized from the traffic impact study for the project, which was prepared by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants. (see Appendix C). Scenarios which were analyzed
within this traffic study include: • Existing conditions (2007)-This scenario reflects conditions as they occurred when the baseline traffic data was collected for this project in 2007.
• Existing Plus Ambient (2015)-This scenario indicates the future traffic conditions that would occur during the anticipated Build-out year of the project, which is assumed to be 2015.
• Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project-This scenario reflects the addition of project trips to the above scenario and is used to assess project-level impacts. • Existing Plus Ambient Plus
Cumulative-The Cumulative Scenario includes the addition of proposed and pending projects within the study area to the Existing Plus Ambient Scenario. • Existing Plus Ambient Plus Cumulative
Plus Project-This scenario documents traffic conditions with the addition of both project-related and cumulative traffic to the existing counts and any ambient growth. • General Plan
Build-out-This scenario reflects traffic conditions with the Build-out of the City of Temecula General Plan, which was assumed to be 2030. The traffic analysis uses the LOS system of
categorization to evaluate the project area roadway and intersections. Traffic engineers use this LOS system of categorization to describe how well an intersection or roadway is functioning.
The LOS approach uses a ranking system, similar to education, with Level ‘A’ being best and Level ‘F’ being worst. Table 3.7-1, Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Standards, provides
the delay range associated with each LOS level and a brief description of traffic conditions associated with that LOS at intersections.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-5 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE
3.7-1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARDS Level of Service (LOS) Signalized Intersections: Stopped Delay (seconds/vehicle) Unsignalized Intersections: Stopped Delay (seconds/vehicle)
Qualitative LOS Description A < 10 < 10 Represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by others in the traffic stream. B > 10 and < 20 > 10 and < 15 Stable flow, but
the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. C > 20 and < 35 > 15 and < 25 Stable flow, but the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected
by interactions with others in the traffic stream. D > 35 and < 55 > 25 and < 35 Represents high-density, but stable flow. E >55 and < 80 > 35 and < 50 Represents operating conditions
at or near the capacity level. F > 80 > 50 Represents forced or breakdown flow. SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board Special Report 209, National Research Council,
Washington D.C., 2000. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) is used by the County of Riverside, city of Temecula, and San Diego County to evaluate intersection operations. Likewise, the LOS
definitions and ranges provided in Table 3.7-1 are applied in all three jurisdictions. For signalized intersections, the LOS is based upon the weighted average control delay of all vehicles
as measured in seconds per vehicle. The LOS for all-way stop intersections is also based upon the weighted average control delay as measured in seconds per vehicle. For two-way stop
controlled intersections, the delay is computed for each controlled movement and the LOS is based on the worst case delay for all movements operating under traffic control. For roadway
segments, the LOS is based on applicable standards used by either the city of Temecula or Riverside County. For those roadway segments within the city of Temecula, the roadway segment
capacities provided in Table 3.7-2 were applied. One of the project roadways, Rainbow Canyon Road, is located both within the city of Temecula and unincorporated Riverside County. Also,
there are a number of freeway segments which are analyzed using Riverside County roadway capacities. Therefore, the traffic analysis also considered roadway capacities used by Riverside
County, as developed in the County General Plan. These capacities are documented in Table 3.7-3. The City of Temecula General Plan evaluated conditions within the study area with the
Build-out of the General Plan Land Uses. Table 3.7-6, Level of Service at Build-out Year (2030) Without Project, shows the roadway segment conditions. As shown in the Table below, all
of the roadway segments would operate at LOS F prior to the addition of project trips.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-6 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE
3.7-2 CITY OF TEMECULA DAILY ROADWAY CAPACITIES Standard Roadway Class Definition Number of Lanes Maximum Two-Way Daily Traffic Urban Arterial Highways carrying high volumes of regional
and local traffic. Priority is given to through traffic flow and access is generally limited to signalized intersections. 8-10 lanes with raised median and additional turn lanes at intersections
72,000 Principal Arterial Highways acting as main thoroughfares and providing access centers and to the regional freeway system. Direct access to adjacent properties is discouraged,
except at signalized intersections. 6 lanes with raised median and additional turn lanes at intersections 54,000 Major Arterial Highways that complement the principal arterial system
by providing a medium capacity backbone system. Only limited access is provided, typically to commercial properties (i.e. not to residential properties) 4 lanes with raised median and
additional turn lanes at intersections 36,000 Secondary Arterial Roadways intended to carry traffic between local streets and principal or major arterials. They are similar to major
arterials, with only limited access to adjacent properties. 4 lanes undivided, with turn lanes as needed. 29,000 Modified Secondary Arterial Secondary arterials designed to preserve
the rural character of surrounding areas. 4 lanes separated, no curb and gutter 20,000 Limited Secondary Arterial Secondary arterials that have lower volumes such that four lanes are
not needed 2 lanes divided, with turn lanes where needed 16,000 Collector Roadways providing property access, and linking properties to secondary, major, and principal arterials. 2 lanes
undivided 14,000 Rural Highway Roadway providing property access and local circulation in rural areas 2 lanes undivided 10,000 SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan Existing Transit
Service The Riverside County Transit Agency (RTA) provides bus service for the city of Temecula. The RTA provides commuter link service (Route 208) from the Promenade Mall in Temecula
to the Metrolink station in Riverside with stops in Menifee, Sun City, Perris and Moreno Valley, and from the Promenade Mall to the Metrolink station in Corona with stops in Murrieta
and Lake Elsinore (Route 206). The RTA also provides commuter link service from Temecula to Oceanside (Route 202) and bus service from Temecula along Temecula Pkwy and SR 74 to Hemet
(SR 79). However, RTA currently does not provide bus service to the project area. There is currently no link for commuter trains in the city of Temecula. The closest rail line to the
area is the Metrolink commuter rail service. The peak-hour commuter-oriented service operates between the North Main Station in Corona, Orange County, and Los Angeles.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-7 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE
3.7-3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY DAILY ROADWAY CAPACITIES Maximum Two-Way Traffic Volumes (ADT) Roadway Classification Number of Lanes Service Level C Service Level D Service Level E Collector
2 10,400 11,700 13,000 Secondary 4 20,700 23,300 25,900 Major 4 27,300 30,700 34,100 Mountain 2 12,900 14,500 16,100 Mountain 3 16,700 18,800 20,900 Mountain 4 29,800 33,500 37,200 Urban
4 28,700 32,300 35,900 Urban 6 43,100 48,500 53,900 Urban 8 57,400 64,600 71,800 Expressway 4 32,700 36,800 40,900 Expressway 6 49,000 55,200 61,300 Expressway 8 65,400 73,500 81,700
Freeway 4 61,200 68,900 76,500 Freeway 6 94,000 105,800 117,500 Freeway 8 128,400 144,500 160,500 Freeway 10 160,500 180,500 200,600 Ramp 1 16,000 18,000 20,000 SOURCE: Riverside County
General Plan-Figure C-3 TABLE 3.7-4 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR STUDY INTERSECTIONS (2007) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Control Status Delay (Sec) LOS Delay (Sec)
LOS 1. I -15 Southbound Ramps/Temecula Pkwy Signal 48.1 D 29.3 C 2. I-15 Northbound Ramps/Temecula Pkwy Signal 11.8 D 46.9 D 3. La Paz Road/Temecula Pkwy Signal 19.7 B 31.2 C 4. Pechanga
Parkway/Temecula Pkwy Signal 20.6 C 37.4 D 5. Rainbow Canyon Road/Pechanga Parkway Signal 13.6 B 21.2 C 6. Rainbow Canyon Road/Birdie Court OWSC 13.2 B 15.6 C 7. Rainbow Canyon Road/Bayhill
Drive OWSC 13.0 B 14.7 B 8. Old Highway 395/Rainbow Valley W Blvd. AWSC 11.7 B 16.4 C 9. I-15 Northbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W Blvd. OWSC 10.2 B 11.5 B 10. I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow
Valley W Blvd. OWSC 35.0 E 11.1 B OWSC-One Way Stop Controlled AWSC – All-Way Stop Controlled
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-8 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE
3.7-5 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR STUDY ROADWAYS (2007) Roadway Segment Roadway Classification Lanes ADT V/C LOS I-15 SR 76 to Stewart Cyn Rd (underpass) Freeway 8 133,200 0.83 D Stewart
Cyn Rd (underpass) to Mission Rd Freeway 8 142,300 0.89 D Mission Rd to Rainbow Glen Rd (overpass) Freeway 8 151,200 0.94 E Rainbow Glen Rd (overpass) to Rainbow Vly Blvd Freeway 8 141,100
0.88 D Rainbow Vly Blvd to County Line Freeway 8 140,600 0.88 D County Line to Temecula Pkwy South Freeway 8 140,600 0.88 D Temecula Pkwy S to Rancho California Rd Freeway 8 161,500
1.01 F Rancho California Rd to Temecula Pkwy N Freeway 8 173,500 1.08 F Temecula Pkwy Pechanga Parkway to La Paz Road Urban Arterial 6 65,700 1.22 F La Paz Road to I-15 Ramps Urban Arterial
6 79,900 1.48 F Pechanga Parkway Rainbow Canyon Rd to Temecula Pkwy Principal Arterial 4 4 43,300 1.20 F Rainbow Canyon Road Rainbow Valley W Blvd to Pechanga Parkway Collector 2 7,600
.58 A ADT-Average Daily Traffic V/C – Volume to Capacity Ratio TABLE 3.7-6 LEVEL OF SERVICE AT BUILD-OUT YEAR (2030) WITHOUT PROJECT Roadway Segment Roadway Classification Lanes ADT
V/C LOS I-15 SR 76 to Stewart Cyn Rd (underpass) Freeway 8 234,000 1.46 F Stewart Cyn Rd (underpass) to Mission Rd Freeway 8 234,000 1.46 F Mission Rd to Rainbow Glen Rd (overpass) Freeway
8 234,000 1.46 F Rainbow Glen Rd (overpass) to Rainbow Vly Blvd Freeway 8 234,000 1.46 F Rainbow Vly Blvd to County Line Freeway 8 234,000 1.46 F County Line to Temecula Pkwy South Freeway
8 207,900 1.30 F Temecula Pkwy S to Rancho California Rd Freeway 8 217,700 1.36 F Rancho California Rd to Temecula Pkwy N Freeway 8 246,600 1.54 F Temecula Pkwy Pechanga Parkway to La
Paz Road Urban Arterial 8 90,200 1.25 F La Paz Road to I-15 Ramps Urban Arterial 8 94,200 1.31 F Pechanga Parkway Rainbow Canyon Rd to Temecula Pkwy Principal Arterial 6 61,400 1.14
F Rainbow Canyon Road Rainbow Valley W Blvd to Pechanga Parkway Collector 2 13,400 1.03 F ADT-Average Daily Traffic V/C – Volume to Capacity Ratio
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-9 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Existing
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities The city of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element accommodates non-motorized modes of transportation through the provision of wide city streets
and shoulders along the designated street and highway system. The city of Temecula contains bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails that traverse urban, rural, and natural areas.
These trails accommodate hikers, bicyclists, equestrian users, and others as an integral part of the City's circulation system. These multi-use trails serve both as a means of connecting
communities and activity centers throughout the City and as an effective alternate mode of transportation. In addition to the multi-use trails, many of Temecula’s roadways are designed
to support bikeways of various types. Currently, there are no bicycle and pedestrian facilities providing access to the project site. 3.7.4. Regulatory Framework The city of Temecula
General Plan establishes Circulation Policies for proposed projects. The city of Temecula has established a citywide target of a LOS D or better at intersections within the city during
peak hours and LOS C or better during non-peak hours. The City of Temecula Ordinance 15.06 establishes development impact fees for public facilities. All public facilities development
impact fees paid and collected are to be used solely for the purpose of constructing, expanding or rehabilitating the public facilities specific in the resolution establishing the fee
and described in the City’s capital improvement plan. These fees or such Ordinance No. 15.06 fees in effect at the time will be required prior to the beginning of construction. To ensure
that area-wide traffic conditions do not worsen as development occurs, "fair share" mitigation fees have been adopted, which include the above referenced DIF and the Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The fees paid will be based on the current fees at the time of construction. 3.7.5. Design Considerations No specific design considerations have been
included as part of the proposed project. 3.7.6. Impacts and Mitigation Significance Criteria As the project study area includes intersections and roadways within the jurisdiction of
the city of Temecula, Riverside County, and San Diego County, significance criteria for all three jurisdictions were applied. These jurisdiction specific-criteria are only applied to
those facilities located within that jurisdiction. Therefore; city of Temecula significance criteria were applied to roadways within the city of Temecula, Riverside County thresholds
to Riverside County roadways, and San Diego County thresholds to San Diego County roadways.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-10 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 The
traffic study applies the a general threshold of significance related to traffic impacts, as defined by Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. According to this general threshold,
an impact related to transportation would be considered potentially significant if the proposed project would: • Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion
at intersections.). The specific criteria to determine if this general threshold is exceeded in the city of Temecula, Riverside County, or the city of San Diego are described below.
City of Temecula The city of Temecula has not formally adopted significance criteria or thresholds related to transportation impacts. However, the General Plan does establish an LOS
threshold for roadways and intersections which can be used to establish these thresholds. Therefore, a significant impact is determined on a roadway segment or intersection with the
addition of project traffic if: • For intersections and roadway segments, an LOS D or better that degrades to LOS E or worse as a result of project traffic is considered a significant
direct impact. • Where LOS is already at E or worse, a significant direct impact is identified if project traffic further reduces the LOS. • For features already operating at LOS F,
a significant direct impact is identified where project traffic increases intersection delay by 2 seconds or more or the V/C ratio by more than 2 percent (0.02.) • A cumulative impact
is identified as cumulatively considerable if the LOS is already at E or F and project traffic increases intersection delay by more than 2 seconds or the V/C ratio of a roadway segment
by more than 2 percent (0.02.) Within the study area, the following intersections fall within the jurisdiction of the city of Temecula and were evaluated using city of Temecula thresholds:
• I-15 Southbound Ramps/Temecula Pkwy • I-15 Northbound Ramps/Temecula Pkwy • La Paz Road/Temecula Pkwy • Pechanga Parkway/Temecula Pkwy • Rainbow Canyon Road/Pechanga Parkway • Rainbow
Canyon Road/Birdie Court • Rainbow Canyon Road/Bayhill Drive The following roadway segments fall within the jurisdiction of the city of Temecula and were evaluated using city of Temecula
significance criteria: • Temecula Pkwy, Pechanga Parkway to La Paz Road • Temecula Pkwy, La Paz Road to I-15 Ramps • Pechanga Parkway, Rainbow Canyon Road to Temecula Pkwy
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-11 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Riverside
County The Riverside County Traffic Study Guidelines (Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide, April 2008) states the following: • When existing traffic conditions exceed the General
Plan target LOS. • When project traffic, when added to existing traffic will deteriorate the LOS to below the target LOS, and impacts cannot be mitigated through project conditions of
approval. • When cumulative traffic exceeds the target LOS, and impacts cannot be mitigated through the TUMF network (or other funding mechanism), project conditions of approval, or
other implementation mechanisms. The LOS thresholds for Riverside County facilities are provided by the Riverside County General Plan, which includes the following language related to
the target LOS referenced in the guidelines as Policy C 2.1 which states the following: Maintain the following countywide target LOS: LOS "C" along all County maintained roads and conventional
state highways. As an exception, LOS "D" may be allowed in community development areas, only at intersections of any combination of secondary highways, major highways, urban, expressways,
conventional state highways or freeway ramp intersections. Within the study area, the following roadway segments were evaluated using significance thresholds from Riverside County: •
I-15, from County Line to Temecula Pkwy South • I-15, Temecula Pkwy South to Rancho California Road • I-15, Rancho California Road to Temecula Pkwy North • Rainbow Canyon Road, Rainbow
Valley W Blvd to Pechanga Parkway San Diego County Significance thresholds for San Diego County (see Table 3.7-7) are provided in the following documents: • County of San Diego Guidelines
for Determining Significance-Transportation and Traffic (2007) • County of San Diego Report Format and Content Requirements-Transportation and Traffic (2007) The following intersections
were evaluated using San Diego County significance thresholds: • I-15 Northbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley West Boulevard • I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley West Boulevard
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-12 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 The
following roadway segments were evaluated using San Diego County significance thresholds: • I-15, from SR 76 to Stewart Canyon Road (underpass) • I-15, from Stewart Canyon Road (underpass)
to Mission Road • I-15, from Mission Road to Rainbow Glen Road (overpass) • I-15, from Rainbow Glen Road (overpass) to Rainbow Valley Boulevard • I-15, from Rainbow Valley Boulevard
to County Line TABLE 3.7-7 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS Signalized Intersection – Non-Caltrans Locations Seconds of delay > 2.0 at LOS E >1.0 at LOS F Unsignalized Intersection
Increase in peak hour trips >20 peak hour trips on a critical movement at LOS E >5 peak hour trips on a critical movement at LOS F Roadway Segments ADT 100 ADT per lane at LOS E 50 ADT
per lane at LOS F Freeway Segment v/c ratio >0.01 at LOS E >0.01 at LOS F SOURCE: County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance-Transportation and Traffic (2007) and County
of San Diego Report Format and Content Requirements-Transportation and Traffic (2007) To determine how the project might increase traffic, the Traffic Study estimated the likely trip
generation associated with the proposed development, distributed those trips to study roadways and intersections, and determined whether these increases in traffic would cause any of
the study area intersections and roadways to exceed the various specific thresholds identified previously. Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic traveling
to and from the proposed project. Trip generation rates are based upon a publication titled "Trip Generation" by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Seventh Edition. Table
3.7-8, Trip Generation Rates shows the peak hour trip generation rates used on the proposed project. The peak hour rates are based on the average peak hour and daily generation rates
for the proposed project. The traffic generation figures determined for the project are based upon the development of 81 additional single family dwelling units (DU) within the project
area. Table 3.7-9, Project Trip Generation summarizes the daily and peak hour trip generation for the proposed project.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-13 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE
3.7-8 TRIP GENERATION RATES AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Unit of Measurement Total In Out Total In Out Daily Single Family Detached Land Use Category:210 DU .75 .19 .56 1.01 .64
.37 9.57 Average trip generation rates from Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. DU= Dwelling unit TABLE 3.7-9 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Unit of Measurement Quantity Total In Out Total In Out Daily Single Family Detached DU 81 60 15 45 82 52 30 775 Total 60 15 45 82 52 30 775 DU= Dwelling
unit As shown on Table 3.7-9, this project is estimated to generate approximately 775 new daily trips including 60 new trips during the AM peak hour and 82 new trips during the PM peak
hour. Trip Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to to and from the project site. Trip distribution is influenced by the geographical location
of the site, type of land use in the study area, such as shopping centers and recreational sites, and proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of traffic
for the proposed project was determined based upon the existing roadway system, existing traffic patterns, and the location of complementary uses. The directional distributions of the
proposed project are shown on Figure 3.7-2. Ambient Growth In order to evaluate traffic conditions for the project analysis year, area-wide growth on the existing roadways must be projected.
The majority of the anticipated growth within the study area is already accounted for by the inclusion of Cumulative Projects and their associated trips. However, it is possible that
there may be additional growth in traffic resulting from growth in through traffic in the I-15 corridor or growth from greater activity associated with existing projects. To account
for this this growth, an ambient growth rate was added to the existing counts. The use of a growth rate is consistent with other traffic studies completed in the city of Temecula and
Riverside County. Based on discussions with city of Temecula staff, a growth rate of two
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.7-2 Directional Distribution of Project Traffic SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, 2008 North Not to Scale
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-15 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 percent
per year was used. The anticipated completion year for this project is assumed to be 2015, which is eight years beyond the existing traffic levels. Therefore, the existing counts were
increased by 16 percent. Surrounding Projects Traffic from other projects within the study area is expected to have an impact on levels of service. The known projects within the project
vicinity are listed in Table 3.7-10, Cumulative Projects. Direct Project Impacts Analysis As shown on Table 3.7-9, above, this project is estimated to generate approximately 775 new
daily trips including 60 new trips during the AM peak hour and 82 new trips during the PM peak hour. Table 3.7-11, Intersection Level of Service – Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project
and Table 3.7-12, Roadway Level of Service – Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project, show the levels of service at study area roadways and intersections under existing conditions (as extrapolated
using the 2 percent ambient growth rate) with the proposed project. As shown in Table 3.7-11, three of the intersections would operate at LOS F with two of these locations in the city
of Temecula and one in San Diego County. Rainbow Canyon Road is the only roadway segment which operates better than LOS E. A majority of the roadway segments operate at LOS F. City of
Temecula-Intersection Impacts Seven of the ten study intersections are located within the city of Temecula. As such, these seven locations are evaluated using city of Temecula thresholds
and significance criteria. As indicated previously, a significant traffic impact in the city of Temecula occurs if any of the following conditions are met: • For intersections, an LOS
D or better that degrades to LOS E or worse as a result of project traffic is considered a significant direct impact. • Where LOS is already at E or worse, a significant direct impact
is identified if project traffic further reduces the LOS. • For features already operating at LOS F, a significant direct impact is identified where project traffic increases intersection
delay by 2 seconds. As shown in Tables 3.7-13 and 3.7-14, the additional project traffic does not create any significant traffic impacts according to these specific thresholds at the
seven intersections located in the city of Temecula. There are no LOS D locations where the addition of project trips causes the LOS to degrade to worse than LOS D. There are also no
LOS E intersections where the project trips cause the LOS to degrade to LOS F. Finally, there are no LOS F locations where the addition of project traffic increases the delay by more
than 2 seconds.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-16 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE
3.7-10 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Project/Location Type of Development Description AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily 1. Summerhouse -SW corner of Margarita Rd. and De Portola Rd. Mixed-Use The
Temecula Senior Care Facility includes a retirement community, congregate care and a medical office. 128 205 2,214 2. Temecula Creek Inn – W of I-15 Residential Temecula Creek Inn is
a 500 single-family home Subdivision adjacent to the Temecula Creek golf course. 375 505 4,785 3. Tentative Map 30180 (not built) -SE corner of Temecula Pkwy and Pechanga Parkway Mixed-Use
Tentative Tract Map 30180 includes commercial/retail uses located within the Creekside Plaza development. EZ Lube 12 21 160 Bank 49 183 986 4. Temecula Creek – W of I-15 Commercial Temecula
Creek includes a hotel and convention center. 29 46 515 5. Vail Ranch Towne Center -SE corner of SR 78 and Redhawk Pkwy Commercial The Vail Ranch Towne Center includes office and retail
uses. 432 488 6,036 6. Tentative Tract Map 29473 Residential Tentative Tract Map No. 29473 includes single family detached residential units. 182 245 2,326 7. Tentative Tract Map 29031
Residential Tentative Tract Map No. 29031 includes single family detached residential units. 96 129 1,225 8. Tentative Tract Map 30052 Residential Tentative Tract Map No. 30052 – includes
single-family detached residential units. 92 123 1,168 9. Pechanga Casino Expansion – SW of Temecula Pkwy/Pechanga Pkwy intersection Commercial Pechanga Casino Expansion includes an
expansion of the existing casino. 452 477 10,234 10. Margarita Canyon Mixed-use Margarita Canyon includes commercial/retail uses. 184 733 7,909 11. Rancho Community Church Institutional
Rancho Community Church includes a variety of land uses other than the church including
a private kindergarten– 8th grade school, a private high school, a preschool as well as 15 acres of of general retail/office (retail) uses. Middle School 94 61 660 High School 222 64
915 12. Wolf Creek Mixed-use Wolf Creek proposes singlefamily detached residential units and commercial development. Single Family Residential 373 473 4,739 Community Commercial 336
840 8,400 Neighborhood Commercial 384 960 9,600 13. Morgan Hill Mixed-use Morgan Hill includes single-family detached residential units, an Elementary school, and a park. 621 564 5,430
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-17 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE
3.7-10 (continued) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Project/Location Type of Development Description AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily 14. Tentative Tract Map 24188 Residential Tentative Tract Map
24188 includes 291 apartments. 196 265 2,507 15. Apis Plaza Commercial Apis Plaza includes commercial/retail, as well as a fast food restaurant, and a high turnover sit-down restaurant.
230 462 5,345 16. Paloma Del Sol Office Bldg. Professional Paloma Del Sol Office Building -includes 75,000 square feet of office space. 134 147 958 17. Park & Ride at Temecula Pkwy/La
Paz Rd. Public A 209 space Park & Ride facility is planned at the northeast corner of the Temecula Pkwy /La Paz intersection. 272 272 543 18. Temecula Lane 1 Residential Temecula Lane
I is a residential development with 96 single-family dwelling units and 332 multifamily dwelling units. 184 733 7,909 19. Roripaugh Ranch SPA Mixed-use The Roripaugh Ranch SPA is partly
constructed. 1,800 singlefamily dwelling units remain to be constructed in this project. 1,269 1,445 14,850 20. De Portola Meadows – E of Redhawk Pkwy Residential De Portola Meadows
is a residential development with 147 single-family dwelling units and 156 multi-family dwelling units. Single Family Residential 112 150 1,480 Multi-Family Residential 74 86 940 21.
St. Thomas of Canterbury – SE of Temecula Pkwy and Avenida de Missione Institutional St. Thomas of Canterbury is a church/preschool. This project includes a 30,473 square-foot building.
111 116 682 22. Hemmingway at Redhawk -SE of project site on Redhawk Pkwy Residential Hemmingway at Redhawk is a residential development with 108 single-family dwelling units. 85 115
1,100 23. Temecula Professional Bldg. (PA06-0329) -NE corner of Margarita Pkwy and De Portola Rd. Professional 33 92 254 24. Gateway Plaza -SE corner of Temecula Pkwy and Avenida De
Missione Commercial Gateway Plaza is a two-storied, 30,573 square-foot office development. 73 113 536 25. Redhawk Condos -SE of project site, off Redhawk Pkwy Residential Redhawk Condos
is a residential development with 97 multi-family dwelling units located at the Peach Tree Street /Deer Hollow Way intersection. 50 59 625 26. Stratford at Redhawk – Off of Redhawk Parkway
Residential Stratford at Redhawk is a residential development with 106 single family dwelling units. 84 115 1,120 27. Butterfield Station -SW corner of Temecula Pkwy and Butterfield
Stage Rd. Butterfield Station is a 7,300 square-foot retail development located off of Temecula Pkwy between Mahlon Vail and Butterfield Stage Road. 130 510 5,535
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-18 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE
3.7-10 (continued) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Project/Location Type of Development Description AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily 28. De Portola Professional Office -SW corner of Margarita Rd
and De Portola Rd. De Portola Professional Offices is a 38,501 square-foot office development. 87 120 640 29. Heritage Hotel -NW corner of Temecula Pkwy and La Paz St. Commercial Heritage
Hotel is a 142-room hotel development with a 5,500 square-foot restaurant. Hotel 79 84 1,160 Restaurant 5 45 540 30. Halcon de Rojo -NE corner of Temecula Pkwy and Jedediah Smith Rd.
Professional Halcon de Rojo is a 65,880 square-foot office development. 134 153 967 31. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility -N side of Temecula Pkwy, S of De Portola Rd. Institutional
566,160-square-foot Hospital Facility with 320-bed hospital, two medical office buildings, a special special cancer treatment facility, and a fitness rehabilitation center Temecula Hospital
Phase I Hospital 272 340 3,400 Medical Office 202 289 2,890 Temecula Hospital Phase II Hospital 240 300 3,000 Medical Office 152 217 2,170 Cancer Rehab Center 25 36 360 Rehab and Physical
Therapy 20 29 290 TOTAL 8,314 12,410 127,103 SOURCE: City of Temecula TABLE 3.7-11 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE – EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection
Traffic Control Status Delay (Secs.) LOS Delay (Secs.) LOS 1. I-15 Southbound Ramps/Temecula Pkwy Signal >80 F 58.0 D 2. I-15 Northbound Ramps/Temecula Pkwy Signal 18.1 B >80 F 3. La
Paz Road/Temecula Pkwy Signal 32.9 C 65.8 E 4. Pechanga Parkway/Temecula Pkwy Signal 27.5 C 66.7 E 5. Rainbow Canyon Road/Pechanga Parkway Signal 16.6 B 28.7 C 6. Rainbow Canyon Road/Birdie
Court OWSC 14.5 B 17.9 C 7. Rainbow Canyon Road/Bayhill Drive OWSC 14.8 B 17.0 C 8. Old Highway 395/Rainbow Valley W Blvd AWSC 14.8 B 26.9 D 9. I-15 Northbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W
Blvd OWSC 11.3 B 13.5 B 10. I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W Blvd OWSC >50 F 15.9 C AWSC – All-Way Stop Controlled OWSC – One Way Stop Control
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-19 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE
3.7-12 ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE – EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT Roadway Segment Roadway Classification Lanes ADT V/C LOS I-15 SR 76 to Stewart Cyn Rd (underpass) Freeway 8 154,900
0.97 E Stewart Cyn Rd (underpass) to Mission Rd. Freeway 8 165,500 1.03 F Mission Rd to Rainbow Glen Rd (overpass) Freeway 8 175,770 1.10 F Rainbow Glen Rd (overpass) to Rainbow Vly
Blvd Freeway 8 164,100 1.02 F Rainbow Vly Blvd to County Line Freeway 8 163,500 1.02 F County Line to Temecula Pkwy South Freeway 8 163,500 1.02 F Temecula Pkwy S to Rancho California
Rd Freeway 8 187,500 1.17 F Rancho California Rd to Temecula Pkwy N Freeway 8 201,600 1.26 F Temecula Pkwy Pechanga Parkway to La Paz Road Urban Arterial 6 76,300 1.41 F La Paz Road
to I-15 Ramps Urban Arterial 6 92,800 1.72 F Pechanga Parkway Rainbow Canyon Rd to Temecula Pkwy Principal Arterial 4 50,300 1.40 F Rainbow Canyon Road Rainbow Valley W Blvd to Pechanga
Parkway Collector 2 8,900 0.68 B ADT-Average Daily Traffic V/C – Volume to Capacity Ratio Riverside County-Intersection Impacts None of the study intersections are located in Riverside
County. Therefore, none of the intersections are evaluated using Riverside County LOS standards and thresholds. San Diego County-Intersection Impacts Impact 3.7-1: The addition of project
traffic adds more than 5 vehicles to a critical movement at the I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W Blvd intersection when the intersection operates at LOS F. Based on significance
criteria used by the County of San Diego, a significant impact occurs. There are three intersections which are located in San Diego County. All of these intersections operate as unsignalized
intersections. Therefore, a significant impact occurs if the project adds more than 20 peak hour trips on a critical movement at LOS E or more than 5 peak hour trips on a critical movement
at LOS F. Tables 3.7-13 and 3.7-14 also document the intersection operations of these facilities. As shown in this table, only the I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W Blvd intersection
operates at LOS E or LOS F. A significant impact occurs at this location since the project adds more than 5 vehicles to the critical movement at this location.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-20 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE
3.7-13 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACT UPON LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS (AM peak hour) Existing Existing + Ambient Existing + Ambient + Project AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour AM
Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Control Status Delay (secs) LOS Traffic Control Status Delay (secs) LOS Traffic Control Status Delay (secs) LOS Change in Delay (secs) or Addition al Trips
1. I -15 Southbound Ramps/Temecula Pkwy Signal 48.1 D Signal >80 F Signal >80 F 0.2 2. I-15 Northbound Ramps/Temecula Pkwy Signal 11.8 B Signal 17.8 B Signal 18.1 B 0.3 3. La Paz Road/Temecula
Pkwy Signal 19.7 B Signal 32.8 C Signal 32.9 C 0.1 4. Pechanga Parkway/Temecula Pkwy Signal 20.6 C Signal 27.4 C Signal 27.5 C 0.1 5. Rainbow Canyon Road/Pechanga Parkway Signal 13.6
B Signal 16.4 B Signal 16.6 B 0.2 6. Rainbow Canyon Road/Birdie Court OWSC 13.2 B OWSC 14.4 B OWSC 14.5 B 0.1 7. Rainbow Canyon Road/Bayhill Drive OWSC 13.0 B OWSC 14.7 B OWSC 14.8 B
0.1 8. Old Highway 395/Rainbow Valley W Blvd. AWSC 11.7 B AWSC 14.6 B AWSC 14.8 B N/A 9. I-15 Northbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W Blvd. OWSC 10.2 B OWSC 10.6 B OWSC 11.3 B N/A 10. I-15
Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W Blvd. OWSC 35.0 E OWSC >50 F OWSC >50 F >5 trips AWSC – All-Way Stop Controlled OWSC-One Way Stop Control Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: This impact can
be mitigated by installing stop signs on all approaches at this intersection. Although this mitigation measure, is technically (physically) feasible, implementation will require approval
of other agencies including Caltrans and San Diego County. Because the intersection is within the jurisdiction of San Diego County and because no improvement can be made without the
approval of
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-21 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE
3.7-14 PROJECT-RELATED IMPACT UPON LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS (PM peak hour) Existing Existing + Ambient Existing + Ambient + Project PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour PM
Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Control Status Delay (secs) LOS Traffic Control Status Delay (secs) LOS Traffic Control Status Delay (secs) LOS Change in Delay (secs) or Addition al Trips
1. I -15 Southbound Ramps/Temecula Pkwy Signal 29.3 C Signal 49.3 D Signal 58.0 D 8.7 2. I-15 Northbound Ramps/Temecula Pkwy Signal 46.9 D Signal >80 F Signal >80 F 0.4 3. La Paz Road/Temecula
Pkwy Signal 31.2 C Signal 65.4 E Signal 65.8 E 0.4 4. Pechanga Parkway/Temecula Pkwy Signal 37.4 D Signal 66.2 E Signal 66.7 E 0.5 5. Rainbow Canyon Road/Pechanga Parkway Signal 21.2
C Signal 28.4 C Signal 28.7 C 0.3 6. Rainbow Canyon Road/Birdie Court OWSC 15.6 C OWSC 17.7 C OWSC 17.9 C 0.2 7. Rainbow Canyon Road/Bayhill Drive OWSC 14.7 B OWSC 16.9 C OWSC 17.0 C
0.1 8. Old Highway 395/Rainbow Valley W Blvd. AWSC 16.4 C AWSC 25.7 D AWSC 26.9 D N/A 9. I-15 Northbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W Blvd. OWSC 11.5 B OWSC 12.6 B OWSC 13.5 B N/A 10. I-15
Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W Blvd. OWSC 11.1 B OWSC 11.7 B OWSC 15.9 C N/A AWSC – All-Way Stop Controlled OWSC-One Way Stop Control Caltrans, the City cannot ensure that the improvements
will mitigate the impact of the project on this intersection. Therefore, although the City will undertake all reasonable steps to coordinate with San Diego County and Caltrans to install
the improvements, the project's cumulative impacts on this intersection are significant and unavoidable.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-22 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Significance
after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. Table 3.7-15, Comparison of Volume to Capacity Ratio for Existing, Existing plus Ambient, and Existing plus Ambient plus Project, documents
the roadway segment operations for these scenarios. Impacts for facilities located in either the city of Temecula, Riverside County, and San Diego County are discussed below. TABLE 3.7-15
ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS FOR EXISTING, EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT, AND EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT PLUS PROJECT Existing Existing + Ambient Existing + Ambient + Project Roadway Segment Roadway
Classification Lanes V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Project Related Change To V/C I-15 SR 76 to Stewart Cyn Rd (underpass) Freeway 8 0.83 D 0.96 E 0.97 E 0.01 Stewart Cyn Rd (underpass) to
Mission Rd Freeway 8 0.89 D 1.03 F 1.03 F 0.00 Mission Rd to Rainbow Glen Rd (overpass) Freeway 8 0.94 E 1.09 F 1.10 F 0.01 Rainbow Glen Rd (overpass) to Rainbow Vly Blvd Freeway 8 0.88
D 1.02 F 1.02 F 0.00 Rainbow Vly Blvd to County Line Freeway 8 0.88 D 1.02 F 1.02 F 0.00 County Line to Temecula Pkwy South Freeway 8 0.88 D 1.02 F 1.02 F 0.00 Temecula Pkwy S to Rancho
California Rd Freeway 8 1.01 F 1.17 F 1.17 F 0.00 Rancho California Rd to Temecula Pkwy N Freeway 8 1.08 F 1.25 F 1.26 F 0.01 Temecula Pkwy Pechanga Parkway to La Paz Road Urban Arterial
6 1.22 F 1.41 F 1.41 F 0.00 La Paz Road to I-15 Ramps Urban Arterial 6 1.48 F 1.72 F 1.72 F 0.00 Pechanga Parkway Rainbow Canyon Rd to Temecula Pkwy Principal Arterial 4 1.20 F 1.39
F 1.40 F 0.01 Rainbow Canyon Road Rainbow Valley W Blvd to Pechanga Parkway Collector 2 .58 A 0.68 B .68 B 0.00 SOURCE: Fehr and Peers, 2008.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-23 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 City
of Temecula – Roadway Segment Impacts Three of the study area roadway segments are located in the city of Temecula including two sections of Temecula Pkwy and Pechanga Parkway. A significant
impact occurs at a roadway segment in the city of Temecula under one or more of the following conditions: • An LOS D condition or better that degrades to LOS E or worse as a result of
project traffic is considered a significant direct impact. • Where LOS is already at E or worse, a significant direct impact is identified if project traffic further reduces the LOS.
• For facilities already operating at LOS F, a significant direct impact is identified where project traffic increases the V/C ratio by more than 2 percent (0.02.) All of the city of
Temecula facilities are anticipated to operate at LOS F including both Temecula Pkwy and Pechanga Pechanga Parkway. The increase in V/C ratio is less than 0.02 at all locations. Therefore,
the impact at these locations is less than significant. Riverside County-Roadway Segment Impacts Four of the roadway segments are evaluated using Riverside County significance criteria.
These roadway segments include three sections of I-15 and Rainbow Canyon Road. According to Riverside County, a significant impact occurs on a roadway segment under one or more of the
following conditions: • When project traffic, when added to existing traffic will deteriorate the LOS to below the target LOS, and impacts cannot be mitigated through project conditions
of approval. As noted in Table 3.7-15, the addition of project traffic both to I-15 and Rainbow Canyon Road does not cause any of these roadway segments to deteriorate to below the target
LOS as there is no change in roadway LOS with the addition of project traffic. Therefore, the project impact as these locations is less than significant. San Diego County – Roadway Segment
Impacts Five roadway segments along I-15 are located within San Diego County and evaluated using County of San Diego Significance Criteria. According to these criteria, a significant
impact along a freeway segment in San Diego occurs if the addition of project traffic causes the V/C ratio to increase by more than 0.01 at LOS E or F. As noted in Table 3.7-15, the
increase in V/C ratio is equal to or less than 0.01 at all segments. Therefore, the project impact at these San Diego County locations is less than significant. 3.7.6.2 Cumulative Project
Impacts Analysis In addition to the project specific impacts to intersections and roadways, the traffic analysis also evaluated impacts during the Cumulative Scenario. This Cumulative
Scenario represents the
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-24 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 addition
of traffic from the Cumulative Projects (as described in Table 3.7-10) to the Existing Plus Ambient Scenario. Table 3.7-16, Intersection Level of Service – Cumulative, provides the projected
levels of service at the study intersections under cumulative plus ambient growth without and with projectgenerated traffic and without offsite improvements. TABLE 3.7-16 INTERSECTION
LEVEL OF SERVICE – CUMULATIVE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Without Project With Project Without Project With Project Intersection Traffic Control Status Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS
Project-Related Change in Delay Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Project-Related Change in Delay or Increase in Volume 1. I-15 Southbound Ramps/Temecula Pkwy Signal >80 F >80 F /a/>80
F >80 F /a/2. I-15 Northbound Ramps/Temecula Pkwy Signal >80 F >80 F /a/>80 F >80 F /a/3. La Paz Road/Temecula Pkwy Signal >80 F >80 F /a/>80 F >80 F /a/4. Pechanga Parkway/Temecula
Pkwy Signal >80 F >80 F /a/>80 F >80 F /a/5. Rainbow Canyon Road/Pechanga Parkway Signal >80 F >80 F /a/>80 F >80 F /a/6. Rainbow Canyon Road/Birdie Court OWSC 22.3 C 22.4 C 0.1 32.9
D 33.2 D 0.3 7. Rainbow Canyon Road/Bayhill Drive OWSC 32.3 D 32.8 D 0.5 27.0 D 27.2 D 0.2 8. Old Highway 395/Rainbow Valley W Blvd AWSC 17.1 C 17.4 C N/A 39.0 E 40.8 E <20 trips 9.
I-15 Northbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W Blvd OWSC 10.8 B 11.4 B N/A 13.5 B 14.7 B N/A 10. I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W Blvd OWSC >50 F >50 F >5 trips 13.2 B 17.8 C N/A a Project-Related
Change in Delay cannot be calculated due to overflow conditions. OWSC = One Way Stop Controlled AWSC = All-Way Stop Controlled City of Temecula – Intersection Impacts Seven of the ten
study intersections are located within the city of Temecula and are evaluated using city of Temecula thresholds and significance criteria. A cumulatively considerable traffic impact
in the city of Temecula occurs if the following condition is met:
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-25 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 • A
cumulative impact is identified as cumulatively considerable if the LOS is already at E or F and project traffic increases intersection delay by more than 2 seconds. As shown in Tables
3.7-16, there are five intersections which operate at LOS E or F. However, the increase in delay at these locations is less than 2 seconds; therefore, the Cumulative Impact at these
locations is less than significant. Riverside County – Intersection Impacts None of the study intersections are located in Riverside County. San Diego County – Intersection Impacts Impact
3.7-2: The addition of project traffic adds more than 5 vehicles to a critical movement at the I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W Blvd intersection when the intersection operates
at LOS F. Based on significance criteria used by the County of San Diego, a significant impact occurs. An impact was also identified in the Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Scenario.
There are three intersections which are located in San Diego County. All of these intersections operate as unsignalized intersections. Therefore, a significant impact occurs if the project
adds more than 20 peak hour trips on a critical movement at LOS E or more than 5 peak hour trips on a critical movement at LOS F. As shown in Table 3.7-16, there are two intersections
which are projected to operate at LOS E or F. At the Old Highway 395/Rainbow Valley West Blvd intersection, the project adds less than 20 trips to a critical movement at this intersection
and the impact is therefore less than significant. However, the intersection of I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley West Blvd is projected to operate at LOS F and the project adds more
than 5 trips to a critical movement at this intersection. Therefore, a significant impact at this intersection occurs under the Cumulative Scenario. Mitigation Measure 3.7-2: See Mitigation
Measure 3.7-1. Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. Table 3.7-17, Roadway Level of Service – Cumulative provides the projected levels of service at the study roadway
segments under existing plus ambient growth plus cumulative projects without and with project-generated traffic and without offsite improvements. City of Temecula-Roadway Segment Impacts
Three of the study area roadway segments are located in the city of Temecula including two sections of Temecula Pkwy and Pechanga Parkway. A cumulative roadway segment impact occurs
if the roadway LOS operates at LOS E or F without project traffic and the project traffic causes an increase in the V/C ratio of 0.02 or more.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-26 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE
3.7-17 ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE – CUMULATIVE Without Project With Project Roadway Segment Roadway Classification Lanes ADT V/C LOS V/C LOS Project Related Change to V/C I-15 SR 76 to
Stewart Cyn Rd (underpass) Freeway 8 176,900 1.10 F 1.10 F 0.00 Stewart Cyn Rd (underpass) to Mission Rd. Freeway 8 189,000 1.18 F 1.18 F 0.00 Mission Rd to Rainbow Glen Rd (overpass)
Freeway 8 199,240 1.24 F 1.24 F 0.00 Rainbow Glen Rd (overpass) to Rainbow Vly Blvd Freeway 8 186,100 1.16 F 1.16 F 0.00 Rainbow Vly Blvd to County Line Freeway 8 184,000 1.15 F 1.15
F 0.00 County Line to Temecula Pkwy South Freeway 8 184,000 1.15 F 1.15 F 0.00 Temecula Pkwy S to Rancho California Rd Freeway 8 212,500 1.32 F 1.33 F 0.00 Rancho California Rd to Temecula
Pkwy N Freeway 8 226,600 1.41 F 1.41 F 0.00 Temecula Pkwy Pechanga Parkway to La Paz Road Urban Arterial 6 120,200 2.23 F 2.23 F 0.00 La Paz Road to I-15 Ramps Urban Arterial 6 137,700
2.55 F 2.55 F 0.00 Pechanga Parkway Rainbow Canyon Rd to Temecula Pkwy Principal Arterial 4 79,100 2.03 F 2.20 F 0.00 Rainbow Canyon Road Rainbow Valley W Blvd to Pechanga Parkway Collector
2 14,500 1.12 F 1.12 F 0.00 ADT-Average Daily Traffic All of the city of Temecula facilities are anticipated to operate at LOS F including both Temecula Pkwy and Pechanga Parkway but
the increase in V/C ratio on these segments is less than 0.02. Therefore, the impact at these locations is less than significant. Riverside County – Roadway Segment Impacts Impact 3.7-3:
The project contributes traffic to several segments of I-15 within Riverside County which are projected to exceed the target LOS. All of these roadway segments are projected to operate
at LOS F with V/C ratios ranging from 1.15 to 1.41. These roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS F, regardless of whether project traffic uses this facility or not. This LOS
F conditions occurs not because of project trips but because of existing traffic travel on I-15, the projected growth in regional travel because of
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-27 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 development
outside of the city of Temecula, and the addition of traffic from Cumulative Projects. Impact 3.7-4: The project contributes traffic to Rainbow Canyon Road which is projected to exceed
the target LOS. This roadway segment is projected to operate at a V/C ratio of 1.12 which is indicative of LOS F operations. Four of the roadway segments are evaluated using Riverside
County significance criteria. These roadway segments include three sections of I-15 and Rainbow Canyon Road. According to Riverside County, a significant impact occurs in the cumulative
scenario on a roadway segment if the following condition is met: • When cumulative traffic exceeds the target LOS, and impacts cannot be mitigated through the TUMF network (or other
funding mechanism), project conditions of approval, or other implementation mechanisms. As shown in Table 3.7-17, all of the Riverside County roadway segments are projected to operate
at LOS F, which exceeds the target LOS. For the segments of I-15, it is projected that these segments would operate substantially above the anticipated capacity with V/C ratios ranging
from 1.15 to 1.41. According to available information, I-15 is not planned to be widened at this time. As this roadway segment exceeds the target LOS and no mitigation is available,
a significant impact would occur on the segments of I-15 located in Riverside County. Additionally, Rainbow Canyon Road is projected to also operate at LOS F. While the Riverside County
General Plan anticipates that this roadway could be widened to four lanes, it is unknown at this time whether this roadway widening would be completed in a timely fashion. Additionally,
this roadway is not included in the regional TUMF, which further indicates that this widening is unlikely to occur within the timeframe of the Cumulative Scenario. Based on these indications,
it it can be concluded that there would be significant impacts at these locations. Mitigation Measure 3.7-3: Based on our review of available documents, no plans currently exist to widen
I-15, which would be required to improve operations. Therefore, it would not be feasible to mitigate the project impacts on the segments of I-15. Additionally, if there were feasible
mitigation measures, they would require the concurrence of both Caltrans and Riverside County to be implemented. As such, the city of Temecula would not be able to guarantee the implementation
of any mitigation measures, even if any mitigation measures were feasible. Given the above considerations, we can conclude that the necessary mitigation measures are not feasible and
are outside the jurisdiction of the city of Temecula, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure
3.7-4: The Riverside County General Plan anticipates that Rainbow Canyon Road would be widened from two to four lanes at some point in the future with the Build-out of the Riverside
County General Plan land uses. With this widening the roadway
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-28 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 would
operate at an acceptable LOS. As this widening is anticipated to occur by the Riverside County General Plan, it can be considered to be a feasible mitigation measure. There are several
barriers to the timely implementation of this mitigation measure; however. First, this improvement is not funded by the regional traffic fee program (TUMF) and there does not appear
to be available funding for this improvement based on our review of available documents. While the project could make a contribution to the widening of this improvement, there is no
guarantee that the contribution would ensure the timely implementation of the widening. In addition, this improvement would be implemented by Riverside County instead of the city of
Temecula. As such, the city of Temecula would not be able to guarantee that this mitigation measure is implemented in a timely fashion. Given the above considerations, we can conclude
that this widening is feasible but outside the jurisdiction of the city of Temecula and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Significance after Mitigation: Significant
and unavoidable. San Diego County – Roadway Segment Impacts Five roadway segments along I-15 are located within San Diego County and evaluated using County of San Diego Significance
Criteria. According to these criteria, a significant impact along a freeway segment in San Diego occurs if the addition of project traffic causes the V/C ratio to increase by more than
0.01 at LOS E or F. As noted in Table 3.7-17, the increase in V/C ratio is equal to or less than 0.01 at all segments. Therefore, the project impact at these San Diego County locations
is less than significant. 3.7.6.3 Project Impacts at General Plan Build-out Analysis Table 3.7-18, Roadway Level of Service at Build-out (2030) with Project, provides the projected levels
of service at the study intersections with the Build-out of the Temecula General Plan with project conditions. All of the roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS F. City of
Temecula – Roadway Segment Impacts Three of the study area roadway segments are located in the city of Temecula including two sections
of Temecula Pkwy and Pechanga Parkway. An impact would occur during the Genera Plan Build-out Scenario if the roadway operates at LOS E or F without project traffic and the project traffic
causes an increase in the V/C ratio of 0.02 or more. All of the city of Temecula facilities are anticipated to operate at LOS F including both Temecula Pkwy and Pechanga Parkway but
the increase in V/C ratio on these segments is less than 0.02, as shown in Table 3.7-18. Therefore, the impact at these locations is less than significant.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-29 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE
3.7-18 ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE AT BUILD-OUT (2030) WITH PROJECT Without Project With Project Roadway Segment Roadway Classification Lanes V/C LOS V/C LOS Project Related Change to V/C
I-15 SR 76 to Stewart Cyn Rd (underpass) Freeway 8 1.46 F 1.46 F 0.00 Stewart Cyn Rd (underpass) to Mission Rd. Freeway 8 1.46 F 1.46 F 0.00 Mission Rd to Rainbow Glen Rd (overpass)
Freeway 8 1.46 F 1.46 F 0.00 Rainbow Glen Rd (overpass) to Rainbow Vly Blvd Freeway 8 1.46 F 1.46 F 0.00 Rainbow Vly Blvd to County Line Freeway 8 1.46 F 1.46 F 0.00 County Line to Temecula
Pkwy South Freeway 8 1.34 F 1.34 F 0.00 Temecula Pkwy S to Rancho California Rd Freeway 8 1.36 F 1.36 F 0.00 Rancho California Rd to Temecula Pkwy N Freeway 8 1.54 F 1.54 F 0.00 Temecula
Pkwy Pechanga Parkway to La Paz Road Urban Arterial 8 1.25 F 1.25 F 0.00 La Paz Road to I-15 Ramps Urban Arterial 8 1.31 F 1.31 F 0.00 Pechanga Parkway Rainbow Canyon Rd to Temecula
Pkwy Principal Arterial 6 1.14 F 1.14 F 0.00 Rainbow Canyon Road Rainbow Valley W Blvd to Pechanga Parkway Collector 2 1.03 F 1.03 F 0.00 ADT-Average Daily Traffic V/C – Volume to Capacity
Ratio Riverside County – Roadway Segment Impacts Impact 3.7-5: The project contributes traffic to several segments of I-15 within Riverside County which are projected to exceed the target
LOS. All of these roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS F with V/C ratios ranging from 1.03 to 1.54. Impact 3.7-6: The project contributes traffic to Rainbow Canyon Road which
is projected to exceed the target LOS. This roadway segment is projected to operate at a V/C ratio of 1.12 which is indicative of LOS F operations. Four of the roadway segments are evaluated
using Riverside County significance criteria including three sections of I-15 and Rainbow Canyon Road. According to Riverside County, a significant impact occurs during this Build-Build-out
Scenario if the following condition is met:
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-30 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 • When
cumulative traffic exceeds the target LOS, and impacts cannot be mitigated through the TUMF network (or other funding mechanism), project conditions of approval, or other implementation
mechanisms. As shown in Table 3.7-18, all of the Riverside County roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS F, which exceeds the target LOS. For the segments of I-15, it is projected
that these segments would operate substantially above the anticipated capacity with V/C ratios ranging from 1.30 to 1.54. The V/C ratio on Rainbow Canyon Road would be 1.03. The analysis
of Cumulative Scenario impacts also identified these impacts previously. Mitigation Measure 3.7-5: See Mitigation Measure 3.7-4. Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-6: See Mitigation Measure 3.7-5. Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. San Diego County – Roadway Segment Impacts Five roadway segments along
I-15 are located within San Diego County and evaluated using County of San Diego Significance Criteria. According to these criteria, a significant impact along a freeway segment in San
Diego occurs if the addition of project traffic causes the V/C ratio to increase by more than 0.01 at LOS E or F. As noted in Table 3.7-18, the increase in V/C ratio is equal to or less
than 0.01 at all segments. Therefore, the project impact at these San Diego County locations is less than significant. 3.7.7. Summary of Environmental Effects after Mitigation Measures
Are Implemented The traffic analysis notes that intersections and roadway segments within the study area would operate at a deficient LOS including locations within the city of Temecula,
Riverside County, and San Diego County. Within the study area, impacts were noted at the following intersections or roadway segments: • I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley West West
Blvd intersection • I-15 (Riverside County) from County boundary to Temecula Pkwy N roadway segment • Rainbow Canyon Road roadway segment The traffic analysis concluded that there are
feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the impact at the intersection of I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley West Blvd. This mitigation measure
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-31 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 would
require the installation of an all-way stop at this location. However, as this intersection is found outside of the jurisdiction of the city of Temecula, the city of Temecula can not
guarantee that this mitigation would be implemented in a timely fashion and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, there are no feasible mitigation measures for
any project impacts related to I-15 for those segments within Riverside County. Even if they were to be feasible mitigation measures, implementing any mitigation measures by the city
of Temecula would require the concurrence of outside agencies such as Riverside County and Caltrans. Since there are no feasible mitigation measures and improvements to the freeway are
outside of the jurisdiction of the city of Temecula, the impacts to I-15 within Riverside County remain significant and unavoidable. The traffic analysis also concluded that there is
a feasible improvement that would mitigate the project impact along Rainbow Canyon Road. This improvement would entail the widening of the roadway, which is anticipated by the Riverside
County General Plan. However, our review of available documentation indicates that this project is not including in the regional traffic fee project (TUMF) and no funding has been allocated
for this project at this time. Additionally, this improvement is outside of the city of Temecula and the City would be unable to assure its completion. Therefore, the impact would remain
significant and unavoidable. References In addition to other reference documents, the following references were used in the preparation of this section of the EIR: City of Temecula,
Temecula General Plan, April 2005. (Available at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, or on the Internet January 10, 2008 at www.cityoftemecula.org/o
rg/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm) County of Riverside, General Plan, Adopted October 7, 2003. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department,
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200, or on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/index.html) County of Riverside, Southwest Area Plan,
October 7, 2003. (Available at County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200, or on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at http://www.rctlma.org/generalp
lan/ap1/swap.html) County of Riverside, Geographic Information System Database, (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA
92501, 951-955-3200, or on the Internet on February 8, 2008, at http://www3.tlma.co.riverside. ca.us/pa/rclis/index.html) Riverside Transit Agency, Internet Site. (Available for review
on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at www.riversidetransit.com) Southern California California Regional Rail Authority, Internet Site. (Available for review on the Internet on February
8, 2008 at http://www.metrolinktrains.com/)
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.7-32 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Fehr
and Peers Transportation Consultants, Traffic Impact Study Report, Santa Margarita Area Annexation, City of Temecula, CA, Riverside County, September 2008. (This report is contained
in its entirety in Appendix C of this document.)
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-1 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 3.8 Noise 3.8.1 Introduction This
section provides an overview of the existing noise environment at the proposed project site and surrounding area, the regulatory framework, an analysis of potential noise impacts that
would result from implementation of the proposed project, and mitigation measures where appropriate. 3.8.2 Setting Noise Principles and Descriptors Noise is defined as unwanted sound.
Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) which is measured in decibels (dB), with zero dB corresponding roughly
to the threshold of human hearing, and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain. Pressure waves traveling through air exert a force registered by the human ear as sound.
Sound pressure fluctuations can be measured in units of hertz (Hz), which correspond to the frequency of of a particular sound. Typically, sound does not consist of a single frequency,
but rather a broad band of frequencies varying in levels of magnitude (sound power). When all the audible frequencies of a sound are measured, a sound spectrum is plotted consisting
of a range of frequency spanning 20 to 20,000 Hz. The sound pressure level, therefore, constitutes the additive force exerted by a sound corresponding to the sound frequency/sound power
level spectrum. The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured
using an electronic filter that de-emphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hz and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ears decreased sensitivity to low and extremely
high frequencies instead of the frequency mid-range. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as Aweighting and is expressed in units of A-weighted decibels (dBA). Frequency
A-weighting follows follows an international standard methodology of frequency de-emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements. Some representative noise sources
and their corresponding A-weighted noise levels are shown in Figure 3.8-1. Noise Exposure and Community Noise An individual’s noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time.
A noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. The noise levels presented in Figure 3.8-1 are representative of measured noise at a given instant in time; however, they
rarely persist consistently over a long period of time. Rather, community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the contributing sound sources of the community
noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure, with the individual contributors
unidentifiable. The background noise level changes throughout a typical day, but does so gradually, corresponding corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources
such as traffic and atmospheric conditions.
110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rock Band Inside Subway Train (New York) Food Blender at 3 Ft. Garbage Disposal at 3 Ft. Shouting at 3 Ft. Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Ft. Quiet Rural Nighttime
LETTERS OF PROTEST COMPLAINTS LIKELY COMPLAINTS POSSIBLE COMPLAINTS RARE ACCEPTANCE 4 Times As Loud Twice As Loud REFERENCE 1/2 As Loud 1/4 As Loud LOCAL COMMITTEE ACTIVITY WITH INFLUENTIAL
OR LEGAL ACTION Concert Hall (Background) Broadcast and Recording Studio Threshold of Hearing Jet Flyover at 1000 Ft. Gas Lawn Mower at 3 Ft. Diesel Truck at 50 Ft. Noisy Urban Daytime
Gas Lawn Mower at 100 Ft. Commercial Area Heavy Traffic at 300 Ft. Quiet Urban Daytime Quiet Suburban Nighttime Conference Room (Background) Dishwasher Next Room Large Business Office
Small Theater, Large Library Quiet Urban Nighttime PUBLIC REACTION NOISE LEVEL (dBA, L ) COMMON INDOOR NOISE LEVELS COMMON OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS eq Figure 3.8-1 Effects of Noise on People
SOURCE: ESA, 2008. City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area . 208485
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-3 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 What makes community
noise constantly variable throughout a day, besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short duration single event noise sources (e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor
vehicles, sirens), which are readily identifiable to the individual. These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment varies the community noise level from instant
to instant requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts. This time-varying
characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise descriptors. The most frequently used noise descriptors are summarized below: Leq: The equivalent sound level
is used to describe noise over a specified period of time, typically one hour, in terms of a single numerical value. The Leq is the constant sound level which would contain the same
acoustic energy as the varying sound level, during the same time period (i.e., the average noise exposure level for the given time period). Lmax: The instantaneous maximum noise level
for a specified period of time. L50: The noise level that is equaled or exceeded 50 percent of the specified time period. The L50 represents the median sound level. L90: The noise level
that is equaled or exceeded 90 percent of the specified time period. The L90 is sometimes used to represent the background sound level. DNL: Also termed Ldn, the DNL is the 24-hour day
and night A-weighted noise exposure level, which accounts for the greater sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise by weighting noise levels at night (“penalizing” nighttime noises).
Noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is weighted (penalized) by adding 10 dBA to take into account the greater annoyance of nighttime noises. CNEL: Similar to the DNL the Community
Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) adds a 5-dBA “penalty” for the evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., in addition to a 10-dBA penalty between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m. As a general rule, in areas where the noise environment is dominated by traffic, the Leq during the peak-hour is generally equivalent to the DNL at that location (Caltrans, 1998).
Effects of Noise on People The effects of noise on people can be placed into three categories: • Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction; • Interference with activities
such as speech, sleep, learning; and • Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling. Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers
in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or the corresponding reactions of
annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists, and different different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past
experiences with noise.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-4 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Thus, an important way
of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so called “ambient noise” level. In general,
the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A-weighted
noise level, the following relationships occur: • Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change
is considered a just-perceivable difference; • A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and • A 10-dBA change
is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause adverse response. These These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and
the decibel system. The human ear perceives sound in a non-linear fashion; hence the decibel scale was developed. Because the decibel scale is based on logarithms, two noise sources
do not combine in a simple additive fashion, rather logarithmically. For example, if two identical noise sources produce noise levels of 50 dBA the combined sound level would be 53 dBA,
not 100 dBA. Noise Attenuation Stationary point sources of noise, including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles, attenuate (lessen) at a rate between 6 dBA for hard sites
and 7.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement. Hard sites are those with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver such as parking
lots or smooth bodies of water. No excess ground attenuation is assumed for hard sites and the changes in noise levels with distance (the drop-off rate) is simply the geometric spreading
of the noise from the source. Soft sites have an absorptive ground surface such as soft dirt, grass or scattered bushes and trees. In addition to geometric spreading, an excess ground
attenuation value of 1.5 dBA (per doubling distance) is normally assumed for soft sites. Line sources (such as traffic noise from vehicles) attenuate at a rate of between 3 dBA for hard
sites and 4.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement (Caltrans, 1998). Fundamentals of Vibration As described in the Federal Transit Administration’s
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, 2006), ground-borne vibration can be a serious concern for nearby neighbors of a transit system route or maintenance facility, causing
buildings to shake and rumbling sounds to be heard. In contrast to airborne noise, ground-borne vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual for vibration from sources
such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. Some common sources of ground-borne vibration are trains, buses on rough roads, and construction activities
such as blasting, pile-driving and operating heavy earth-moving equipment. There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is
defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-5 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 frequently used to describe
vibration impacts to buildings. The root mean square (RMS) amplitude is most frequently used to describe the affect of vibration on the human body. The RMS amplitude is defined as the
average of the squared amplitude of the signal. Decibel notation (Vdb) is commonly used to measure RMS. The decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe
vibration. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by manmade activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receptors for vibration include
structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly and sick), and vibration sensitive equipment. The effects of ground-borne vibration include
movement of the building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on on walls, and rumbling sounds. In extreme cases, the vibration can cause damage to buildings.
Building damage is not a factor for most projects, with the occasional exception of blasting and pile-driving during construction. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration
exceeds the threshold of perception by only a small margin. A vibration level that causes annoyance will be well below the damage threshold for normal buildings. The FTA measure of the
threshold of architectural damage for conventional sensitive structures is 0.2 in/sec PPV and the FTA threshold of human annoyance to ground-borne vibration is 80 RMS (FTA, 2006). 3.8.3
Methodology Noise impacts are assessed based on a comparative analysis of the noise levels resulting from the project and the noise levels under existing conditions. Analysis of temporary
construction noise effects is based on typical construction phases and equipment noise levels and attenuation of those noise levels due to distances, and any barriers between the construction
activity and the sensitive receptors near the sources of construction noise. Reference noise levels and attenuation for operational equipment, as well as the use of the Federal Highway
Administration’s Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) to find how much noise the proposed project would contribute to the area due to an increase in traffic volumes
along local roadways, were used to analyze operational noise impacts. Vibration from construction is evaluated for potential impacts at sensitive receptors. Typical activities evaluated
for potential building damage due to construction vibration include demolition, pile driving, and drilling or excavation in close proximity to structures. The ground-borne vibration
is also evaluated for perception to eliminate annoyance. Vibration propagates according to the following expression, based on point sources with normal propagation conditions: PPVequip
= PPVref x (25/D)1.5 Where PPV (equip) is the peak particle velocity in inches per second of the equipment adjusted for distance, PPV (ref) is the reference vibration level in inches
per second at 25 feet, and D is the distance from the equipment to the receiver. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration and is often
used in monitoring vibration because it is related to the stresses experienced by structures.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-6 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 To determine the potential
for annoyance, the RMS vibration level (Lv) at any distance (D) is estimated based on the following equation: Lv(D) = Lv(25 ft) – 30log(D/25) 3.8.4 Regulatory Framework Federal Federal
regulations establish noise limits for medium and heavy trucks (more than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle weight rating) under 40 CFR, Part 205, Subpart B. The federal truck pass-by noise standard
is 80 dBA at 15 meters from the vehicle pathway centerline. These controls are implemented through regulatory controls on truck manufacturers. State The State has guidelines for evaluating
the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure, as shown in Figure 3.8-2 below. The State of California also establishes noise limits for vehicles licensed
to operate on public roads. For heavy trucks, the state pass-by standard is consistent with the federal limit of 80 dB. The state pass-by standard for light trucks and passenger cars
(less than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle rating) is also 80 dBA at 15 meters from the centerline. These standards are implemented through controls on vehicle manufacturers and by legal sanction
of vehicle operators by state and local law enforcement officials. The state has also established noise insulation standards for new multi-family residential units, hotels, and motels
that would be subject to relatively high levels of transportation-related noise. These requirements are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24, CCR).
The noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of DNL 45 dBA in any habitable room. They require an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed
to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than DNL 60 dBA. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions
through the building permit application process. Local City of Temecula General Plan Noise The following sections of the Temecula General Plan are relevant to the proposed project: Goal
1: Separate significant noise generators from sensitive receptors. Policy 1.1: Discourage noise sensitive land uses in noisy exterior environments unless measures can be implemented
to reduce exterior and interior noise to acceptable levels. Alternatively, encourage less sensitive uses in areas adjacent to major noise generators but require sound –appropriate interior
working environment. Policy 1.2: Limit the hours of construction activity next to residential areas to reduce noise intrusion in the early morning, late evening, weekends and holidays.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-7 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE
-Ldn or CNEL (dBA) LAND USE CATEGORY 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential – Low Density Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Home Residential – Multi-Family Transient Lodging – Motel/Hotel Schools,
Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditorium, Concert Hall, Amphitheaters Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks Golf Courses, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business, Commercial and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture Normally Acceptable Specified land use is satisfactory,
based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable New construction
or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional
construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable New construction or development should be discouraged.
If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly
Unacceptable New construction or development generally should not be undertaken. City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation /208485 SOURCE: State of California, Governor’s Office
of Planning and Research, 1998. General Plan Guidelines. Figure 3.8-2 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-8 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Policy 1.3: Use information
from the noise contour map in the General Plan in the development review process to prevent location of sensitive land uses near major stationary noise sources. Goal 2: Minimize transfer
of noise impacts between adjacent land uses. Policy 2.1: Limit the maximum permitted noise levels crossing property lines and impacting adjacent land uses. Policy 2.2: Establish criteria
for placement and operation of stationary outdoor equipment. Policy 2.3: Require that mixed use structures and areas be designed to prevent transfer of noise and vibration from commercial
areas to residential areas. Goal 3: Minimize the impact of noise levels throughout the community through land use planning. Policy 3.1: Enforce and maintain acceptable noise limit standards.
Policy 3.2: Work with the County of Riverside and the city of Murrieta to minimize or avoid land use/noise conflicts prior to project approvals. Policy 3.3: Encourage the creative use
of site and building design techniques as a means to minimize noise impacts. Policy 3.4: Evaluate potential noise conflicts for individual
sites and projects, and require mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of project approval. Goal 4: Minimize impacts from transportation noise sources. Policy 4.1:
Minimize noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation network, and mitigate sound levels where necessary or feasible to ensure the peace and quiet of the community. Policy 4.2:
Ensure the effective enforcement of City, State and Federal noise impacts from vehicles, particularly in residential areas. Policy 4.3: Enforce the speed limit on arterials and local
roads to reduce noise impacts from vehicles, particularly in residential areas. Policy 4.4: Coordinate with Caltrans to ensure the inclusion of noise mitigation measures in the design
of new highways or improvement projects in the Planning Area. Policy 4.5: Participate in the planning and impact assessment activities of the County Airport Land Use Commission and other
regional or State agencies relative to any proposed expansion of the airport or change in flight patterns.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-9 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 City of Temecula Municipal
Code The following sections of the Temecula Municipal Code are relevant to the proposed project: 9.20.040 General Sound Level Standards No person shall create any sound, or allow the
creation of any sound, on any property that causes the exterior sound level on any other occupied property to exceed the sound level standards set forth in Table 3.8-1. TABLE 3.8-1 TEMECULA
LAND USE /NOISE STANDARDS Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Type of Use Land Use Designation Interior Exterior Medium 45 65/70a Residential High 45 70a
Neighborhood, Service, etc --70 Commercial and Office Professional Office 50 70 Light Industrial Industrial Park 55 75 Schools 50 65 Public/Industrial All others 50 70 Vineyards/Agriculture
--70 Open Space Open Space --70/65b a Maximum exterior noise level up to 70 dB CNEL are allowed for multiple-family housing. b Where quiet is a basis required for the land use. c Regarding
aircraft-related noise, the maximum acceptable exposure for new residential development is 60 dB CNEL. SOURCE: City of Temecula, October 2007. 9.20.060 Special Sound Sources Standards
No person shall engage in or conduct construction activity, when the construction site is within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence, between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m.,
Monday through Friday, and shall only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be
undertaken on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. The City council may, by formal action, exempt projects from the provisions of this chapter. 9.20.030 Exemptions Sound emanating
from highway motor vehicles are exempt from the provisions of chapter 9.20 Noise Section of the municipal code. San Diego County Code EC. 36.404. Sound Level Limits Unless a variance
has been applied for and granted, it shall be unlawful for any person to cause or allow the creation of any noise to the extent that the one-hour average sound level, at any point on
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-10 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 or beyond the boundaries
of the property on which the sound is produced, exceeds the applicable limits set forth below in Table 3.8-2. TABLE 3.8-2 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO NOISE STANDARDS Zone Time Applicable one
hour sound (dBA) Limit Average Level Area of less than 11 dwelling units per acre 7 am to 10 pm 10 pm to 7 am 50 45 Area of 11 or more dwelling units per acre 7 am to 10 pm 10 pm to
7 am 55 50 All other commercial zones 7 am to 10 pm 10 pm to 7 am 60 55 Manufacturing and industrial anytime 70 Industrial anytime 75 SOURCE: San Diego County Code. If the measured ambient
level exceeds the applicable limit noted above, the allowable one hour average sound level shall be the ambient noise level. The ambient noise level shall be measured when the alleged
noise violation source is not operating. The sound level limit at a location on a boundary between two (2) zoning districts is the arithmetic mean of the respective limits for the two
districts; provided however, that the one-hour average sound level limit applicable to extractive industries, including but not limited to borrow pits and mines, shall be 75 decibels
at the property line regardless of the zone where the extractive industry is actually located. EC. 36.410. Construction Equipment It shall be unlawful for any person to operate construction
equipment between the hours of 7 p.m. of any day and 7 a.m. of the following day. It shall also be unlawful for any person to operate construction equipment on Sundays, and days appointed
by the President, Governor, or the Board of Supervisors for a public fast, Thanksgiving, or holiday, but a person may operate construction equipment on the abovespecified days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. at his residence or for the purpose of constructing a residence for himself, provided that the average sound level does not exceed 75 decibels during
the period of operation and that the operation of construction equipment is not carried out for profit or livelihood. It shall also be unlawful to operate any construction equipment
so as to cause at or beyond the property line of any property upon which a legal dwelling unit is located an average sound level greater than 75 decibels between the hours of 7 a.m.
and 7 p.m.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-11 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Minor Maintenance to
Residential Property is exempt. The provisions of Section 36.404 shall not apply to noise sources associated with minor maintenance to property used either in part or in whole for residential
purposes provided said activities take place between the hours 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. on any day except Sunday, or between the hours of 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. on Sunday. 3.8.5 Existing Noise
Environment The noise environment surrounding the proposed project site is influenced primarily by traffic on local roads. Noise levels away from roadways can be quite low depending
on the amount of nearby human activity. A Metrosonics Model db3080 sound level meter was used to measure the existing ambient noise levels at various locations on the proposed project
site. The meter was calibrated to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. Short-term noise level measurements were taken at ten locations around the proposed project site. The noise
measurement results are presented below in Table 3.8-3 and the locations are depicted in Figure 3.8-3. Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise
levels than others because of the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. Residences,
hotels, schools, rest homes, and hospitals are generally more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial land uses. There are six occupied dwelling units within the project area;
two are occasionally used by SDSU researchers. The nearest sensitive receptor to the eastern hillside residential area in the proposed general plan is across I-15 a half mile in San
Diego County. The middle portion of hillside residential is located 240 feet to the north of its nearest sensitive receptor located in San Diego County. The nearest sensitive receptor
to the western hillside residential area in the proposed general plan is 0.7 miles south in San Diego County. Sensitive land uses also occur throughout the SMER due to SDSU biological
resources, student research projects and ongoing research projects at various scientific research stations. SDSU conducts several field classes through the SDSU extension program which
occur within the SMER. A real-time sensor network has been established within the SMER that includes climate stations, hydrographic stations, and several real-time cameras. Specifically,
students have the ability to view real-time sensor network data from state-of-the-art global change technology and meteorological instruments at field stations located within the SMER
while sitting in their campus classroom. These real-time data networks, available to researchers and students, are located throughout the SMER. The networks compile information related
to weather and atmospheric data while also comparing with data from ongoing biological monitoring programs, including surveys of insects, birds, amphibians, and small mammals. Additionally,
collaborating researchers from UC San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography have added sensors to tower instruments that add data for seismological and watershed modeling to the
databases within the SMER. As such, ongoing research, field classes, real-time monitoring activities are all highly-sensitive to air and noise impacts, as well as ground vibrations.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-12 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.8-3 EXISTING
NOISE ENVIRONMENTS AT PROJECT LOCATION Location Time Period Leq (dBA) Noise Sources Short-term Measurement 1: Measurement was taken at north gate of ecological reserve at the end of
Via Tornado. 08/25/08 2:05 – 2:10 p.m. 5-minute Leq 53 dBA Helicopter: 61 dBA Wind <42 dBA Short-term Measurement 2: Measurement was taken at the end of Calle Pintoresca. 08/25/08 2:29
– 2:34 p.m. 5-minute Leq 48 dBA Plane in distance >42 dBA Wind: 56 dBA Short-term Measurement 3: Measurement was taken at end of Via Yerba. 08/25/08 2:41 – 2:46 p.m. 5-minute Leq 47
dBA Helicopter : 44 dBA Wind <42 dBA Short-term Measurement 4: Measurement was taken at end of Via De Los Robles. 08/25/08 3:00 – 3:05 p.m. 5-minute Leq 45 dBA Idling truck: 48 dBA Wind
<42 dBA Birds: 47 dBA Short-term Measurement 5: Measurement was taken at end of Calle Liva 08/25/08 3:20 20 – 3:25 p.m. 5-minute Leq 59 dBA Car: 72 dBA Wind: 66 dBA No wind: 43 dBA Short-term
Measurement 6: Measurement was taken at end of El Viento Seico 08/25/08 3:37 – 3:42 p.m. 5-minute Leq 53 dBA Paper: 61 dBA Pump: 46 dBA Short-term Measurement 7: Measurement was taken
at end of Rock Mountain. 08/25/08 3:53 – 3:58 p.m. 5-minute Leq 44 dBA Plane: 46 dBA Wind: 47 dBA Short-term Measurement 8: Measurement was taken at the south gate of ecological reserve
at the end of North Stagecoach Lane. 08/25/08 5:00 – 5:05 p.m. 5-minute Leq 44 dBA Birds: 44 dBA Wind <42 dBA Short-term Measurement 9: Measurement was taken at the corner of Stagecoach
Lane and Gena Road. 08/25/08 5:22 – 5:27 p.m. 5-minute Leq 44 dBA Birds <42 dBA Wind <42 dBA Short-term Measurement 10: Measurement was taken at the corner of Stagecoach Lane and Willow
Glenn Road. 08/25/08 5:34 – 5:39 p.m. 5-minute Leq 48 dBA Birds <42 dBA Car : 66 dBA SOURCE: ESA, 2008.
ST-6 ST-8 ST-9 ST-5 ST-4 ST-3 ST-2 ST-1 ST-10 ST-7 City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area . 208485 Figure 3.8-3 Noise Measurement Locations SOURCE: GlobeXplorer; ESA, 2008. 0 4,000 Feet
Project Boundary Short Term LEGEND ST-#
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-14 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 3.8.6 Impacts and Mitigation
Significance Criteria Based on the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant effect on the environment with respect to noise and/or ground-borne vibration if it
would result in: • Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies; • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (for
a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport); • Exposure of people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip); or • Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground-borne
vibration or ground-borne noise levels. The following analysis discusses the first three and sixth criteria; the fourth and fifth are not discussed because the site lies outside a two-mile
radius of a public airport or private airstrip. Some guidance as to the significance of changes in ambient noise levels is provided by the 1992 findings of the Federal Interagency Committee
on Noise (FICON), which assessed the annoyance effects of changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations. The recommendations are based upon studies that relate aircraft
noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. Annoyance is a summary measure of the general adverse reaction of people to noise that generates speech interference,
sleep disturbance, or interference with the desire for a tranquil environment. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, it has
been asserted that they are applicable to all sources of noise described in terms of cumulative noise exposure metrics such as the Ldn, as shown in Table 3.8-4. TABLE 3.8-4 MEASURES
OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE FOR NOISE EXPOSURE Ambient Noise Level without Project (Ldn) Significant Impact Assumed to Occur if the Project Increases Ambient Noise Levels By: <60 dB + 5.0
dB or more 60-65 dB + 3.0 dB or more >65 dB + 1.5 dB or more SOURCE: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), 1992.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-15 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 The rationale for the
Table 3.8-4 criteria is that, as ambient noise levels increase, a small increase in decibel levels is sufficient to cause significant annoyance. The quieter the ambient noise level is,
the more the noise can increase (in decibels) before it causes significant annoyance. Construction Noise Noise impacts from short-term construction activities could exceed noise thresholds
and could result in a significant construction noise impact if short-term construction activity occurred outside of the daytime hours permitted by the City’s noise ordinance or County
of San Diego noise standards. However, project construction would be temporary in duration and only occur in short intervals (i.e., as long as the particular piece of construction machinery
is running). See Impact 3.8-1 below for this analysis Stationary Noise A resulting off-site noise level at residences from stationary non-transportation sources that exceed an exterior
maximum of 65 dBA CNEL or an interior maximum of 45 dBA CNEL in the City or a daytime noise level of 50 dBA Leq and a nighttime noise level of 45 dBA Leq in The County of San Diego,
would result in a significant noise impact. See Impact 3.8-3 below for this analysis. Traffic Noise As described in Table 3.8-4 above, the proposed project would result in a significant
traffic noise impact if mobile noise would result in increased noise levels of 1.5 dBA Ldn or more in an ambient noise environment greater than 65 dBA Ldn; or increased noise of 3 dBA
Ldn or more in an ambient noise environment between 60 and 65 dBA Ldn; or increased noise of 5 dBA Ldn or more in an ambient environment of less than 60 dBA Ldn. The FICON thresholds
are representative of noise increases that could adversely affect sensitive receptors along the roadway. Although an increase in noise may be significant based on the thresholds, if
there are no sensitive receptors along the roadway and thus no receptors that would be adversely impacted, then the noise would be deemed less than significant. See Impact 3.8-4 below
for this analysis. Vibration Noise The project would result in a significant vibration impact if buildings or sensitive research equipment located on the SMER would be exposed to the
FTA building damage ground-borne vibration threshold level of 0.2 PPV or if sensitive individuals would be exposed to the FTA human annoyance response ground-borne vibration threshold
level of 80 RMS. See Impact 3.8-2. Impact Analysis Impact 3.8-1: Project construction could expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of the applicable City of Temecula of
County of San Diego noise standards. Construction activity noise levels at and near the construction areas would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of uses
of various pieces of construction equipment. Construction-related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and
types of vehicles used. In addition, certain types of
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-16 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 construction equipment
could generate impulsive noises (such as pile driving and blasting), which can be particularly annoying. Table 3.8-5 shows typical noise levels during different construction stages.
Table 3.8-6 shows typical noise levels produced by various types of construction equipment. TABLE 3.8-5 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Construction Phase Noise Level (dBA, Leq)a Ground
Clearing Excavation Foundations Erection Finishing 84 89 78 85 89 a Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given
phase of construction and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase. SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations,
Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971. TABLE 3.8-6 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Construction Equipment Noise Level (dBA, Leq at 50 feet ) Dump Truck Portable
Air Compressor Concrete Mixer (Truck) Scraper Jack Hammer Dozer Paver Generator Pile Driver Backhoe Blasting 88 81 85 88 88 87 89 76 101 85 115 SOURCE: Cunniff, Environmental Noise Pollution,
1977. Except for rock blasting; rock blasting data provided by the National Park Service. Noise from construction activities generally attenuates at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling
distance. Based on the proposed project site layout and terrain, an attenuation of 7.5 dBA will be assumed. A total of 81 single-family dwelling units is considered a worst case scenario,
as the actual development of these dwelling units is heavily constrained by numerous environmental and physical design constraints including: topography; domestic water supply; wastewater
disposal; dry utilities; primary and secondary access; land-locked parcels; geotechnical considerations; onsite fire department water storage requirements (120,000 gallons per per dwelling)
and emergency access requirements; sensitive habitat and species issues; and MSHCP conservation requirements.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-17 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 It is considered highly
unlikely that any residential parcel could meet these development requirements on an individual basis. On-site Residences Pre-existing homes on the project site could experience construction
noise approximately as close as 200 feet (worst case) , due to the new hillside residential land use and the required setbacks. Average home separation would probably be 500 to 1,000
feet apart and would prohibit mass grading and wholesale vegetation clearing for agricultural purposes. Also, a reasonable phasing assumption would entail development of 5 homes per
year, which would require 16 years to construct all 81 single-family dwelling units allowed under the proposed planning applications. Table 3.8-5 states that excavation is 89 dBA at
50 feet, and if attenuated out to 200 feet, the residence would experience noise levels of approximately 74 dBA Leq during finishing and excavation. However the loudest of construction
activities that could occur would be pile driving and blasting. Pile driving is a short term noise event that is 101 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated out to 200 feet, the residence
would experience noise levels of approximately 86 dBA. In a worst case scenario, blasting could be used during construction of a residence. If this were to occur, residences at 200 feet
would experience noise levels of approximately 100 dBA. Subsequent exposure to construction noise by individual residences could be lessened over time due to attenuation of noise by
project structures built in the interim. Construction noise at these levels would be substantially greater than existing noise levels. These construction noise levels, especially if
they were to occur during the nighttime hours when people are sleeping, would be potentially significant. The City noise ordinance states that no person shall conduct construction activity
when the site is within one-quarter mile from an occupied residence between the hours of 6:30 pm and 6:30 am Monday through Friday, and shall only conduct construction between the hours
of 7:00 am and 6:30 pm on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. Daytime construction is commonly exempt from noise
ordinances because background noise is typically louder during the day than at night, and sleep disturbance is typically considered to be a nighttime impact. However, even daytime noise
levels from construction can exceed daytime ambient levels and be a substantial annoyance to nearby residential units. Mitigation measures 3.8-1a through 3.8-1f would reduce nighttime
and daytime construction noise levels. Off-Site Residences The nearest off-site sensitive receptor is located 240 feet south of the middle portion of proposed general plan hillside residential
area in San Diego County. Due to required setbacks, construction of the nearest new residence could occur approximately as close as 440 feet from this off-site receptor (worst case).
Table 3.4-6 states that excavation is 89 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated out to 440 feet, the residence would experience noise levels of approximately 64 dBA Leq during finishing and
excavation. However the loudest of construction activities that could occur would be pile driving and blasting. Pile driving is a short term noise event that is 101 dBA at 50 feet, and
if attenuated out to 440 feet, the residence would experience noise levels of approximately 77 dBA. In a worst case scenario, blasting could be used during construction of a residence.
If this were to occur, residences at 440 feet would experience noise levels of approximately 91 dBA. Subsequent
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-18 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 exposure to construction
noise by individual residences could be lessened over time due to attenuation of noise by project structures built in the interim. In San Diego County it is unlawful for construction
to take place between the hours of 7:00 pm and 7:00 am on Sundays or legal holidays. Construction is allowed between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm as long as noise levels at the property line
of a legal dwelling unit do not exceed a 75 dBA average. Pile driving would be approximately 77 dBA and blasting would be approximately 91 dBA, but both would only be intermittent and
not occur for an average of an hour. Therefore construction noise levels at nearby residences in San Diego County are less than significant. Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve Site The
SMER itself is considered a sensitive land use. On a daily basis, numerous ongoing research projects take place within the SMER area. The area is used to study southern California ecosystems.
The reserve maintains classrooms and laboratories, and databases which are all considered sensitive receptors to noise impacts. Sensitive research projects and biological resources on
the SMER site could experience construction noise approximately as close as 200 feet (worst case), due to the new hillside residential land use and the required setbacks. Table 3.8-5
states that excavation is 89 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated out to 200 feet, the SMER site would experience noise levels of approximately 74 dBA Leq during finishing and excavation.
However the loudest of construction activities that could occur would be pile driving and blasting. Pile driving is a short term noise event that is 101 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated
out to 200 feet, the sensitive land uses at the SMER site would experience noise levels of approximately 86 dBA. In a worst case scenario, blasting could be used during construction
of a residence. If this were to occur, sensitive land uses at the SMER site at 200 feet would experience noise levels of approximately 100 dBA. Subsequent exposure to construction noise
by could be lessened over time due to attenuation of noise by project structures built in the interim. Construction noise at these levels would be substantially greater than existing
noise levels. The noise levels from construction would exceed daytime ambient levels and could interfere with sensitive research projects on the SMER site. Mitigation measures 3.8-1a
through 3.8-1f would reduce nighttime and daytime construction noise levels. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1a: The applicant shall ensure, as specified in the San Diego County Code, and the
City noise ordinance, that no construction may occur during the following hours: A. 6:30 pm – 7:00 am, Monday through Saturday. B. At any time on Sunday or any legal holiday. Mitigation
Measure 3.8-1b: The applicant shall ensure that all construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers. mufflers. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1c: The applicant shall ensure that
all construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-19 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Mitigation Measure 3.8-1d:
The applicant shall ensure that all signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include permitted construction days and hours, a contact number for the job site, and a contact
number for the City Building and Safety Department project manager, in the event daytime noise exceeds 65dBA at the exterior of the existing residences or at the SMER site. In that event
the City shall have the right to require limiting the number of noisy pieces of equipment used at one time so that the noise level is reduced to the permissible level. Mitigation Measure
3.8-1e: Implement “quiet” pile-driving technology (such as predrilling of piles and the use of more than one pile driver to shorten the total pile driving duration), where feasible,
in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions. Mitigation Measure 3.8-1f: A blasting plan for construction must be prepared and followed that includes the
following: 1) The Blasting Plan must meet the approval of the appropriate City department with jurisdiction over the project and blasting. 2) Primary components of the Blasting Plan
shall include: a) Identification of blast officer; b) Scaled drawings of blast locations, and neighboring buildings, streets, or other locations which could be inhabited; c) Blasting
notification procedures, lead times, and list of those notified. Public notification to potentially affected vibration receptors describing the expected extent and duration of the blasting;
d) Description of means for transportation and on-site storage and security of explosives in accordance with local, state and federal regulations; e) Minimum acceptable weather conditions
for blasting and safety provisions for potential stray current (if electric detonation); f) Traffic control standards and traffic safety measures (if applicable); g) Require personal
protective equipment; h) Minimum standoff distances and description of blast impact zones and procedures for clearing and controlling access to blast danger; i) Procedures for handling,
setting, wiring,
and firing explosives. Also procedures for handling misfires per Federal code; j) Type and quantity of explosives and description of detonation device. Sequence and schedule of blasting
rounds, including general method of excavation, lift heights, etc.; k) Methods of matting or covering of blast area to prevent flyrock and excessive air blast pressure; l) Description
of blast vibration and air blast monitoring programs; m) Dust control measures in compliance with applicable air pollution control regulations (to interface with general construction
dust control plan);
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-20 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 n) Emergency Action
Plan to provide emergency telephone numbers and directions to medical facilities. Procedures for action in the event of injury; o) Material Safety Data Sheets for each explosive or other
hazardous materials to be used; p) Evidence of licensing, experience, and qualifications of blasters; and q) Description of insurance for the blasting work. 3) A Blast Survey Workplan
shall be prepared by the blaster. The Plan shall establish vibration limits in order to protect structures from blasting activities and identify specific monitoring points. At a minimum,
a pre-blast survey shall be conducted of any potentially affected structures and underground utilities within 500 feet of a blast area, as well as the nearest commercial or residential
structure, prior to blasting. 4) The survey shall include visual inspection of the structures, documentation of structures by means of photographs, video, and a level survey of the ground
floor of structures or the crown of major and critical utility lines, and these shall be submitted to the City. This documentation shall be reviewed with the individual owners prior
to any blasting operations. The City and impacted property owners will be notified at least 48 hours prior to the visual inspections. 5) Vibration and settlement threshold criteria (for
example peak particle velocity of 0.5 inches per second) shall be submitted by the blaster to the City for review and approval during the design process. If the settlement or vibration
criteria are exceeded at any time or if damage is observed at any of the structures or utilities, then blasting shall immediately cease and the City immediately notified. The stability
of segmental retaining walls, existing slopes, creek canals, etc. shall be monitored and any evidence of instability due to blasting operations shall result in immediate termination
of blasting. blasting. The blaster shall modify the blasting procedures or use alternative means of excavating in order to reduce the vibrations to below the threshold values, prevent
further settlement, slope instability, and prevent further damage. 6) Air blast overpressure limits and monitoring shall be conducted at the property line closest to the blast and at
other above ground structures identified in the Plan for vibration monitoring. Air blast overpressure limits shall be in accordance with applicable law and shall be established to prevent
damage to adjacent properties, new construction, and to prevent injuries to persons on-site and off-site. 7) Prior to full-scale production blasting, the blaster shall conduct a series
of test blasts at the sites where blasting is to occur. The tests shall start with reduced charge weights and shall increase incrementally to that of a full-scale production round. Monitoring
shall be conducted as described in the Plan. 8) Post-construction monitoring of structures to identify ((and repair if necessary) all damage, if any, from blasting vibrations. Any damage
shall documented by photograph, video, etc. This documentation shall be reviewed with the individual property owners. 9) Reports of the results of the blast monitoring shall be provided
to the City, the local fire department, and owners of any buried utilities on or adjacent to the site within 24 hours following blasting. Reports documenting damage, excessive vibrations,
etc. shall be provided to the City and impacted property owners.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-21 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Significance after Mitigation:
Although the above mitigation measures would reduce the impact to less than significant, construction sites are noisy locations with heavy equipment and blasting that could substantially
affect noise levels at nearby residences and the SMER site. Such impacts could last a substantial time before the complaint system would be used to reduce the impact. Therefore, construction
noise could at times be a short-term significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project. Impact 3.8-2: Construction activities associated with the project would not result in
exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive levels of ground-borne vibration. As shown in Table 3.8-7, use of heavy equipment for project construction generates vibration levels of
up to 0.644 PPV or 104 RMS (impact pile driver) at a distance of 25 feet. The nearest on-site residential sensitive receptor and SMER research area would be approximately 200 feet from
infrequent pile driving activity and could experience vibration levels of approximately 0.03 PPV and 77 RMS. The nearest off-site sensitive receptor would be approximately 440 feet from
infrequent pile driving activity and could experience vibration levels of approximately 0.01 PPV and 67 RMS. Vibration levels at these receptors would not exceed the potential building
damage threshold of 0.2 PPV or the annoyance threshold of 80 RMS. For comparison, a person walking on the ground or floor of a structure will often generate motion exceeding 0.15 PPV
and normal temperature and humidity changes create much higher strains in building materials (Revey, 2003). Other sensitive receptors in the project vicinity would be exposed to vibration
levels at incrementally lower levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1e (“quiet pile-driving”) and 3.8-1f (“Blasting Plan”) would also reduce potential vibration from construction
activities. No additional mitigation would be required. TABLE 3.8-7 VIBRATION VELOCITIES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment/Activity PPV at 25 ft (inches/second)a RMS at 25 ft (Vdb)b
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87 Large Bulldozer 0.089 87 Loaded Trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Impact Pile Driver 0.644 104 a Buildings can be exposed to ground-borne vibration levels
of 0.2 PPV without experiencing structural damage. b The human annoyance response level is 80 RMS. SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,
May 2006. Mitigation: None required. Impact 3.8-3: Traffic associated with operation of the project would not result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels on nearby roadways.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-22 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Most of the noise generated
by the implementation of the project would primarily be trafficgenerated noise. The proposed project would contribute to an increase in local traffic volumes, resulting in higher noise
levels along local roadways. Using a spreadsheet based upon algorithms from the FHWA-RD-77-108 and the project traffic study provided by Fher & Peers, traffic noise levels were analyzed
for 12 roadway segments. The segments analyzed and results of the modeling are shown in Tables 3.8-8 and 3.8-9. The cumulative scenario is discussed further in Impact 3.8-4. TABLE 3.8-8
EXISTING PM PEAK-HOUR NOISE LEVELS ALONG SELECTED ROADWAYS Weekday Noise Levels (Leq)a Modeled Roadway Segment Existing Existing + Project Incremental Increaseb Significant (Yes/No)c
La Paz St north of Temecula Pkwy 65 65 0 No La Paz St south of Temecula Pkwy 56 57 1 No Temecula Pkwy east of La Paz St 73 73 0 No Temecula Pkwy west of La Paz St 73 73 0 No Pechanga
Pkwy south of Temecula Pkwy 71 71 0 No Temecula Pkwy east of Pechanga Pkwy 71 72 1 No Temecula Pkwy west of Pechanga Pkwy 73 73 0 No Rainbow Canyon Rd south of Pechanga Pkwy 66 66 0
No Pechanga Pkwy east of Rainbow Canyon Rd 71 71 0 No Pechanga Pkwy south of Rainbow Canyon Rd 71 71 0 No a Noise levels are estimated at a distance of 50 feet from roadway centerline.
Data based on weekday peak hour Leq is approximately equal to the Ldn under normal traffic conditions (Caltrans, 1998). b The numbers from existing were subtracted from existing plus
project to show the incremental increase. c Considered significant if the incremental increase in noise is greater than 5 dBA Leq in a noise environment of 60 dBA Ldn or less, an increase
of 3 dBA Leq in a noise environment greater than 60 dBA and 65 dBA Ldn, or an increase of 1.5 dBA Leq in a noise environment greater than 65 dBA Ldn. SOURCE: Fher and Peers, 2008; ESA,
2008.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-23 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 3.8-9 FUTURE PM
PEAK-HOUR NOISE LEVELS ALONG SELECTED ROADWAYS Weekday Noise Levels (Leq)a Modeled Roadway Segment Existing + Ambient Growth Existing + Ambient Growth + Project Incremental Increase
b Significant (Yes/No)c La Paz St north of Temecula Pkwy 66 66 0 No La Paz St south of Temecula Pkwy 56 56 0 No Temecula Pkwy east of La Paz St 73 73 0 No Temecula Pkwy west of La Paz
St 73 73 0 No Pechanga Pkwy south of Temecula Pkwy 72 72 0 No Temecula Pkwy east of Pechanga Pkwy 72 72 0 No Temecula Pkwy west of Pechanga Pkwy 74 74 0 No Rainbow Canyon Rd south of
Pechanga Pkwy 66 66 0 No Pechanga Pkwy east of Rainbow Canyon Rd 71 71 0 No Pechanga Pkwy south of Rainbow Canyon Rd 71 71 0 No a Noise levels are estimated at a distance of 50 feet
from roadway centerline. Data based on weekday peak hour Leq is approximately equal to the Ldn under normal normal traffic conditions (Caltrans, 1998). b The numbers from existing plus
ambient growth were subtracted from existing plus ambient growth plus project to show the incremental increase. c Considered significant if the incremental increase in noise is greater
than 5 dBA Leq in a noise environment of 60 dBA Ldn or less, an increase of 3 dBA Leq in a noise environment greater than 60 dBA and 65 dBA Ldn, or an increase of 1.5 dBA Leq in a noise
environment greater than 65 dBA Ldn. SOURCE: Fehr and Peers, 2008; ESA, 2008. As depicted in Tables 3.8-8 and 3.8-9, no roadway segments would result in a significant increase in traffic
noise from the proposed project versus the existing scenario, and the existing plus ambient growth plus project versus the existing plus ambient growth scenario. Therefore, traffic noise
associated with the proposed project would be less than significant, and compatible with SMER sensitive land uses. Mitigation: None required.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-24 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Impact 3.8-4: Increases
in traffic from the project in combination with other development would not result in cumulatively considerable noise increases. There are 31 development projects currently in the planning
process located in the vicinity of the project (see Figure 5-2, Location of Other Projects within Project Vicinity in Chapter 5). When considered alone, the proposed project would generate
noise mainly by adding more traffic to the area. Many of the other anticipated projects would contribute to noise in the area due to increased traffic volumes as well. Table 3.8-10 shows
the future cumulative traffic noise with the project compared to the existing plus ambient growth plus cumulative without the project traffic noise scenario. As depicted in Table 3.8-10,
traffic noise associated with cumulative development would not result in any roadway roadway segments with significant cumulative impacts. Therefore, cumulative traffic noise associated
with the proposed project would be less than significant, and compatible with SMER sensitive land uses. TABLE 3.8-10 CUMULATIVE FUTURE PM PEAK-HOUR NOISE LEVELS ALONG SELECTED ROADWAYS
Weekday Noise Levels (Leq)a Modeled Roadway Segment Existing + Ambient Growth + Cumulative Projects Existing + Ambient Growth + Cumulative Projects + Project Incremental Increase b Significant
(Yes/No)c La Paz St north of Temecula Pkwy 67 67 0 No La Paz St south of Temecula Pkwy 56 56 0 No Temecula Pkwy east of La Paz St 76 76 0 No Temecula Pkwy west of La Paz St 76 76 0 No
Pechanga Pkwy south of Temecula Pkwy 74 74 0 No Temecula Pkwy east of Pechanga Pkwy 74 74 0 No Temecula Pkwy west of Pechanga Pkwy 76 76 0 No Rainbow Canyon Rd south of Pechanga Pkwy
68 68 0 No Pechanga Pkwy east of Rainbow Canyon Rd 74 74 0 No Pechanga Pkwy south of Rainbow Canyon Rd 74 74 0 No a Noise levels are estimated at a distance of 50 feet from roadway centerline.
Data based on weekday peak hour Leq is approximately equal to the Ldn under normal traffic conditions (Caltrans, 1998). b The numbers from existing plus ambient growth plus cumulative
projects were subtracted from existing plus ambient growth plus cumulative projects plus project to show the incremental increase. c Considered significant if the incremental increase
in noise is greater than 5 dBA Leq in a noise environment of 60 dBA Ldn or less, an increase of 3 dBA Leq in a noise environment greater than 60 dBA and 65 dBA Ldn, or an increase of
1.5 dBA Leq in a noise environment greater than 65 dBA Ldn. SOURCE: Fehr and Peers, 2008; ESA, 2008.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Noise City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.8-25 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Mitigation: None required.
References California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement, 1998. Cunnif, Patrick, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. City of Temecula, Municipal Code,
October 2007. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, Effects of Aviation Noise of Awakenings from Sleep, 1992. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,
2006. Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants, Traffic Impact Study Report, Santa Margarita Area Annexation, City of Temecula, CA, Riverside County, September 2008. (This report is
contained in its entirety in Appendix C of this document.) Revey, Gordon F. Blasting Impacts Assessment for Proposed Idaho-Maryland Mine, 2003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971. San Diego County, San Diego County Code, current though July 25 2008
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.9-1 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 3.9 Recreation 3.9.1 Introduction
It was determined in the revised NOP prepared for this project (Appendix A), that the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks such that
substantial deterioration of the facility would occur, or require construction or the expansion of additional recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment. However, because the proposed project includes annexation of an unincorporated area into the City, it was determined that this issue would be addressed in this EIR. 3.9.2
Setting General Setting According to the city of Temecula General Plan, the City owns 38 parks with a total area of approximately 309 acres and about 117,000 square feet of recreational
and cultural facilities. These Recreational and cultural facilities include the following: • Recreation center with an outdoor amphitheater, gymnasium and swimming pool • Community center
• Senior center • History museum • Chapel • Children’s museum • Community performing arts theater • Library The City owns 38 public parks that are divided into three park types. Specialty
parks cater to one or two types of activities such as skating at the Temecula Skate Park. Neighborhood parks are intended to provide for the daily recreational needs of residents in
the immediate area of the park. Sports parks are larger parks that support multiple activities. The largest sports park in Temecula is the Ronald Reagan Sports Park, which has an area
of 63 acres. Locations of these parks and facilities are shown on Figure 3.9-1 (for descriptions see Figure 3.9-2). The City has a joint-use agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified
School District which allows the City to light and utilize school facilities. These facilities are generally open to the public during non-school hours, weekends and vacations and as
such are considered adjuncts to the citywide park system. The following school sites are presently joint-use facilities: • Temecula Middle School (Lighted baseball, football and soccer
fields) • Temecula Elementary School (Pool) • Temecula Valley High School (Lighted tennis courts)
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.9-1 Parks and Recreational Facilities SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan North Not to Scale
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 3.9-2 Parks and Recreational Facilities Descriptions for Figure 3.9-1 SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 Recreation City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.9-4 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 • Chaparral High
School (Pool) • Vail Ranch Middle School (Lighted basketball courts) • James L. Day Middle School (Baseball fields) Private recreation facilities are found primarily in planned communities
and multi-family complexes. These facilities can include pools, spas; tennis and basketball courts. These private recreational amenities help meet the demand for parks and recreational
facilities within the community. Several commercial recreation facilities, including three golf courses, are located within the City. These facilities include the Temecula Creek Inn
Golf Resort, Temeku Hills Golf Course and the Redhawk Golf Club. The City completed a Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. The purpose of this document is to provide a planning
tool for future trails and bike lanes. Two public workshops were held and a trails and bikeways needs survey mailed to all households. Residents expressed a strong desire for well-defined
trails that link with regional routes and connect neighborhoods to parks, schools and commercial areas. Temecula residents can also enjoy the 600-acre Lake Skinner Regional Park, located
several miles east of Temecula. The park offers overnight camping, fishing, swimming, sailing, picnicking, and other activities. Additional regional recreation facilities include the
Cleveland National Forest to the southeast of the City. The U.S. Forest Service is responsible for the longterm management of recreation activities, vegetation, water and air quality,
wilderness resources, fire safety, historical and cultural resources, and land use within forest boundaries. Demand for the types of activities and experiences offered in the Cleveland
National Forest is strong. Project Setting The project site consists of approximately 4,997 acres of publicly and privately owned primarily undeveloped land, most of which is undisturbed
natural open space within the SMER. The SMER, established in 1962, provides protected sites for research and education of southern California ecosystems. The reserve maintains classrooms
and laboratories, and databases. Access to the reserve is by permission only. The majority of the area is comprised of steep hills with scattered outcroppings of granite boulders, sloping
in a southwesterly direction with elevations ranging from approximately 530 feet to 2,330 feet above mean sea level. Within the lower reaches of the project area is the Santa Margarita
River which flows year round and is fed by the many seasonal drainages in the surrounding hills. Within the entire 4,997-acre project area there are only six occupied dwelling units
with two dwelling units occasionally used by the SDSU Field Station Program to house researchers. The SMER is a key part of preserving the entire Santa Margarita River, one of the last
freeflowing rivers in coastal southern California, and its rich ecosystem. The Santa Margarita River officially begins northeast of the project site, at the confluence of Temecula Creek
and Murrieta Creek at the Temecula city limits. The River flows through the Temecula Gorge and ultimately
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 Recreation City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.9-5 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 empties into the
Ocean through the largely undisturbed lands of Camp Pendleton. The upper watershed of the Santa Margarita River is thus the combined watersheds of Temecula and Murrieta Creeks. Within
the project area 4,284 acres have a Riverside County General Plan Land Use designation of OS-CH while the remaining 713 acres are designated RM. The OS-CH designation applies to public
and private lands conserved and managed in accordance with adopted MSHCP and other conservation plans. The RM designation is for single-family residential uses with a minimum lot size
of 10 acres. Within this designation there is an allowance for limited animal keeping, agriculture, recreational uses, compatible resource development (which may include the commercial
extraction of mineral resources with approval of a surface mining permit) and associated uses and governmental uses. Currently, most of the project area is zoned R-R which allows a minimum
lot size of 0.5 acres. A small area comprised of 118 acres is currently zoned R-A-20. The majority of the private properties currently have a Riverside County Land Use designation of
RM. The project site’s proposed City of Temecula General Plan land use designations are OS and HR. The proposed HR designation permits 1 DU/10 AC. If optimal development occurs, the
project area can expect development of approximately 81 new singlefamily homes. 1 Based on the City’s standard single-family occupancy rate of 3.24 persons per home the project area
could become home to approximately 263 additional residents.2 3.9.3. Regulatory Framework County of Riverside Regulations General Plan The following policies from the County of Riverside
General Plan relate to the preservation, use and development of a comprehensive open space system consisting of passive open space areas, and parks and recreation areas that have recreational,
ecological and scenic value. Policies: The following policies pertain to parks and recreation: OS 20.3 Discourage the absorption of dedicated park lands by non-recreational uses, public
or private. Where absorption is unavoidable, replace park lands that are absorbed by other uses with similar or improved facilities and programs. (AI 74) 1 Each existing lot, regardless
of size, may be developed with one dwelling unit. Therefore, when the maximum number of lots that can be created from existing 20 acre and larger lots is added to the number of lots
smaller than 10 acres (that cannot be further subdivided), an estimated 81 new dwelling units may be developed within that portion of the project area with the Hillside Residential designation
2 It is noted that the County of Riverside General Plan utilizes a population generation rate of 3.01 persons per dwelling unit. Use of the County of Riverside generation rate results
in an estimated population increase of 244 persons within the project area.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 Recreation City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.9-6 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 OS 20.4 Provide
for the needs of all people in the system of County recreation sites and facilities, regardless of their socioeconomic status, ethnicity, physical capabilities or age. OS 20.5 Require
that development of recreation facilities occurs concurrent with other development in an area. (AI 3) OS 20.6 Require new development to provide implementation strategies for the funding
of both active and passive parks and recreational sites. (AI 3) City of Temecula Regulations The basic park acreage standard for Temecula is 5 acres of usable City-owned parkland per
1,000 residents. This standard does not include special use facilities, natural open space or trails. Sufficient acreage to meet the needs of residents is anticipated by the year 2013
through the acquisition and dedication of parks and school facilities within specific plan areas. General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element The Open Space Element contains goals and
policies concerned with managing all open space areas, including undeveloped wilderness lands and outdoor recreation uses. The Government Code defines that open space should be preserved
for: • Preservation of natural resources; • Managed production of resources; • Recreation; and • Public health and safety. City of Temecula Parks and Recreation Master Plan The City
has prepared a Master Plan of Parks and Recreation to comprehensively address the long-term park and recreation needs of residents. The Master Plan contains: a) current and projected
recreational needs; b) park development and design standards; c) a park and trails classification system; d) parks, trails and recreation facilities improvements; e) target locations
for acquisition of future parkland; future trail connections to the regional trail system; f) a Citywide bicycle route and recreation trails system; g) timing and phasing of parks, recreation
facilities and trails; and h) cost estimates for park acquisition and development costs. The Master Plan will support implementation of the goals and policies in the Open Space/Conservation
Element. Goals and policies of the Open Space/Conservation Element are to provide a quality parks and recreation system as a high priority for Temecula residents. Implementation of a
Parks and Recreation Master Plan is critical to achieving this goal. The Master Plan strives to attain a balance between quantitative and qualitative levels of service. This balance
involves providing an acceptable amount of useable parkland, in close proximity to residents, as well as the appropriate type and number of facilities to meet the recreation needs and
desires of residents. The City’s
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 Recreation City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.9-7 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 parks and recreation
facilities are supplemented by other local and regional facilities, which may be influenced and fostered through intergovernmental cooperation. Goal 1 A high quality parks and recreation
system that meets the diverse recreation needs of residents. Policy 1.1 Ensure sufficient parkland and recreation facilities to support new development through acquisition and/or dedication
that meets the requirement for 5 acres of useable park land per 1,000 population. Policy 1.2 Pursue the joint use of public lands available and suitable for recreation purposes, including
lands under the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control District, Southern California Edison, water districts, school districts, and other public agencies. Policy 1.3 Encourage
the enhancement and preservation of historic structures and landscape, and significant natural features, such as riparian areas, rock outcroppings, sensitive habitat areas, and viewpoints
through park design and site development. Policy 1.4 Encourage public safety and compatibility with adjacent uses in park design and development, including location of buildings, activity
areas, lighting, and parking. Goal 5 Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features. Policy 5.1 Conserve
the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and other important landforms and historic landscape features through the
development review process. Policy 5.2 Identify significant viewsheds to proposed projects that may be preserved through the dedication of open space or the use of sensitive grading,
site design, and building techniques. Policy 5.3 Encourage the use of clustered development and other site planning techniques to maximize the preservation of permanent open spaces.
Policy 5.4 Retain and improve the quality of landscaping in parkways, public slopes, rightsof-way, parks, civic facilities, and other public open
areas. Policy 5.5 Coordinate with Homeowners’ Associations to maintain landscaping along slopes adjacent to public right-of-ways. Policy 5.6 Require the dedication and improvement of
parkland.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 Recreation City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.9-8 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Policy 5.7 Require
adequate open space in new development for both passive and active recreation. Policy 5.8 Require re-vegetation of graded slopes concurrent with project development to minimize erosion
and maintain the scenic character of the community. Policy 5.9 Require connection between open space /recreation areas and adjacent developments or publicly owned recreation areas where
appropriate. Policy 5.10 Incorporate seismic hazard safety zones into valley-wide open space and park systems where appropriate. Policy 5.11 Encourage the use of native vegetation where
revegetation and landscaping is to occur. Policy 5.12 Identify and develop natural habitat areas for low impact hiking and nature education. Policy 5.13 Utilize natural, undeveloped
greenbelts as buffers between developments and on outskirts of the City to preserve the rural and unique character of Temecula. 3.9.4 Design Considerations No specific design measures
have been incorporated into the proposed project, other than the policies and regulations contained within the City of Temecula’s General Plan and development code. Design issues would
be addressed when future development proposals are made to implement the proposed general plan and zoning controls contemplated by the annexation. 3.9.5 Impacts and Mitigation Significance
Criteria The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines. However, Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines
indicates that impacts related to recreation issues may be considered potentially significant if the proposed project would: • Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. • Include recreational facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 Recreation City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.9-9 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Impact Analysis
Impact 3.9-1: The proposed project would no increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur or be accelerated. The proposed project is the annexation of 4,997 acres into the City which will include a Sphere of Influence expansion for the city; an
amendment to its General Plan Land Use Map designating the land uses within the sphere of influence expansion areas; and the pre-zoning of the annexation area with zoning designations
consistent with the land use designations. The SMAA will result in a change of the land use designation from approximately 544 acres located within the City’s sphere of influence from
the County of Riverside OS-CH and RM designation to OS and HR as currently shown on the City of Temecula’s Temecula’s General Plan. The proposed project also includes a General Plan
Amendment that will adopt land use designations for approximately 4,443 acres of the subject property located outside of the City’s current sphere of influence. The County’s General
Plan’s current land use designations for the 4,443 acres are OS-CH and RM. Similar land use designations are being proposed for adoption by the City: OS and HR. As previously mentioned,
if optimal development occurs, the project area can expect development of approximately 81 new single-family homes.3 Based on the City’s standard single-family occupancy rate of 3.24
persons per home the project area could become home to approximately 263 additional residents. Through the payment of in-lieu fees, dedication of parks, and the joint use of school facilities,
the City anticipates having sufficient parkland to meet the needs of the City residents through year 2013; as such, the increase in projected residents, should optimal development occur,
would be considered negligible. Therefore, the project will not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. project impacts upon recreational facilities will be less than significant. Mitigation: None required.
Impact 3.9-2: The proposed project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment. As indicated in Chapter 2, one of the main objectives of the proposed project is to preserve public lands within the Santa Margarita Area Annexation area in
natural open space; while retaining the existing rural residential/agricultural character of privately-owned lands. The SMAA will result in 3 Each existing lot, regardless of size, may
be developed with one dwelling unit. Therefore, when the maximum number of lots that can be created from existing 20 acre and larger lots is added to the number of lots smaller than
10 acres (that cannot be further subdivided), an estimated 81 new dwelling units may be developed within that portion of the project area with the Hillside Residential designation
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 Recreation City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.9-10 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 a change of the
land use designation from approximately 544 acres located within the City’s sphere of influence from the County of Riverside OS-CH and RM designation to OS and HR as currently shown
on the City of Temecula’s General Plan. The proposed project also includes a General Plan Amendment that will adopt land use designations for approximately 4,443 acres of the subject
property located outside of the City’s current sphere of influence. The County’s General Plan’s current land use designations for the 4,443 acres are OS-CH and RM. Similar land use designations
are being proposed for adoption by the city of Temecula: OS and HR. Both land use descriptions define the same level of residential land use intensity in an area expected to have steep
slopes and development constraints; that is to limit land use activities to one single-family dwelling unit per 10 acres with ancillary uses. As previously mentioned, if optimal development
occurs, the project area can expect development of approximately 81 new single-family homes.4 Based on the City’s standard single-family occupancy rate of 3.24 persons per home the project
area could become home to approximately 263 additional residents.5 The City’s standard for park acreage is 5.0 acres of usable City-owned parkland per 1,000 residents. Through the payment
of in-lieu fees, dedication of parks, and the joint use of school facilities, the City anticipates having sufficient parkland to meet the needs of the City residents through year 2013.
Therefore, the project will not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment. Project impacts on the environment will be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. An EIR is required to describe feasible mitigation measures which could minimize
significant adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.4). The project area has the potential for a limited number of dwelling units to be built (approximately 81 dwelling units).
However, implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
As a result, no mitigation measures are required. References In addition to other reference documents, the following references were used in the preparation of this section of the EIR:
4 Each existing lot, regardless of size, may be developed with one dwelling unit. Therefore, when the maximum number of lots that can be created from existing 20 acre and larger lots
is added to the number of lots smaller than 10 acres (that cannot be further subdivided), an estimated 81 new dwelling units may be developed within that portion of the project area
with the Hillside Residential designation 5 It is noted that the County of Riverside General Plan utilizes a population generation rate of 3.01 persons per dwelling unit. Use of the
County of Riverside generation rate results in an estimated population increase of 244 persons within the project area.
3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 Recreation City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 3.9-11 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 City of Temecula,
Temecula General Plan, April 2005. (Available at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, or on the Internet on August 18, 2008 at www.cityoftemecula.org
/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm) City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan Land Use Map, Adopted April 12, 2005, Map Prepared February 1, 2007. (Available at the City
of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, or on the Internet August 18, 2008 at www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm)
County of Riverside, General Plan, County of Riverside, Adopted October 7, 2003. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA
92501, 951-955-3200, or on the Internet on August 18, 2008 at http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/index.html)
City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 4-1 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 CHAPTER 4 Consistency with Regional Plans CEQA, Section 15125(d), requires an EIR to discuss
any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general and regional plans. The purpose of this section is to discuss the proposed project’s consistency with the regional
and local growth forecasts and the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) Policies and the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and provides an analysis of the project’s
impacts on the population, housing, and job projections for the region, as projected by SCAG. Additionally, a discussion of the project’s impacts upon the growth forecasts and its compliance
with SCAG’s regional policies are discussed below. A discussion of the proposed project’s consistency with the County of Riverside General Plan (including its Southwest Area Plan) and
the city of Temecula General Plan is contained in Section 4.4 (Land Use and Planning) of this this EIR. Consistency with the Western Riverside County MSHCP is contained in Section 4.2
(Biological Resources) of this EIR. The Air Quality Section of this EIR (Section 4.1) discusses consistency with the applicable AQMP. 4.1 Setting The proposed project area is located
within a housing-rich area of Riverside County according the data provided by SCAG. The project consists of a 4,997 acre annexation request by the city of Temecula which includes a Sphere
of Influence Expansion, an Annexation with pre-zoning, and a General Plan Amendment. Approximately 554 acres of the 4,997 acres proposed to be annexed to the city of Temecula are currently
within the city’s sphere of influence. The project area is within the unincorporated area of Riverside County southwest of the city of Temecula along the northern side of the San Diego-Riverside
County line and west of I-15 and southwest of the city limits of the city of Temecula. The majority of the annexation area (4,284 acres) currently has a Riverside County General General
Plan Land Use designation of OS-CH; while the remaining 713 acres are designated RM, with a 10-acre minimum lot size. The proposed project will result in a change of the land use designations
for approximately 554 acres located within the city’s sphere of influence from the County of Riverside OS-CH and RM designations to OS and HR as currently shown on the City’s General
Plan. The proposed project also includes a General Plan Amendment that will adopt land use designations for approximately 4,443 acres of the subject property located outside of the city’s
current sphere of influence. The County’s current General Plan land use designations for these 4,443 acres are OSCH and RM. The 477 acres currently designated RM (1 DU/10 AC) in Riverside
County will become HR (1 DU/10 AC) in the city of Temecula, and 3,961 acres of the 3,966 acres designated
4. Consistency with Regional Plans City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 4-2 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 OS-CH in the County would be designated OS in the City and
5 acres currently designated OS-CH in the County will become HR (1 DU/10 AC) in the city of Temecula (see Figures 3.4-2 and 3.4-4). For a description of the uses allowed within the existing
and proposed general plan designations and zoning classifications, please refer to Section 4.4 (Land Use and Planning) of this EIR. SCAG Regional Growth Forecasts The SCAG 2004 RTP Growth
Forecast projects a Year 2030 population of 2,413,367 persons within the Western Riverside County Subregion. The Subregion area comprises the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Canyon Lake,
Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto and Temecula, as well as unincorporated Riverside County. Table 4-1, SCAG Western Riverside
County Subregion Forecasts, reflects SCAG’s population forecasts for the entire Western Riverside County Subregion in five year projections. TABLE 4-1 SCAG WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUBREGION
FORECASTS 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Population 1,614,605 1,830,421 2,037,129 2,230,785 2,413,467 Households 521,606 606,139 666,521 776,168 874,508 Employment 541,647 633,161 727,005
822,031 918,640 Job/Housing Ratio 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 SOURCE: SCAG 2004 SCAG RTP Growth Forecast Employment/Housing Balance Policies SCAG’s April 2001 report titled, The New Economy
and Jobs/Housing Balance in Southern California, states that, “a balance between jobs and housing in a metropolitan region can be defined as a provision of an adequate supply of housing
to house workers employed in a defined area (i.e., community or subregion). Alternately, a jobs/housing balance can be defined as an adequate provision of employment in a defined area
that generates enough local workers to fill the housing supply.” The SCAG region as a whole is, by definition, balanced and is projected to have 1.37 jobs per housing unit in 2030 under
SCAG’s 2004 RTP Growth Forecast. The jobs/housing balance forecasted by SCAG for the unincorporated Western Riverside County and the project area are depicted in Tables 4-1, 4-2, and
4-3. These forecasts have been broken down to separate growth within the cities from that in the unincorporated areas. Table 4-2, SCAG Unincorporated Western Riverside County Forecasts,
depicts SCAG population forecasts for unincorporated Western Riverside County, which includes the proposed project site. Table 4-3, SCAG City of Temecula Forecasts, reflects SCAG’s population
forecasts for the city of Temecula.
4. Consistency with Regional Plans City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 4-3 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 4-2 SCAG UNINCORPORATED WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY FORECASTS
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Population 475,002 575,248 667,930 751,712 830,191 Households 156,466 195,665 235,183 274,346 313,281 Employment 98,385 130,674 163,253 195,966 228,887 Job/Housing
Ratio 0.63 0.67 0.69 0.71 0.73 SOURCE: SCAG 2004 SCAG RTP Growth Forecast TABLE 4-3 SCAG CITY OF TEMECULA FORECASTS 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Population 83,510 88,098 92,627 96,967 101,128
Households 26,431 28,490 30,584 32,658 34,722 Employment 38,040 45,944 54,111 62,416 70,903 Job/Housing Ratio 1.44 1.61 1.77 1.91 2.04 SOURCE: SCAG 2004 SCAG RTP Growth Forecast 4.2
Regulatory Framework This section will address those policies and regulations imposed by the SCAG that relate to the area being annexed. Riverside County and the city of Temecula are
a part of the SCAG and the proposed project is required to comply with the applicable land land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project. SCAG
has adopted policies as part of its RCPG, the SCAG RTP, and Compass Growth Vision, many of which are applicable to this project. A comparative analysis of the project’s consistency with
these policies and an analysis of a project’s impacts on the population, housing, and job projections for the region, as projections by SCAG are discussed below. The information and
data in this section was obtained from the SCAG 2004 RTP Growth Forecast and SCAG's report titled, The New Economy and Jobs/Housing Balance in Southern California (2001). 4.3 Impacts
and Mitigation Significance Criteria The city of Temecula has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Appendix
G of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that impacts related to land use and planning issues may be considered potentially significant if the proposed project would:
4. Consistency with Regional Plans City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 4-4 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 • Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impact Analysis As described above, the proposed project’s consistency with the city of Temecula General Plan and the Riverside
County General Plan (including its Southwest Area Plan) are discussed in Section 3.4 (Land Use and Planning) of this EIR; the Western Riverside County MSHCP is discussed in Section 3.2
(Biological Resources) and the applicable Air Quality Management Plan are discussed in Section 3.1 (Air Quality). The purpose of this section is to discuss the proposed project’s consistency
with the regional and local growth forecasts and the SCAG RCPG Policies and the SCAG RTP. The proposed project proposes to expand the territory of the city of Temecula through the annexation
of approximately 4,997 acres. Concurrent with the annexation, city of Temecula land use designations and zoning classifications will be assigned to the respective properties within the
annexation area according to their current Riverside County General Plan land use and zoning designations. The similarity of the primary land uses set forth by the City and the County
designations with the exception of surface mining which is allowed only by the County of Riverside designations (as detailed in Section 3.4 of this document) means that the proposed
annexation will result in negligible changes to scope and intensity of land uses that would have been expected to occur without the project. Therefore, as discussed below, the proposed
project is consistent with regional growth forecasts and regional jobs/housing balance projections. Project/Regional Growth Forecast Comparative Analysis The project area currently has
four occupied single-family dwelling units on private property and has the potential to permit development of approximately 80 new dwelling units under the current land use designation
of County of Riverside RM (1 DU/10 AC) land use designation and a potential of 81 dwelling units under the proposed city of Temecula land use designation of HR (1 DU/10 AC)1. Since this
region’s population has been calculated by SCAG and incorporated into its 2004 RTP Growth Forecasts utilizing the current land uses establish by the County of Riverside, the conversion
to the city of Temecula’s land use designations creates the potential for approximately the same number of dwelling units that would have been expected by SCAG, with the only change
being the jurisdiction within which this residential development occurs. Therefore, there is no difference between the population growth from residential land uses than what would occur
without the project. Therefore, the project will not alter what the 2004 RTP Growth Forecasts would have expected for population in this region of Riverside County. The proposed project
will add four existing single-family dwelling units into the city boundaries and will allow for the potential construction of a total of 81 new dwelling units on the project site. The
project site will generate a total of approximately 275 persons based upon the build-out 1 The increase of 1 dwelling unit is the result of five acres of privately-owned property currently
designated by the County of Riverside as OS-CH being changed to HR by the proposed project.
4. Consistency with Regional Plans City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 4-5 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 population projections assumed in the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the 2005 Temecula General Plan Update. The calculation used to determine the project's population is as follows: (81 new dwelling units + 4 existing dwelling units)
x (3.24 persons per dwelling unit) = 275 persons generated The project population of 275 persons comprises 0.31% of the forecasted population for the city of Temecula in 2015 and 0.28%
in 2025. For the unincorporated areas of Western Riverside County, the project will constitute 0.05% of the forecasted population in 2015 and 0.04% in 2025. It is noted that use of the
build-out population projections assumed in the Riverside County General Plan for the subject property (i.e., 3.01 persons per dwelling unit), would result in a projected population
of 256 persons within the annexation area. Therefore, the change in the population generation rate applied to the subject property results in an increase of 19 persons in the projected
population of the annexation area. This difference in projected population for the area will not result in a substantial effect upon regional population forecasts. Employment/Housing
Balance Policies SCAG’s April 2001 report titled The New Economy and Jobs/Housing Balance in Southern California states that "a balance between jobs and housing in a metropolitan region
can be defined as a provision of an adequate supply of housing to house workers employed in a defined area (i.e., community or subregion). Alternately, a jobs/housing balance can be
defined as an adequate provision of employment in a defined area that generates enough local workers to fill the housing supply." The SCAG region as a whole is, by definition, balanced.
The SCAG region as a whole is projected to have 1.39 jobs per housing unit in 2025 under SCAG’s 2004 RTP Growth Forecast. The jobs/housing ratio for western Riverside County is projected
to be 1.04 in 2010 2010 and 2015, 1.05 in 2020 and 1.06 in 2025. Therefore, western Riverside County is projected to be a jobs/housing balanced area. The jobs/housing ratio for the unincorporated
portion of the western Riverside County subarea is projected to be 0.63 in 2010, 0.67 in 2015, 0.69 in 2020, 0.71 in 2025 and 0.73 in 2030. However, the jobs/housing ratio for the city
of Temecula is projected to be 1.44 in 2010, 1.61 in 2015, 1.77 in 2020, 1.91 in 2025 and 2.04 in 2030. Averaged with all of Western Riverside County the projected ratio in the immediate
project area would be 0.75 in 2010, 0.79 in 2015, 0.82 in 2020 0.84 in 2025, and at 0.86 in 2030. This would indicate that the unincorporated portion of western Riverside County near
the city of Temecula is slightly more job-poor than the county as a whole, while the area within the city limits is jobs-rich. Overall, SCAG's The New Economy and Jobs/Housing Balance
in Southern California projects the county areas to be housing-rich in 2030 and the city of Temecula will be jobs-rich in 2030. The proposed project is a jurisdictional change and will
not bring additional housing units to the area. SCAG's The New Economy and Jobs/Housing Balance in Southern California further defines jobs/housing balance for this region as an area
extending about 14 miles around an employment center with a ratio between jobs and household on the order of 1.0–1.29 jobs per household. The proposed project is within the 14 miles
of an area projected to be jobs-rich.
4. Consistency with Regional Plans City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 4-6 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 The proposed project will not contribute additional housing
opportunities beyond those already planned for the area, nor create new employment opportunities within the area. The primary intended land uses in each jurisdiction anticipate residential
development of equal intensity with some limited opportunities for other uses that could provide a limited number of jobs. However, regional calculations for job opportunities are based
on land use readily intended for business development as opposed to the speculative nature of other uses that could occur under residential designations. Therefore, although the proposed
project will establish land use designations and zoning that will not allow surface mining operations and the jobs that such operations would create, those jobs were not anticipated
by the regional projections as resulting from development of the County’s RM land use designation. The project area, by land use alone, remains a small housing-rich area located next
to a large area that is job rich, thereby not significantly altering the existing conditions of the area. Therefore, by not changing the intensity of land uses within the project area,
the proposed project maintains consistency of the regional growth forecasts and regional jobs/housing balance projections for this region. Consistency with Regional Plans The regional
plans affecting the SMAA project area are the SCAG RCPG Policies and the SCAG RTP. The proposed project, due to its negligible growth alterations, will not affect the SCAG RTP and remains
consistent with most of the policies of SCAG's RCPG. With the annexation, Temecula can further assure continued consistency with several of the policies related to preservation of the
environment. The project's consistency with these policies is discussed further in Table 4-4, Consistency with Regional Plans. Conclusion As described above, the proposed project is
in conflict with SCAG Policy 9.07. However, there are competing regional policies such as SCAG Policy 3-18 and Policy 9.08. Through the balancing of the purposes and requirements of
these competing policies, decision makers may conclude that the proposed project can be considered consistent with the regional and local growth forecasts and the SCAG RCPG Policies
and the SCAG RTP. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed project’s potential impacts related to consistency with regional plans are below the level of significance. Proposed Mitigation
Measures An EIR is required to describe feasible mitigation measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.4). Mitigation measures were
evaluated for their ability to eliminate or reduce the potential significant adverse impacts resulting from land use and planning as a result of proposed SMAA. The proposed project is
consistent with the regional and local growth forecasts and the SCAG RCPG Policies and the SCAG RTP. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed project’s potential impacts related
to consistency with regional plans are below the level of significance. Consequently mitigation measures specifically related to this issue are not required.
4. Consistency with Regional Plans City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 4-7 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 4-4 CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL PLANS Regional Plan Policy
Project Consistency with Regional Plan Policy RCPG Growth Management Chapter (GMC) Policy 3.01 – The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council
and that reflect local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. The proposed project will result in a change of the land use designations
for approximately 554 acres located within the city’s sphere of influence from the County of Riverside OS-CH and RM designations to OS and HR as currently shown on
the City’s General Plan. The proposed project also includes a General Plan Amendment that will adopt land use designations for approximately 4,443 acres of the subject property located
outside of the city’s current sphere of influence. The County’s General Plan’s current land use designations for these 4,443 acres are OS-CH and RM. Similar land use designations, being
proposed for adoption by the city of Temecula, are OS and HR. Due to the primary intended use of each jurisdiction’s residential land uses designations, there will be no substantial
change to the projected land use intensities used by SCAG in developing its regional population, housing and jobs forecasts. The SMAA will require no changes in the regional forecasts
and therefore the proposed project is consistent with RCPG Policy 3.01. Policy 3.18 -Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause environmental impact. Policy 3.20
-Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and animals. As
described in Section 4.2, Biological Resources and 4.4, Land Use and Planning of this EIR and in the Open Space/Conservation Element of the Temecula General Plan, a variety of ecological
and biological resources exist within the Temecula planning area. The Temecula planning area is located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP area. Policies and programs specified
in the Open Space/Conservation Element of the Temecula General Plan require the protection of the area’s vital ecological resources and will be implemented upon the properties within
the SMAA to ensure environmental compatibility of land uses for the protection of important ecological and biological resources. The proposed project is consistent with RCPG Policies
3.18 and 3.20. Policy 3.21 -Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and protection of recorded and unrecorded cultural and archaeological sites. As described
in Section 4.3 (Cultural Resources) of this EIR, policies and programs in the city of Temecula’s Open Space/Conservation Element direct the City to use the development and environmental
review processes to ensure that appropriate archaeological surveying and documentation is prepared in association with development proposals, and to require effective mitigation in cases
where development may negatively affect cultural resources. The proposed project is consistent with RCPG Policy 3.21. Policy Resource Production Policy 9.07 -Maintain adequate viable
resource production lands, particularly lands devoted to commercial agriculture and mining operations. Within the city of Temecula mining operations are not a permitted use in the HR
or OS designations. Although mining is permitted in the County of Riverside’s RM designation, the city of Temecula’s General Plan cites that the defining conditions to support mining
operations are not thought to exist in the area nor had the county considered this area for a Mineral Resource land use designation. Therefore, this policy would not be expected to apply
to the project area. Additionally, mining activities in close proximity to areas designated for habitat conservation would create conflicts with policies that encourage preservation
of unique areas. Therefore, this project is in conflict with Policy 9.07. However, there are competing regional policies such as SCAG Policy 3-18 and Policy 9.08 discussed herein which
emphasize the preservation of open space and biological resources. Overall, decision makers will need to balance the purposes and requirements of these
4. Consistency with Regional Plans City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 4-8 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Regional Plan Policy Project Consistency with Regional Plan
Policy competing policies regarding mining resources and open space. Policy 9.08 -Develop well-managed viable ecosystems or known habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species,
including wetlands. A large portion of the project area is a well-managed viable ecosystem of regional significance with a small collection of neighboring parcels with the potential
to affect this eco-system. The Open Space/Conservation Element of the Temecula General Plan includes several policies and programs that direct the City to protect biological resources.
The City is required to establish open space areas surrounding significant watercourses, wildlife corridors, and habitats for rare or endangered plant and animal species. Additionally,
General Plan policies support implementation of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and the City is subject to regulations and mitigation requirements of the MSHCP. The proposed project
recognizes the preservation of approximately 4,279 acres of the project site, which includes riparian areas and sensitive habitat areas, as natural open space within the SMER. The remaining
718 acres of the project site will allow rural residential development at a density of 1 DU/10 AC. This density allows for the siting of houses in a manner that will allow the preservation
of riparian areas and sensitive habitat. The proposed project is consistent with this policy with SCAG RCPG Policy 9.08. Principle 4: Promote sustainability for future generations. •
Preserve rural, agricultural, recreational and environmentally sensitive areas. Large lot and rural residential/agricultural areas within the community represent lifestyle and open space
characteristics Temecula residents want to maintain. Within the Temecula General Plan Land Use Element three areas located at the periphery of the City are designated as Rural Preservation
Areas. The project area, though not within one of the three designated areas, is an area with similar characteristics that can be preserved. Therefore, annexation has the potential to
preserve this area’s rural residential uses. The Open Space/Conservation Element of Temecula’s General Plan includes policies and programs that direct the City to protect recreational
and environmentally sensitive areas. Those policies and programs require the City to establish open space areas surrounding significant watercourses, wildlife corridors, and habitats
for rare or endangered plant and animal species. The SMER and additional land within the annexation area will be preserved by limiting land use activities and requiring development and
environmental review processes to ensure that appropriate protections are afforded to these environmentally sensitive areas. Therefore the proposed project will be consistent with SCAG
Principle 4. 4.4 Summary of Environmental Effects after Mitigation Measures Are Implemented All potential direct impacts of the project related to consistency with regional plans will
be less than significant. Mitigation measures are not required to reduce potential impacts from the proposed project to a level that is less than significant. References In addition
to other reference documents, the following references were used in the preparation of this section of the EIR:
4. Consistency with Regional Plans City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 4-9 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan Land Use Map, April
12, 2005, Prepared February 1, 2007. (Available at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, or on the Internet on January 10, 2008 at www.cityoftemecula.
org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm) City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan, April 2005. (Available at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park
Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, or on the Internet on January 10, 2008 at www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm) City of Temecula, Final Environmental Impact
Report, Temecula General Plan Update, March, 2005, Certified April 12, 2005. (Available the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, 951-694-6444.)
County of Riverside, Riverside County General Plan, Adopted October 7, 2003. 2003. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside,
CA 92501, 951-955-3200, or on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/index.html) County of Riverside, Southwest Area Plan, October 7, 2003. (Available
at County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200, or on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap1/swap.html)
County of Riverside, Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, Adopted June 17, 2003. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department,
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, or on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at www.rcip.org) Southern California Association of Governments, 2004 RTP Growth Forecasts, (Available
for review on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at www.scag.ca.gov/forecast/index.htm and available for review at Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 818 West West
Seventh Street 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435, 213-236-1800.) Southern California Association of Governments, The New Economy and Jobs/Housing Balance in Southern California,
April 2001. (Available for review on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at www.scag.ca.gov/Housing/balance.html)
City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-1 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 CHAPTER 5 Mandatory CEQA Topics The CEQA Guidelines set forth several general content requirements
for EIRs. Those applicable to this project include cumulative impacts (Section 15130), growth inducing impacts (Section 15126(d)) and unavoidable adverse impacts (Section 15126(b)).
The following addresses each of these general requirements. 5.1 Cumulative Impact Analysis Introduction The CEQA requires that an EIR examine the cumulative impacts associated with a
project, in addition to project-specific impacts. The discussion of cumulative impacts must reflect the severity of the impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence; however, the discussion
need not be as detailed as the discussion of environmental impacts attributable to the project alone (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)). As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR “shall
discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable (Section 15130(a)). “Cumulatively considerable” means that “the incremental
effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects as defined in Section 15130” (Section 15065(c)). Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines states that “cumulative impacts” occur from “…the change in the environment which results
from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually
minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” A cumulative impact is not considered significant if the impact can be mitigated to below the level of
significance through mitigation, including providing improvements and/or contributing funds through fee-payment programs. The EIR must examine “reasonable options for mitigating or avoiding
any significant cumulative effects of a proposed project” (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15130(a)(3) and 15130(b)(5)). CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1) requires that a discussion of cumulative
impacts be based on either a list of past, present and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of
the agency; or a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-2 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described
or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. This EIR utilizes the “summary of projections” approach in the cumulative analysis. Section 15130(d)
of the CEQA Guidelines states that “Previously approved land use documents such as general plans, specific plans, and local coastal plans may be used in cumulative impact analysis. A
pertinent discussion of cumulative impacts contained in one or more previously certified EIRs may be incorporated by reference pursuant to the provisions for tiering and program EIRs.
No further cumulative impact analysis is required when a project is consistent with a general, specific, master or comparable programmatic plan where the lead agency determines that
the regional or area-wide cumulative impacts of the proposed project have been adequately addressed, as defined in section 15152(f), in a certified EIR for that plan.” Additionally,
if a cumulative impact was adequately addressed in a prior EIR for a community plan, zoning action, or general plan, and the project is consistent with that plan or action, then an EIR
for such a project should not further analyze that cumulative impact. (Section 15130(e) of the CEQA Guidelines). The cumulative impact analysis for the proposed project is based on information
contained in the Riverside County Integrated Project General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report and Draft Program EIR (SCH No. 20022051143) (“RCIP EIR”) certified by the
Riverside County Board of Supervisors on October 7, 2003; and the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula General Plan Update (SCH 2003061041) (“Temecula EIR”) certified by
the Temecula City Council on April 12, 2005 (Resolution 05-044). These documents are utilized because the geographic area addressed in the two documents encompasses not only the project
site, but all portions of Riverside County and the City surrounding the project site that could be potentially impacted by the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts.
Both of these documents are hereby incorporated by reference. The two documents are available for review at the locations cited for these documents in Section 7.0. (Documents, Organizations
and Persons Consulted) of this EIR and are summarized in the following discussion. Known projects within the vicinity of the proposed project which may not have been incorporated into
the Temecula EIR analysis or the RCIP EIR are shown in Table 5-5, Other Projects within the Proposed Project Vicinity and Location of Other Projects within Project Vicinity (see Figure
5-2). These known projects include any general plan amendments that may have been requested within this area since adoption of each general plan. These known projects were incorporated
into the cumulative impact analysis for those topics where cumulative impacts are affected by the type and intensity of land uses (Air Quality and Transportation and Traffic). The cumulative
impact analysis for other topics does not incorporate these specific known projects because those cumulative impacts are directly related to the development of land and is independent
of the type and intensity of that development. Cumulative Analysis Setting This cumulative analysis setting discussion describes the range of environmental impacts covered by the RCIP
EIR, and the Temecula EIR. Because these documents describe potential projectrelated and cumulative impacts at build-out, background information is included below that
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-3 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 describes both the existing condition and the build-out condition of
this geographic area, as analyzed by these documents. This information facilitates a full understanding of the scope of change envisioned within the cumulative impact area of which the
project is a part and upon which the below analysis of cumulative impacts is based. Riverside County General Plan On October 7, 2003, the County of Riverside approved the General Plan
component of the RCIP. The General Plan describes anticipated future growth over the long term and includes the development of land use policies and land use maps to guide the future
development of Riverside County. The SMAA project site is currently located within the Riverside County General Plan’s Southwest Area Plan and represents approximately 2.7 percent of
the area plan’s acreage. The adopted land use plans for the Southwest Area Plan (see Figure 5-1). show the anticipated future growth in those portions of unincorporated Riverside County
within proximity to the project site and within which the project site is located. The RCIP EIR certified by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on October 7, 2003 evaluated the
potential environmental impacts associated with a theoretical build-out of all unincorporated areas which is expected to occur in 2040. The projections developed and analyzed in this
EIR estimated potential population, dwelling units, and employment for unincorporated areas of the County. The General Plan’s land uses served as the basis for these projections. The
Riverside County General Plan reflects the past, present and probable future development for that area within which the SMAA project is located and its Program EIR described and evaluated
the conditions contributing to area-wide and regional cumulative impacts. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors found that despite adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, implementation
of the the Riverside County General Plan would result in significant unavoidable impacts to air quality, loss of prime farmland, conversion of open space to urban uses (aesthetic/visual
effects), water supply, biological resources, and transportation. Three cumulative impacts (loss of Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important agricultural lands, air quality, and biological
resources) were also found to be significant and unavoidable. The Board of Supervisors adopted the Riverside County General Plan because “in its view, the economic, social, and other
benefits that the project will produce will render the significant effects acceptable” and issued a Statement of Overriding Considerations. (Resolution No. 2003-488) Table 5-1, Distribution
of Existing Riverside County Land Use: Cities and Unincorporated Areas shows a summary of existing (1998) land uses as described in the Riverside County General Plan’s Draft Program
EIR and Table 5-2, Projected Riverside County General Plan Land Use Acreage at Build-Out shows the land use acreage projections at build-out pursuant to the general plan’s land use plans.
The projections of population, number of dwelling units,
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 5-1 Riverside County General Plan-Southwest Area Plan Land Use Designations North Not to Scale SOURCE: Riverside County General
Plan, October 2003
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 5-2 Location of Other Projects within Project Vicinity SOURCE: Webb Associates North Not to Scale
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-6 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 5-1 DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING RIVERSIDE COUNTY LAND USE: CITIES
AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS Countywide (acres) Unincorporated (acres) Within Cities (acres) Residential Rural Residential 42,989 38,171 4,817 Single Family Detached 104,295 32,525 71,770
Attached Dwelling Units 26,925 4,335 22,589 High Density 67 7 60 Mobile Homes 10,092 4,995 5,096 Total Residential 184,371 80,035 104,335 Commercial Retail/Office 13,530 1,798 11,731
Tourist/Commercial 2,144 621 1,523 Recreation Total Commercial 15,674 2,420 13,254 Industrial Light Industrial /Business Park 7,496 1,578 5,918 Heavy Industrial 457 346 110 Mineral Extraction
11,760 10,416 1,344 Warehouse 4,945 2,875 2,070 Total Industrial 24,660 15,216 9,443 Recreation/Open Space Natural 7,132 5,981 1,151 Natural (Reserve) 54,386 51,489 2,896 Natural (USFS)
775,987 773,834 2,151 Recreation 26,967 9,489 17,477 Agriculture 339,261 266,926 72,335 Water Water 59,537 54,904 4,633 Total Recreation /Open Space 1,263,273 1,162,626 100,645 Public
Facilities Utilities 54,502 32,117 22,385 Other Public Facilities 5,579 3,139 2,440 Schools 7,828 1,707 6,118 Total Public Facilities 67,908 36,963 30,944 Vacant 3,071,672 2,869,430
202,242 Other 311 214 96 TOTAL 4,627,871 4,166,908 460,962 SOURCE: Table 4.2.A of RCIP General Plan Draft Program EIR
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-7 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 5-2 PROJECTED RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ACREAGE
AT BUILD-OUT Western Riverside County Eastern Riverside County Area Plans Area Plans General Plan Foundation Component Land Use Category Eastvale Elsinore Harvest Valley /Winchester
Highgrove Jurupa Lake Mathews /Woodcrest Lakeview/Nuevo Mead Valley The Pass Reche Canyon /Badlands REMAP San Jacinto Valley Southwest Sun City /Menifee Valley Temescal Canyon Remaining
Unincorporated outside of Area Plans Desert Center Eastern Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Western Coachella Valley Remaining Unincorporated outside of Area Plans Totals Agriculture
122 0 0 2 20 66 2,031 0 2,261 762 7,513 8,678 475 179 492 0 865 41,403 114,613 695 0 180,177 Rural Residential 0 1,898 1,408 40 97 8,833 4,873 5,523 4,302 1,914 66,977 2,178 57,180 1,574
580 0 62 4,843 1,874 20,170 0 185,326 Rural Mountainous Agriculture 0 14,934 3,396 590 0 3,283 4,122 4,122 715 22,971 7,888 21,803 13,054 18,915 2,670 3,226 0 21 0 0 760 0 118,348 Rural
Desert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,969 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,849 2,192 12,609 0 22,619 Estate Density Residential 0 1,876 1,732 0 0 4,844 1,044 79 700 1,269 9,729 522 3,693 2,448 910 0 0 266 965 105
0 30,182 Rural Very Low Density Residential 0 101 0 0 0 10,584 2,091 8,093 3,841 247 202 153 203 2,450 296 0 0 8 1,867 718 0 30,854 Low Density Residential 0 402 380 0 6,292 1,403 3,009
1,031 197 59 0 1,001 234 701 601 0 0 60 32 0 0 15,402 Open Space Conservation 657 234 915 1,190 465 1,785 794 46 23,216 4,194 704 6,458 3,812 689 5,474 0 2 447 57 2,727 13 53,879 Open
Space Rural Conservation Habitat 0 51,338 3,010 0 1,442 9,756 947 1,428 0 15,755 286,197 3,272 32,688 0 20,610 0 0 200,678 0 107,941 468,178 1,203,240 Community Open Space Water 399
341 2,705 21 1,247 2,805 JI2 0 16 2,284 1,196 3.866 1,367 60 661 0 0 50,726 416 4,415 2,083 74,821 Open Space Recreation 636 398 1,929 299 1,090 77 100 15 2,I05 1,305 2,249 1,480 1,488
1,221 794 0 213 213 2,333 134 2,524 0 20,390 Open Space Rural 0 7,462 0 0 1,309 1,101 0 0 0 10,211 108,477 4,984 7,610 0 2,251 0 173,530 94,524 154,080 69,126 1,302,343 1,937,008 Open
Space Mineral Resources 0 1,398 0 0 224 0 148 0 0 290 0 511 0 0 2,565 0 613 737 0 2,174 0 8,660 Estate Density Residential 0 251 0 0 414 0 P6 0 23 0 237 7 993 864 36 0 36 288 0 1,905
0 5,180 Very Low Density Residential 0 4,725 2,442 97 127 968 494 0 1,295 0 3,651 1,286 93 45 165 0 267 288 29 446 0 6,418 Open Space Low Density Residential 432 2,451 1,147 265 1,953
1,135 1,031 0 1,079 163 8 1,190 562 479 175 0 115 72 0 335 0 12,592 Medium Density Residential 4,360 5,026 7,150 1,173 3,352 1,551 3,388 414 1,542 0 1,432 3,909 8,127 11,259 2,413 0
400 6,438 597 8,713 0 71,244 Medium High Density Residential 242 339 970 5 859 391 370 0 178 0 0 251 1,771 1,693 748 0 75 1,384 128 1,499 0 10,903 High Density Residential 61 20 188
21 303 0 0 0 104 0 13 177 200 106 134 0 22 669 31 1,143 0 3,192 Very High Density Residential 0 220 2 17 70 0 66 0 3 0 0 91 91 171 205 26 0 7 322 0 128 0 1,328 Highest Density Residential
28 0 0 2 19 0 0 0 1 0 0 24 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 Commercial Retail 229 1,106 913 142 1,342 212 448 110 394 39 369 459 781 958 356 0 116 1,260 151 1,174 0 10,559 Commercial Tourist 0 17
400 0 9 0 8 0 5 16 3 242 260 I 97 0 137 1,416 123 398 0 3,132 Commercial Office 0 150 2 5 13 51 0 0 12 0 0 193 185 99 5 0 0 57 0 14 0 786 Light Industrial 468 1,082 846 306 3,811 100
1,141 479 176 74 59 0 592 602 1,251 0 177 3,193 895 4,507 0 19,759 Heavy Industrial 0 0 253 0 1,253 0 8 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 433 54 36 0 2,059 Business Park 78 69 257 39 1,313 0 75
793 5 0 0 0 515 224 106 0 1,291 578 280 180 0 5,753 Public Facility 74 181 1,644 49 544 2,358 174 300 168 1,615 1,036 1,353 1,468 297 366 0 7,800 2,415 3,703 2,314 0 27,859 Community
Development Community Center 0 171 0 0 0 0 131 327 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 41 0 0 0 721 Rural Community – Estate Density Residential 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 406 0 0 0 0 0 162 164 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 732
Glen Eden Policy Area 0 728 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 728 Medium Density Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 558 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 558 Vista Santa Rosa Policy Area 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,941 0 0 0 3,941 Business Park Overlay 0 100 0 0 374 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 466 0 0 0 940 Community Center Overlay 460 0 457 0 276 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 1,286
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,530 Other Land Uses, Overlays and Policy Areas Community Retail Overlay 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 City 0 27,781 0 0 0 0 0 20,431 41,157 32,707 0 32,334
34,964 0 24,187 0 0 13.443 16,521 165,539 0 409,064 Freeways 139 507 0 129 627 0 0 0 690 249 0 151 153 325 400 0 1,084 1,465 241 1,780 0 7,940 March ARB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7,579 0 0 0 0 0 7,579 Other Indian Lands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,718 0 36,701 4,729 4,146 0 0 0 0 14,538 1,058 9,228 2,741 103,859 Total 8,385 126,306 32,146 4,393 28,888 51,303 27,745 39,784
140,140 81,041 548,556 92,553 182,865 30,599 68,981 7,579 186,843 453,581 300,041 423,303 1,775,358 4,524,480 SOURCE: RCIP General Plan
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-8 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 This page left intentionally blank
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-9 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 number of workers, square footage of employment uses and the number
of jobs that were used in the environmental analysis of the Riverside County General Plan (contained in the RCIP EIR) are set forth in Table 5-3, Projections at Build-Out by Riverside
County General Plan Area Plan. These tables show that at build-out of the Southwest Area Plan, there will be a total of 152,021 persons, 50,505 dwelling units, 68,197 workers, 27,962,645
square feet of employment uses and 54,808 jobs within this community plan area. That percentage of the population, housing and employment, projected to exist at build-out of the Southwest
Area Plan and the Riverside County General Plan as a whole, that will be generated by the proposed project are shown in Table 5-4, Project-Specific/Riverside County General Plan Population,
Housing and Employment Comparison. TABLE 5-3 PROJECTIONS AT BUILD-OUT BY RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AREA PLAN Area Plan Population Dwelling Units Workersa Square Footageb Jobs Western
County Eastvale 56,901 18,904 25,526 20,662,224 34,439 Elsinore 86,175 28,629 38,658 28,010,287 43,919 Harvest Valley-Winchester 137,459 45,667 61,664 31,028,354 45,218 Highgrove 9,803
3,257 4,398 5,498,797 6,898 Jurupa 98,158 32,611 44,034 95,696,789 110,989 Lake Mathews-Woodcrest 73,432 24,396 32,941 3,363,485 6,622 Lakeview-Nuevo 80,312 26,682 36,028 14,040,194
18,020 Mead Valley 42,765 14,208 19,184 16,859,643 25,649 The Pass 60,299 20,033 27,050 7,785,392 12,586 Reche Canyon-Badlands 6,985 2,320 3,133 1,342,149 1,815 REMAP 115,147 38,770
51,655 8,865,800 17,754 San Jacinto Valley 76,192 25,313 34,180 1,797,503 4,484 Southwest 152,021 50,505 68,197 27,962,645 54,808 Sun City-Menifee 194,526 64,627 87,264 44,970,425 95,889
Temescal Valley 56,208 18,674 25,215 18,036,528 22,819 Western County Subtotal 1,246,383 414,596 559,127 325,920,215 501,909 Eastern County Desert Center 16,240 5,468 7,285 1,193,435
2,638 Eastern Coachella Valley 84,381 28,411 37,853 68,073,085 87,087 Palo Verde 41,508 13,976 18,620 16,505,842 25,818 Western Coachella Valley 186,304 62,729 83,576 78,316,775 94,773
Eastern County Subtotal 328,433 110,584 147,334 164,089,137 210,316 Countywide Total 1,574,814 525,179 706,461 490,009,352 712,224 Other Countywide Total March Inland Port 334 111 ----38,588
Remaining Unincorporated 96,699 32,559 43,379 ----Countywide Total with Other 1,671,848 557,849 749,840 490,009,352 750,812 a Based on a Riverside County employment participation rate
of 44.86 percent b Includes all projected development within the Commercial Retail, Commercial Tourist, Commercial Office, Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial, Business Park, and Community
Center land use designations.
SOURCE: Table 4.1.A of RCIP General Plan Draft Program EIR
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-10 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 5-4 PROJECT-SPECIFIC/RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN POPULATION,
HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT COMPARISON Southwest Area Plan Riverside County General Plan Santa Margarita Area Annexation (Based upon Project’s Land Use Plan) Totals Percentage Attributable
to Proposed Project Totals Percentage Attributable to Proposed Project Populationa 244 152,021 0.16% 1,671,848 0.015% Dwelling Unitsb 81f 50,505 0.16% 557,849 0.015% Workersc 0 68,197
0 749,840 0 Square Footaged 0 27,962,645 0 490,009,352 0 Jobse 0 54,808 0 750,812 0 NOTE: Following assumptions are described in Section 3.4 of the RCIP General Plan Draft Program EIR.
a Assumes 3.01 persons per dwelling unit. b Assumes 0.05 du/ac for RM and 0.0 du/ac for Conservation Habitat land use designations. c Based upon a Riverside County employment participation
rate of 44.86 percent. d Based upon floor-to-area ratio of 0.23 for Commercial Retail land use designation. e Assumes 1 employee per 500 square feet of Commercial Retail land use designation.
f It is noted that each existing lot, regardless of size, may be developed with one dwelling unit. Therefore, when the maximum number of lots that can be created from existing 20-acre
and larger lots is added to the number of lots smaller than 10 acres (that cannot be further subdivided), a maximum of 81 new dwelling units may be developed within that portion of the
project area with this designation. Additionally, known projects within the vicinity of the proposed project which may not have been incorporated into the RCIP EIR analysis, as shown
on Table 5-5, Other Projects within the Proposed Project Vicinity and Figure 5-2, were incorporated into the cumulative impact analysis for Air Quality and Transportation and Traffic
impacts. These known projects include any general plan amendments that may have been requested within this area since adoption of the general plan in 2003. As shown on the Southwest
Area Land Land Use Plan, the 4,284 acres of the SMAA site has an underlying Riverside County General Plan designation of OS-CH, while the remaining 713 acres are designated RM, with
a 10-acre minimum lot size. The RM land use designation allows residential development at a density of 1 DU/10 AC. The OS-CH designation is not a development-related designation and
does not represent planned residential, commercial or industrial land uses. Table 5-6, Riverside County General Plan – Project Site’s Permitted Uses, shows the approximate acreage and
density range of each Riverside County General Plan land use designation within the boundaries of the SMAA. As shown in this table, the project site’s general plan designations permit
81 new dwelling units on approximately 713 acres designated for residential land uses. The 4,284 acres of OS-CH designated property will remain undeveloped.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-11 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 5-5 OTHER PROJECTS WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT VICINITY Project/Location
Type of Development Description AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily 1. Summerhouse -SW corner of Margarita Rd. and De Portola Rd Mixed-Use The Temecula Senior Care Facility includes a retirement
community, congregate care and a medical office. 128 205 2,214 2. Temecula Creek Inn– W of I-15 Residential Temecula Creek Inn is a 500 single-family home Subdivision adjacent to the
Temecula Creek golf course. 375 505 4,785 3. Tentative Map 30180 (not built) SE corner of Temecula Pkwy and Pechanga Parkway Mixed-Use Tentative Tract Map 30180 includes commercial/retail
uses located within the Creekside Plaza development. EZ Lube 12 21 160 Bank 49 183 986 4. Temecula Creek – W of I-15 Commercial Temecula Creek includes a hotel and convention center.
29 46 515 5. Vail Ranch Towne Center Commercial The Vail Ranch Towne Center includes office and retail uses. 432 488 6,036 6. Tentative Tract Map 29473 Residential Tentative Tract Map
No. 29473 includes single family detached residential units. 182 245 2,326 7. Tentative Tract Map 29031 Residential Tentative Tract Map No. 29031 includes single family detached residential
units. 96 129 1,225 8. Tentative Tract Map 30052 Residential Tentative Tract Map No. 30052 includes single-family detached residential units. 92 123 1,168 9. Pechanga Casino Expansion
– SW of Temecula Pkwy /Pechanga Pkwy intersection Commercial Pechanga Casino Expansion includes an expansion of the existing casino. 452 477 10,234 10. Margarita Canyon Mixed-use Margarita
Canyon includes commercial/retail uses. 184 733 7,909 11. Rancho Community Church Institutional Rancho Community Church includes a variety of land uses other than the church including
a private kindergarten– 8th grade school, a private high school, a preschool as well as 15 acres of general retail/office (retail) uses. Middle School 94 61 660 High School 222 64 915
12. Wolf Creek Mixed-use Wolf Creek proposes single-family detached residential units and commercial development. Single Family Residential 373 473 4,739 Community Commercial 336 840
8,400 Neighborhood Commercial 384 960 9,600 13. Morgan Hill Mixed-use Morgan Hill includes single-family detached residential units, an Elementary school, and a park. 621 564 5,430
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-12 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 5-5 (continued) OTHER PROJECTS WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT VICINITY
Project/Location Type of Development Description AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily 14. Tentative Tract Map 24188 Residential Tentative Tract Map 24188 includes 291 apartments. 196 265
2,507 15. Apis Plaza Commercial Apis Plaza includes commercial/retail, as well as a fast food restaurant, and a high turnover sit-down restaurant. 230 462 5,345 16. Paloma Del Sol Office
Bldg Professional Paloma Del Sol Office Building -includes 75,000 square feet of office space. 134 147 958 17. Park & Ride at Temecula Pkwy /La Paz Rd Public A 209 space Park & Ride
facility is planned at the northeast corner of Temecula Pkwy /La Paz intersection. 272 272 543 18. Temecula Lane 1 Residential Temecula Lane I is a residential development with 96 single-family
dwelling units and 332 multifamily dwelling units. 184 733 7,909 19. Roripaugh Ranch SPA Mixed-use The Roripaugh Ranch SPA is partly constructed. 1,800 singlefamily dwelling units remain
to be constructed in this project. 1,269 1,445 14,850 20. De Portola Meadows – E of Redhawk Pkwy Residential De Portola Meadows is a residential development with 147 single-family dwelling
units and 156 multi-family dwelling units. Single Family Residential 112 150 1,480 Multi-Family Residential 74 86 940 21. St. Thomas of Canterbury – SE of Temecula Pkwy and Avenida de
Missione Institutional St. Thomas of Canterbury is a church/preschool. This project includes a 30,473 square-foot building. 111 116 682 22. Hemmingway at Redhawk -SE of project site
on Redhawk Pkwy Residential Hemmingway at Redhawk is a residential development with 108 single-family dwelling units. 85 115 1,100 23. Temecula Professional Bldg (PA06-0329) -NE corner
of Margarita Pkwy and De Portola Rd Professional 33 92 254 24. Gateway Plaza -SE corner of Temecula Pkwy and Avenida De Missione Commercial Gateway Plaza is a two-storied, 30,573 square-foot
office development. 73 113 536 25. Redhawk Condos -SE of project site, off Redhawk Pkwy Residential Redhawk Condos is a residential development with 97 multi-family dwelling units located
at the Peach Tree Street /Deer Hollow Way intersection. 50 59 625 26. Stratford at Redhawk – Off of Redhawk Parkway Residential Stratford at Redhawk is a residential development with
106 single family dwelling units. 84 115 1,120 27. Butterfield Station -SW corner of Temecula Pkwy and Butterfield Stage Rd Butterfield Station is a 7,300 square-foot retail development
located off of Temecula Pkwy between Mahlon Vail and Butterfield Stage Road. 130 510 5,535
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-13 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 5-5 (continued) OTHER PROJECTS WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT VICINITY
Project/Location Type of Development Description AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily 28. De Portola Professional Office -SW corner of Margarita Rd and De Portola Rd De Portola Professional
Offices is a 38,501 square-foot office development. 87 120 640 29. Heritage Hotel Commercial Heritage Hotel is a 142-room hotel development with a 5,500 square-foot restaurant. Hotel
79 84 1,160 Restaurant 5 45 540 30. Halcon de Rojo -NE corner of Temecula Pkwy and Jedediah Smith Rd. Professional Halcon de Rojo is a 65,880 square-foot office development. 134 153
967 31. Temecula Regional Hospital Facility – N side of Temecula Pkwy, S of De Portola Rd. Institutional 566,160-square-foot Hospital Facility with 320-bed hospital, two medical office
buildings, a special cancer treatment facility, and a fitness rehabilitation center Temecula Hospital Phase I Hospital 272 340 3,400 Medical Office 202 289 2,890 Temecula Hospital Phase
II Hospital 240 300 3,000 Medical Office 152 217 2,170 Cancer Rehab Center 25 36 360 Rehab and Physical Therapy 20 29 290 TOTAL 8,314 12,410 127,103 SOURCE: City of Temecula TABLE 5-6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN – PROJECT SITE’S PERMITTED USES Land Use Designation Approximate Acreage Dwelling Units/Acre Range of Allowable Dwelling Units Residential Rural Mountainous
713 1 DU/10 Acres 71 – 81a Total Residential 713 71 – 81a Non-Residential Land Uses Open Space-Conservation Habitat 4,284 Total Non-Residential 4,284 TOTALS 4,997 71 -81 a It is noted
that each existing lot, regardless of size, may be developed with one dwelling unit. Therefore, when the maximum number of lots that can be created from existing 20-acre and larger lots
is added to the number of existing lots smaller than 10 acres (that cannot be further subdivided), a maximum of 81 new dwelling units may be developed within that portion of the project
area with this designation.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-14 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 The proposed project proposes to annex the subject property into the
City and to implement the city’s OS general plan designation in place of the county’s OS-CH designation and the City’s HR General Plan designation in place of the County’s RM designation.
The HR portion of the proposed project has the same approximate acreage and allows the same number of dwelling units as set forth in the Riverside County General Plan’s RM designation
and OS acreage corresponds to the OS-CH acreage of the Riverside County General Plan. For these reasons, it can be determined that the proposed project is relatively consistent with
the project site’s current General Plan land use designation. The CEQA states that “If a project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report
was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division to the approval approval of that development project shall be limited to the effects on the environment
which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information
shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report.” (Section 21083.3(b) of the California Public Resources Code) Proposed Project’s Relationship
to Riverside County General Plan Using the same generation factors described in Section 3.4 of the RCIP EIR for developing the population, number of dwelling units, number of workers,
square footage of employment uses and the number of jobs that were used in the environmental analysis of the Riverside County General Plan (as described in the Notes to Table 5-4, Project
Specific/Riverside County General Plan Population, Housing and Employment Comparison); the project site’s general plan designation of RM contributed 244 persons and 81 dwelling units
to the totals used in the environmental analysis of the Riverside County General Plan contained in the RCIP EIR. The proposed project will generate the same level of potential development
as that analyzed in the RCIP EIR. Therefore, it can be concluded that the RCIP EIR addressed the range of environmental impacts covered by the proposed project and that the RCIP EIR
covers a geographic area that included the project site. City of Temecula General Plan On April 12, 2005 the city of Temecula City Council adopted a General Plan update. The environmental
impacts related to the general plan update were evaluated in the Temecula EIR, which was certified by the Temecula City Council on April 12, 2005 through Resolution No. 05-044. The updated
City of Temecula General Plan which includes approximately 548 acres of the easternmost portion of the project site encompasses approximately 62 square miles (39,680 gross acres) and
consists of properties contained within the city’s corporate limits and sphere of influence, as well as portions of unincorporated Riverside County currently outside the city’s sphere
of influence. The present city boundary encompasses approximately 30 square miles (17,955 gross acres). Twenty-four square miles are within the sphere of influence and are the remainder
of the area covered by the General Plan. The Temecula General Plan’s Land Use Plan
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-15 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 (see Figure 5-3) shows the anticipated future growth in the city including
that portion located in proximity to the proposed project. Temecula EIR evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated with build-out of land use designations adopted by the
Temecula City Council with the General Plan update. The projections developed and analyzed in that EIR estimated potential population, dwelling units, and square footage for commercial
and industrial uses. The city of Temecula General Plan’s land use plan served as the basis for these projections. Proposed Project’s Relationship to Temecula General Plan The city of
Temecula city limits are located immediately east and northeast of the proposed project. Table 5-7, Temecula General Plan Development Capacity, compares the development capacity resulting
from long-term implementation of General Plan policy to existing (2002) land use conditions. The Temecula General Plan reflects the past, present and probable future development for
that area located east and northeast of the SMAA project area and its EIR described and evaluated the conditions contributing to area-wide and regional cumulative impacts. The analysis
of cumulative citywide impacts is contained in the Temecula EIR. Known projects within the vicinity of the proposed project which may not have been incorporated into the Temecula EIR
analysis, as shown on Table 5-6, Other Projects within the Proposed Project Vicinity and Figure 5-2, Location of Other Projects within Project Vicinity, were incorporated into the cumulative
impact analysis for Air Quality and Transportation and Traffic impacts. These known projects include any general plan amendments that may have been requested within this area since adoption
of the general plan in 2005. Assessment of Cumulative Impacts Air Quality The air quality impacts of the Riverside County General Plan were addressed in the RCIP EIR. Air pollutant emissions
associated with General Plan build-out would occur over the short-term from individual construction activities, such as fugitive dust from site preparation and grading and emissions
from equipment exhaust. Long-term local CO emissions at intersections in the County would be affected by project traffic. Future sources and types of air pollutants generated at build-out
of the General Plan will be similar to those presently produced although the amounts generated will be greater. The vast majority of long-term pollutants at build-out of the General
Plan will be from vehicular traffic, with the rest generated from stationary sources such as power plants and industrial facilities. Although implementation of the Riverside County General
Plan’s policies will mitigate air quality impacts, even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the RCIP EIR concludes that air quality impacts caused by construction
and long-term stationary and mobile emissions remain significant. Air quality impacts on sensitive receptors, however, would be mitigated to below the level of significance through implementation
of the General Plan’s policies.
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 5-3 City of Temecula General Plan -Land Use Map SOURCE: City of Temecula, June 2007 North Not to Scale
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-17 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 5-7 TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY Housing Units
Non-Residential Square Feet Land Use Category City General Plan Area Total City (TSF)* General Plan Area (TSF)* Total (TSF)* Hillside Residential 16 86 102 ------Rural Residential 23
485 507 ------Very Low Density Residential 607 185 792 ------Low Density Residential 1,404 454 1,858 ------Low Medium Density Residential 20,036 14,486 34,522 ------Medium Density Residential
6,540 1,241 7,780 ------High Density Residential 6,252 891 7,143 ------Neighborhood Commercial ------794 219 1,014 Community Commercial ------7,402 3,021 10,423 Highway/Tourist Commercial
------1,565 469 2,034 Service Commercial ------5,082 --5,082 Professional Office ------4,396 2,378 6,774 Industrial Park ------17,569 11,067 28,636 Public/Institutional ------9,238 7,106
16,344 Vineyards/Agriculture --222 222 --2,900 2,900 Open Space ------------Tribal Trust Lands ------------Mixed Use 1,760 --1,760 2,245 --2,245 TOTAL 36,637 18,049 54,687 48,291 27,161
75,452 Existing Conditions (2002) 23,543 6,139 29,682 31,572 7,681 39,254 Change from Existing +13,094 +11,911 +25,005 +16,719 +19,479 +36,198 a Thousand square feet. SOURCE: Temecula
EIR. The RCIP EIR states that any proposed General Plan that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative impact.
Because the Riverside County General Plan would contribute to the regional air pollutant emissions during construction periods and at build-out, the General Plan will have significant
and unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts. The Temecula EIR evaluated the potential air quality impacts resulting from build-out of the Temecula General Plan. The geographic scope
for the cumulative air quality analysis contained within the Temecula EIR is the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The Temecula EIR concluded that: Development forecast for the region will
generate increased emission levels from construction, transportation, and stationary sources. Cumulative impacts will be partially reduced by the implementation and achievement of emissions
levels identified in the SCAQMP and air quality components within the County of Riverside General Plan and
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-18 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 General Plans of other local jurisdictions. However, combined emissions
from Temecula and other developed areas within SCAB are expected to continue to exceed State and federal standards. Potential short-and long-term cumulative air quality impacts will
be significant and unavoidable despite incorporation of mitigation measures. (Temecula EIR, Page 7-5) The project site is located within a non-attainment region of the SCAB. Essentially,
this means that any new contribution of emissions into SCAB would be considered significant and adverse. It has been well documented by the SCAQMD that the air quality impacts seen in
western Riverside County are most attributable to the large population center in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The meteorological patterns of southern California lend to the “blowing-in”
effect of air pollution from the more populated and industrial counties to the west of the project site area. Implementation of the proposed project and the related area projects would
increase air pollution emissions in the SCAB. Residential developments proposed in the project area would potentially impact air quality through new vehicle trips and associated mobile
source emission generated by project residents and site visitors. Any single project does not in itself create emissions in sufficient quantity to threaten air quality standards. Rather,
the emissions from this project would be added to the emissions of similar projects throughout southern California. While the individual impact of any single project may be incrementally
small, the cumulative impact of all such small sources ultimately adds to the SCAB’s inability to meet clean air standards. Locally, the project’s traffic would be added to surrounding
roadways and may potentially create micro-scale impacts to sensitive receptors adjacent to traveled roadways. Continued local and regional growth not only contributes vehicle emissions,
emissions, but often creates a slowing of all other cars to less pollution efficient speeds as roadways reach their capacity. In addition to automobiles as the primary source of growth-related
air emissions, a number of small secondary sources may contribute pollutants to the regional burden. Such sources include temporary construction activity emissions, off-site or non-basin
emission from power plants supplying electricity, natural gas combustion, or the use of gas-powered landscape utility equipment. The imprecise or poorly defined nature of many of these
miscellaneous sources makes it difficult to accurately inventory them, but their incremental addition to SCAB pollution burden makes it that much more difficult for southern California
to achieve completely clean air in the near future. Air quality impacts of project implementation, when considered in concert with other existing, approved and planned and not yet built
projects, would therefore, result in an incremental contribution to the degradation of of air quality in the SCAB. The AQMP for the SCAB establishes a program of rules and regulations
directed at attainment of the state and national air quality standards. The AQMP control measures and related emission reduction estimates are based upon emissions projections for a
future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. Accordingly, conformance with the AQMP for
development projects is determined by demonstrating compliance with local land use plans and/or population projections. The SCAQMD adopted an updated AQMP in June 2007, which outlines
the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health-based standards for particulates (PM-2.5) by 2014 and for
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-19 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 ozone by 2023 (SCAQMD 2007a). The AQMP was approved by the CARB on
September 27, 2007. The AQMP will be submitted to the EPA for its final approval and included as a revision to California’s SIP. The 2007 AQMP was developed based on SCAG population
projections for the region. The population projections made by SCAG are based on existing and planned land uses as set forth in the various general plans of local governmental jurisdictions
within the region. The project involves the annexation of approximately 4,997 acres of unincorporated Riverside County territory to the City, and concurrent extension of the city’s sphere
of influence to include that portion of the annexation area not currently within the City’s sphere (4,443 acres). Approximately 713 acres within the project site are designated, by the
Riverside County General Plan, RM (1 DU/10 acres) and approximately 4,284 acres are designated designated OS-CH. The majority of the area proposed for annexation (4,279) acres will be
designated by the City of Temecula General Plan OS and will remain undeveloped. The development potential on the remaining area (718 acres) which will be designated HR is limited to
1 DU/10 AC, which will permit a maximum of 81 new dwelling units to be built. The proposed City of Temecula General Plan designations are ostensibly the same as the current County of
Riverside designations with approximately the same projected population within the project area. Since the project will be developed with land uses that are in accordance with the currently
approved general plan land use designations, the project is also considered to be in compliance with the AQMP. As described in Section 3.1 (Air Quality) of this EIR, the long-term emissions
from project operation are within the daily regional thresholds for all the criteria pollutants in both summer and winter. The operational emissions from the cumulative projects will
exceed the thresholds for all criteria pollutants, except for SO2 in both summer and winter. It is important to keep in mind that these regional thresholds were developed based on the
SCAQMD’s treatment of a single major stationary source, and the analysis of the cumulative project adds together the emissions from 31 major stationary sources. The project’s operational
emissions are within the SCAQMD regional thresholds; however, (utilizing the only available single major source thresholds) the project’s emissions combined with the cumulative projects’
emissions will contribute incrementally to cumulative air quality impacts. The project’s potential ozone (including ozone precursors VOC and NOx), PM-10, and PM-2.5 emissions represent
an incremental contribution to cumulative impacts of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). However, since the project will be developed with land uses that are in accordance with the
currently approved general plan land use designations, and is considered to be in compliance with the AQMP, the cumulative impact is considered to be less than significant. The proposed
project’s contribution to global greenhouse gases is discussed in Section 3.1 (Air Quality) of this EIR. As described in Section 3.1, the majority of project CO2 emissions are from vehicle
use followed by natural gas at 78 and 13 percent, respectively. Not included in this estimate are emissions from construction-related electricity, natural gas, and mobile sources nor
are emissions from wastewater treatment and landfill of solid waste during project operation.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-20 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Section 3.1 indicates that the majority of cumulative project CO2
emissions are from vehicle use followed by electricity generation at 79 and 10 percent, respectively. It is also recognized that even in the absence of the project and the cumulative
projects in the area, the impacts associated with global warming will still exist. Given the global nature of GHG and their ability to alter the Earth’s climate, it is not anticipated
that a single development project, particularly this limited number of residences, would have an effect on global climate conditions. It is, however, reasonably foreseeable that emissions
resulting from this project in combination with statewide, national, and international emissions could cumulatively contribute to a change in Earth’s climate, i.e., global warming. Without
any regulatory guidance or actual threshold of significance for global warming or GHG the making making of significance findings for associated impacts can be considered speculative.
However, the limited development potential envisioned by this project suggests that the project’s contribution to a cumulative impact is less than significant. Proposed Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are necessary as the emissions of criteria pollutants from the project are less than significant on both a regional and localized level. However, although there
are currently no thresholds of significance for GHG, the mitigation measures set forth in Section 3.1 (Air Quality) of this EIR shall be incorporated into the project in order to reduce
project-related energy consumption and help ensure that the project’s impacts will remain below the level of significance. Summary of Environmental
Effects after Mitigation Measures are Implemented The project will contribute incrementally to an existing cumulative air quality problem. However, the since the project will be developed
with land uses that are in accordance with the currently approved general plan land use designations, and is considered to be in compliance with the AQMP, the cumulative impact is considered
to be less than significant. Regarding global warming and GHG emissions, project mitigation will help reduce the intensity of project-related emissions. It is also recognized that even
in the absence of the project, the impacts associated with global warming will still exist. Biological Resources A total of 51 species that are listed, proposed, or candidates for listing
under the California and/or Federal Endangered Species Act are known to occur in Riverside County. Every type of habitat that contains one or more of these species will be impacted to
some degree by build-out of the Riverside County General Plan. Thus build-out of the General Plan will result in the direct mortality of individuals of listed, proposed or candidate
species or the loss of habitat occupied by such species. Additionally, recovery of these species may also be inhibited to some degree through implementation of the Riverside County General
Plan. The RCIP EIR concluded that these impacts are considered significant at the General Plan level.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-21 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 The RCIP EIR also found that “in the absence of an approved MSHCP
for both the Coachella Valley and western Riverside County”, implementation of the Riverside County General Plan will result in cumulative significant unavoidable adverse effects on
biological resources by causing direct loss of sensitive natural communities, the fragmentation of sensitive habitats, and the fragmentation of habitat thereby constricting, inhibiting
or eliminating wildlife movement. On June 17, 2003, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted the Western Riverside County MSHCP as a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional HCP
focusing on conservation of species and associated habitats in western Riverside County. The MSHCP will serve as an HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the FESA, as amended, as well
as a NCCP under the NCCP Act of 2001. The MSHCP will result in an MSHCP Conservation Area in excess of 500,000 acres and focuses on Conservation of 146 species. On June 22, 2004, the
USFWS approved the Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit and a Natural Community Conservation Planning permit was issued by the CDFG. These permits provide take authorization for those species
listed as threatened or endangered and identified in the permits as “Covered Species Adequately Conserved”. Take of habitat for bird species is also permitted. The County of Riverside
is a participating entity and permittee of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The Temecula EIR evaluated the potential impacts biological resources resulting from build-out of Temecula
General Plan. The geographic scope for the cumulative biological resources analysis contained within the Temecula EIR is the WRCOG jurisdictional boundaries. The Temecula EIR concluded
that: Several sensitive habitats and species are known to exist within the Planning Area and throughout the region. Although all sensitive species and habitats are protected by CEQA
and are subject to regulation by USFWS and the CDFG, adoption and implementation of the General Plan, together with implementation of General Plans of other regional jurisdictions, could
result in cumulatively significant impacts to a variety of sensitive habitats and species as a result of grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with construction
of community facilities, private development projects, and street and utility improvements. In addition, implementation of development projects could produce deleterious edge effects
that will adversely modify native vegetation located adjacent to development areas. To address regional biological resource preservation and protection concerns, Riverside County, Temecula,
and other jurisdictions in the region are active participants in the Riverside County MSHCP. Direct and indirect cumulative impacts on biological resources will generally be reduced
to a less than significant level through compliance with existing federal and State regulations, implementation of the MSHCP, MSHCP, and implementation of the mitigation measures detailed
in Section 5.4, Biological Resources. With these measures, cumulative biological resources impacts will be less than significant. (Temecula EIR, Page 7-5) The SMAA project site consists
of approximately 4,997 acres of primarily undeveloped land and a 5-mile stretch of the protected Santa Margarita River. The majority of the project area is
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-22 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 undisturbed and is in a pristine natural area, of which 4,279 acres
within the project boundary have been conserved in the SMER within the project boundary. The SDSU Field Station Program for the SMER has conducted significant research of natural communities
found within the reserve. The research has documented the observation of 180 animal species and 331 plant species within the SMER. Additionally, the CDFG CNDDB identifies 23 sensitive
wildlife species and 14 sensitive plant species as occurring within or in proximity to the annexation area. Special status wildlife species with the potential to occur in the SMER are
listed in Table 3.2-3. Of the species listed in Table 3.2-3, 20 species are documented to occur on the project site including least Bell’s vireo and California gnatcatcher. Special status
plant species with the potential to occur in the SMER are listed in Table 3.2-4. Of the species listed in Table 3.2-4, Three, San Diego thorn mint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia), rainbow
manzanita (Arctostaphylos rainbowensis) and Parry’s tetracoccus (Tetracoccus dioicus), have been documented on the project site during SDSU surveys. San Diego thorn mint is a federally
listed threatened and California listed endangered species. Rainbow manzanita is a CNPS list 1B.1 species and, Parry’s tetracoccus is a CNPS species 1B.2 species. Project impacts to
these species would include an incremental loss of breeding and/or seasonal foraging habitat locally. Individuals present within zones of project grading and other direct development
impacts would be lost or displaced by construction activities. Given the relative abundance of these species in other areas locally, the loss of highly disturbed habitats and an undetermined
(but expected low) number of individuals lost or displaced would not constitute a significant adverse impact to these species on a local or regional basis, nor amount to measurable impact
to to the species within southern California or their overall range. With the exception of the Two-striped garter snake, these species are Western Riverside County MSHCP Covered Species.
The USFWS determined that these species are adequately conserved through implementation of the MSHCP. (Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit No. TE088609-0 dated June 22, 2004). All future
development of discretionary projects within the project area is required to comply with the regulatory requirements of the MSHCP and all future development within the project area is
required to comply with city of Temecula Ordinance No. 07-01 which was adopted to implement the MSHCP. Through compliance with these regulatory requirements, the potential cumulative
impacts from the proposed project on these species are considered less than significant. Proposed Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures have been incorporated which will reduce project-related
impacts to the potential species found on the project site prior to construction to less than significant levels. To address the impacts associated with the cumulative loss of habitat
for special status birds by the loss of habitat, project-related development of future discretionary projects will be required to comply with the regulatory requirements of the MSHCP
and all future development within the project area is required to comply with city of Temecula Ordinance No. 07-01 which was adopted to implement the MSHCP. Payment of these fees will
mitigate for the cumulative loss of habitat associated with the species listed above and additional species identified in the MSHCP.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-23 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Summary of Environmental Effects after Mitigation Measures are Implemented
After incorporation of mitigation measures, potential adverse cumulative impacts associated with special-status species and the loss of habitat will be reduced to a less than significant
level. Cultural Resources Riverside County contains known historical, archaeological and prehistoric resources and therefore has the potential to have as yet undiscovered cultural resources.
Build-out under the Riverside County General Plan has the potential to adversely affect these resources. The RCIP EIR determined that implementation of the Riverside County General Plan
will cumulatively contribute significantly to the loss of these resources. However, the RCIP EIR concluded that implementation of the Riverside County General Plan’s policies and RCIP
EIR mitigation measures contained in the RCIP EIR would reduce the potential impacts on cultural and paleontological resources to below the level of significance. Development of the
project site was analyzed by the RCIP EIR and therefore, the RCIP EIR analysis of cumulative impacts to cultural resources is applicable to the proposed project. The Temecula EIR evaluated
the potential impacts upon cultural resources resulting from buildout of the Temecula General Plan. The geographic scope for the cumulative cultural resources analysis contained within
the Temecula EIR is the WRCOG jurisdictional boundaries. The Temecula EIR concluded that: Development pursuant to the Temecula General Plan and General Plans of other regional jurisdictions
will occur on vacant sites that could contain archaeological or paleontological resources. Unknown archaeological sites, structures, and fossils could be unearthed during excavation
and grading activities for development projects. In developed areas, development activity facilitated by Plan policies could impact historic resources. At the regional level, compliance
with CEQA requirements regarding prehistoric resources, as set forth in Sections 21083.2 and 15064.5, will avoid impact. Temecula will guard against impact on historic and paleontological
resources through long-term application of mitigation measures identified in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources. No cumulative impact will result. (Temecula EIR, Page 7-5) The project site
contains no known historical or paleontological resources. The records search conducted by the EIC indicated that fifteen previous documented cultural resource studies involved portions
of the project area and seven cultural resource sites are recorded within the boundaries of the project area. There is the potential that some cultural resources were not identified
due to the dense ground cover, and that prehistoric resources may be identified in buried context and impacted during future development. This potential impact can be mitigated to below
the level of significance through the implementation of mitigation measures. Proposed Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures set forth in Section 3.3 (Cultural Resources) will reduce
project-related impacts due to accidentally discovered historical, archaeological and/or paleontological resources to less than significant levels.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-24 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Summary of Environmental Effects after Mitigation Measures are Implemented
After incorporation of mitigation measures, potential adverse impacts associated with cumulative impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. Mineral Resources Aggregate
mineral resources exist within Riverside County. Potential impacts upon mineral resources within Riverside County were addressed in the RCIP EIR. The RCIP EIR determined that Riverside
County General Plan's contribution to the growth and urbanization of Riverside County would result in the direct and/or indirect loss of mineral resources. This loss would result from
urban development, redevelopment, and possible conversion of MRZs to urban uses. However, the Riverside County General Plan area is comprised of large portions of undeveloped, open land
containing MRZs and provides policies to protect mineral resources, while at the same time allowing the extraction of mineral resources. It was determined that implementation of the
Riverside County General Plan would not contribute significantly to the cumulative loss of these sensitive areas and their resources. The NOP that was prepared for the Temecula EIR determined
that there were no known mineral resources within the City, and therefore, the issue of mineral resources was not addressed within the Temecula EIR. As discussed in Section 3.5 (Mineral
Resources) of this EIR, although most of the annexation area is located within a MRZ-3 area, a portion of the site (Liberty Quarry) has recently been designated as a MRZ-2a zone. The
proposed project will result in zoning and general plan land use designations that would not allow mining operations being placed upon the project site. This prohibition of mining of
the known aggregate resources found within the project area would result in the inability to produce aggregate from this previously unmined source. The inability to mine mineral resources
within the annexation area as a result of the proposed project means that approval of the project will result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources within in the project
area that would be of value to the region. However, the proposed project will not create limitations or prohibitions that would prevent the extraction of mineral resources in other locations
of Riverside County. Therefore, although the proposed project has direct impacts upon mineral resources, there will be no significant cumulative impacts upon mineral resources. Proposed
Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate the potential significant adverse impacts upon mineral resources. None were identified that could
reduce the project-related impacts from loss of mineral resources to below the level of significance. No mitigation measures are required or proposed to address less than significant
cumulative impacts upon mineral resources.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-25 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Summary of Environmental Effects after Mitigation Measures are Implemented
The proposed project will have no significant cumulative impacts related to mineral resources. Public Services and Utilities Potential impacts upon public services and utilities related
to build-out of the Riverside County General Plan were evaluated in the RCIP EIR. These potential impacts included those that related to fire protection, sheriff protection, parks and
recreation, schools, libraries, solid waste and water and sewer. The RCIP EIR determined that build-out of unincorporated areas of Riverside County will create a substantial increase
in population and residential and non-residential structures. As a result, a need for additional on-duty firefighters and sheriff personnel and support facilities will be required. Riverside
County General Plan build-out will substantially contribute to significant cumulative impacts to fire protection, sheriff protection and schools, and will contribute to cumulative impacts
upon park and recreation and library services. Implementation of the General Plan’s policies and RCIP EIR mitigation measures would reduce these potential impacts to below the level
of significance. The RCIP EIR determined that although there will be increased demand for park and recreation facilities, these impacts will be reduced to below the level of significance
through implementation of performance standards contained in the Riverside County General Plan. Riverside County General Plan build-out would also result in increased student population
and demand for library services. Payment of school impact mitigation fees pursuant to California law will reduce school impacts and general plan build-out will result in a less than
significant impact upon schools, and general plan policies and RCIP EIR mitigation measures will reduce impacts upon libraries to below the level of significance. Build-out of the Riverside
County General Plan is anticipated to generate over 6.6 million tons of solid waste per year. The increase from current solid waste generation amounts is considered in the RCIP EIR to
be substantial, however, implementation of Riverside County General Plan policies and RCIP EIR mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to below the level of significance.
In 1997, households in Riverside County produced over 105 million gpd of wastewater. Daily wastewater amounts would increase to over 128 million gallons per day. Implementation of General
Plan policies and existing Riverside County regulations will result in a less than significant impact on wastewater systems, but would still substantially contribute to a significant
cumulative impact on existing wastewater facilities. The General Plan’s impact upon water supply will be significantly impacted by General Plan build-out. The RCIP EIR determined that
adherence to General Plan policies and RCIP EIR mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to water supply, but that the potential impacts remain significant and unavoidable.
The Temecula EIR evaluated the potential impacts upon public services and utilities resulting from build-out of Temecula General Plan. The geographic scope for the cumulative public
services and utilities analysis contained within the Temecula EIR is the WRCOG jurisdictional boundaries. The Temecula EIR concluded that:
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-26 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Future regional growth will result in increased demand for law enforcement
services, fire protection and emergency services, schools, libraries, parks and recreation, and other public facilities. Service providers must continue to evaluate the levels of service
desired and the funding sources available to meet increases in demand. Although the ability of local service providers to provide specific levels of service varies throughout the region,
each jurisdiction within the region must coordinate with service providers. General Plan policies for Temecula direct the City to meet the public service and recreation needs of future
residents in a measured manner to pace development with the availability of services. Through implementation of such policies and the mitigation measures identified in Section 5.12,
Public Services and Recreation, Temecula will do its part to reduce potential cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. (Temecula EIR, Page 7-7) New development throughout
the region must comply with the RCWD’s and/or EMWD’s water and sewer service master plans. Fees will be paid as required to fund infrastructure and thus avoid cumulative impact. Future
development in the region will add substantial volumes of solid waste to the waste stream. The AB 939 requires all cities to reduce waste within their boundaries through source reduction
and recycling. All jurisdictions within the region will be required to continue to reduce waste generation and divert materials from regional landfills. Compliance with existing local,
county, and State regulations ensures a less than significant cumulative impact. (Temecula EIR, Page 7-8) The proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 33.21 tons of
solid waste annually. This represents approximately 0.0005 percent of the annual capacity of the Badlands, El Sobrante and Lamb Canyon landfills. According to the Riverside County General
Plan, by build-out of Riverside County (in approximately 40 years) the County will need to dispose of 6.6 tons of solid waste in landfills each year. The amount of landfill capacity
needed to accommodate this solid waste is directly in line with the County’s projected increased landfill need (4 percent per year). Hence, build-out of Riverside County including the
City, of which the proposed project is a part, would not create demands for waste management services that exceed the capacities of the waste management system and impacts to solid waste
facilities associated with the proposed project are less than significant. This estimated population will also increase the demand for fire services, sheriff services, school services,
library services, water and sewer services, solid waste disposal services, electricity, natural gas, communications systems, storm water drainage, and other governmental services. These
potential impacts have been addressed by the RCIP EIR and the Temecula EIR. Due to the limited development potential of the proposed project, an estimated 81 new single-family dwelling
units, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts upon public services and utilities is not expected to be cumulatively considerable. Development of the proposed project will offset
its limited contribution to the cumulative impact of area development on these services and utilities payment of established developer mitigation fees established to address cumulative
impacts (Temecula City Council Resolution No. 03-63 and subsequent amendments) and Statemandated school impact mitigation fees.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-27 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Proposed Mitigation Measures Required payment of developer impact
fees pursuant to Temecula City Council Resolution No. 03-63 and subsequent amendments will offset the proposed project’s less than significant cumulative impacts to public facilities
and services. Summary of Environmental Effects after Mitigation Measures are Implemented The proposed project will have no significant cumulative impacts related to public services and
utilities. Transportation and Traffic Cumulative impacts related to Transportation and Traffic are discussed in Section 3.7 (Transportation and Traffic) of this EIR. Proposed Mitigation
Measures Mitigation measures related to Transportation and Traffic are discussed in Section 3.7 (Transportation and Traffic) of this EIR Summary of Environmental Effects after Mitigation
Measures are Implemented A discussion of the cumulative environmental effects related to Transportation and Traffic is located in Section 3.7 (Transportation and Traffic) of this EIR.
Noise Cumulative impacts related to Noise are discussed in Section 3.8 (Noise) of this EIR. Proposed Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures related to Noise are discussed in Section
3.8 (Noise) of this EIR Summary of Environmental Effects after Mitigation Measures are Implemented A discussion of the cumulative environmental effects related to Noise is located in
Section 3.8 (Noise) of this EIR. Recreation As previously mentioned in Section 3.9, if optimal development occurs, the project area can expect development of approximately 81 new single-family
homes.1 Based on the City’s standard single-family occupancy rate of 3.24 persons per home the project area could become home to approximately 263 additional residents. Through the payment
of in-lieu fees, dedication of parks, 1 Each existing lot, regardless of size, may be developed with one dwelling unit. Therefore, when the maximum number of lots that can be created
from existing 20 acre and larger lots is added to the number of lots smaller than 10 acres (that cannot be further subdivided), an estimated 81 new dwelling units may be developed within
that portion of the project area with the Hillside Residential designation
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-28 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 and the joint use of school facilities, the City anticipates having
sufficient parkland to meet the needs of the City residents through year 2013; as such, the increase in projected residents, should optimal development occur, would be considered negligible.
Therefore, the project will not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Project impacts upon recreational facilities will be less than significant. Proposed Mitigation Measures There are no required mitigation
measures related to recreation. Summary of Environmental Effects after Mitigation Measures are Implemented The proposed project will have no significant cumulative impacts related to
recreation. 5.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts This topic is intended to address any impacts that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2).
Significant impacts which cannot be avoided or eliminated if the project is implemented have been discussed in detail throughout Section 3.0 of this document. A summary of the areas
in which impacts could not be reduced to a level below significance is briefly presented below. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts to Mineral Resources Impacts to mineral resources are considered
significant if the project will result in the potential loss of availability of any known mineral resources. The project area is located within an area that until recently was classified
as an MRZ-3 area, indicating that the significance of mineral deposits are undetermined from available data. With the exception of the Liberty Quarry site which is now classified MRZ-2a,
the annexation area is still classified MRZ-3. The proposed project will result in zoning and general plan land use designations that do not allow mining operations being placed upon
the project site. This prohibition of mining of the known aggregate resources found within the project area would result in the continued inability of mineral resource production to
meet the consumption demand within the region. The inability to mine mineral resources within the annexation area as a result of the proposed project means that approval of the project
will result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources within in the project area that would be of value to the region. Therefore, impacts to mineral resources are considered
to be significant. Mitigation measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate the potential significant adverse impacts upon mineral resources. None were identified that could
reduce the impacts from loss of mineral resources to below the level of significance and therefore, unavoidable adverse impacts related to mineral resources remain.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-29 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 However, the development of existing un-permitted reserves and resources
adjacent to existing mining operations could meet the same aggregate needs as mining of the known aggregate resources found within the project area by also providing a large new source
of aggregate mining operations with sand and aggregate along with concrete and asphalt generation to the construction industry in southwest Riverside County and to San Diego County.
In addition, the development of new resources or undeveloped resources in many other areas in the region, away from the project area, could also have the same effect as the opening of
a new mine in the project site location. Yet other alternatives that could have some of the same effects could be imports from outside the region such as in San Diego and Los Angeles,
offshore sources of material, and from recycled concrete and asphalt. In addition, imports of aggregate to California are increasing from Canada and Mexico, with southern California
receiving aggregates by ocean barge shipment to ports in San Diego and Los Angeles. These imports are expected to increase, and the impact will be most significantly felt in San Diego
and Los Angeles County. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts to Air Quality Implementation of the proposed project would result in unavoidable adverse impacts to shortterm construction particulate
(PM-10 and
PM-2.5) emissions related to blasting activities that would be required for residential and supporting infrastructure construction. Blasting would result in emissions greater than 150
pounds per day of PM-10 and greater than 55 pounds per day of PM-2.5. Project related air quality impacts associated with typical construction and operational emissions would be less
than significant. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts to Transportation and Traffic The City of Temecula General Plan has established as a citywide target an LOS D for peak hour intersection
operations and LOS C for non-peak operations on all roads within the City. Consistent with and in furtherance of city of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element policies, the significance
criteria utilized for environmental review of this project is based upon the City’s goal for intersections and roadway segments to operate at LOS D or better. A significant impact is
determined on a roadway segment or intersection with the addition of project traffic if: • For intersections and roadway segments, an LOS D or better that degrades to LOS E or worse
as a result of project traffic is considered a significant direct impact. • Where LOS is already at E or worse, a significant direct impact is identified if project traffic further reduces
the LOS. • For features already operating at LOS F, a significant direct impact is identified where project traffic increases intersection delay by 2 seconds or more or the V/C ratio
by more than 2 percent (0.02.) • A cumulative impact is identified as cumulatively considerable if the the LOS is already at E or F and project traffic increases intersection delay by
more than 2 seconds or the V/C ratio of a roadway segment by more than 2 percent (0.02.)
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-30 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 The project-related increases in traffic delays at study area intersections,
with the exception of the I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Blvd intersection, is less than 2 seconds and there is no change in LOS at those intersections. However, the project’s
direct impacts upon the I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Blvd. intersection during the AM Peak Hour is greater than 2 seconds and level of service changes from LOS E to LOS F.
Additionally, project-related increases in the V/C ratio of study area roadways are less than 0.02. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a significant direct traffic-related
impact upon study area intersections and roadway segments, with the exception of the I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Blvd intersection. The proposed project’s incremental contribution
to cumulative traffic impacts at all study area intersections, with the exception of the I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Blvd intersection, does not exceed 2 seconds and does
not cause an increase in the V/C ratio of study area roadway segments of more than 2 percent (0.02); therefore the proposed project’s incremental effect upon these study area intersections
and roadway segments are not significant when viewed in connection with the combined effects of past projects, other current projects and probable future projects. Although implementation
of Mitigation Measure 3.7-1, which will reduce the impact upon the I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Blvd. intersection to less than significant levels, is technically (physically)
feasible, implementation will require approval of other agencies (Caltrans and San Diego County). Because the intersection is in within the jurisdiction of San Diego County and because
no improvement can be made without the approval of Caltrans, the City cannot ensure that the improvements will be made in time to mitigate the impact of the project on this intersection.
Therefore, although the City will undertake all reasonable steps to coordinate with San Diego County and Caltrans to install the improvements, the project's direct and cumulative impacts
on this intersection are unavoidable. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts to Noise Construction activity noise levels at and near the construction areas would fluctuate depending on the particular
type, number, and duration of uses of various pieces of construction equipment. Construction-related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending
on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. In addition, certain types of construction equipment could generate impulsive noises (such as pile driving and blasting),
which can be particularly annoying. Noise from construction activities generally attenuates at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling distance. Based on the proposed project site layout
and terrain, an attenuation of 7.5 dBA will be assumed. Onsite Residences Pre existing homes on the project site could experience construction noise approximately as close as 200 feet
(worst case), due to the new hillside residential land use and the required setbacks. Average home separation would probably be 500 to 1,000 feet apart and would prohibit mass grading
and wholesale vegetation clearing for agricultural purposes. Also, a reasonable phasing
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-31 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 assumption would entail development of 5 homes per year, which would
require 16 years to construct all 81 single-family dwelling units allowed under the proposed planning applications. Table 3.8-5 states that excavation is 89 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated
out to 200 feet, the residence would experience noise levels of approximately 74 dBA Leq during finishing and excavation. However the loudest of construction activities that could occur
would be pile driving and blasting. Pile driving is a short term noise event that is 101 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated out to 200 feet, the residence would experience noise levels
of approximately 86 dBA. In a worst case scenario, blasting could be used during construction of a residence. If this were to occur, residences at 200 feet would experience noise levels
of approximately 100 dBA. Subsequent exposure to construction noise by individual residences could be lessened over time due to attenuation of noise by project structures built in the
interim. Construction noise at these levels would be substantially greater than existing noise levels. These construction noise levels, especially if they were to occur during the nighttime
hours when people are sleeping, would be potentially significant. The City noise ordinance states that no person shall conduct construction activity when the site is within one-quarter
mile from an occupied residence between the hours of 6:30 pm and 6:30 am Monday through Friday, and shall only conduct construction between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:30 pm on Saturday.
Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. Daytime construction is commonly exempt from noise ordinances because background noise
is typically louder during the day than at night, and sleep disturbance is typically considered to be a nighttime impact. However, even daytime noise levels from construction can exceed
daytime ambient levels and be a substantial annoyance to nearby residential units. Mitigation measures 3.8-1a through 3.8-1f would reduce nighttime and daytime construction noise levels.
Off-Site Residences The nearest off-site sensitive receptor is located 240 feet south of the middle portion of proposed general plan hillside residential area in San Diego County. Due
to required setbacks, construction of the nearest new residence could occur approximately as close as 440 feet from this off-site receptor (worst case). Table 3.4-6 states that excavation
is 89 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated out to 440 feet, the residence would experience noise levels of approximately 64 dBA Leq during finishing and excavation. However the loudest
of construction activities that could occur would be pile driving and blasting. Pile driving is a short term noise event that is 101 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated out to 440 feet,
the residence would experience noise levels of approximately 77 dBA. In a worst case scenario, blasting could be used during construction of a residence. If this were to occur, residences
at 440 feet would experience noise levels of approximately 91 dBA. Subsequent exposure to construction noise by individual residences could be lessened over time due to attenuation of
noise by project structures built in the interim. In San Diego County it is unlawful for construction to take place between the hours of 7:00 pm and 7:00 am on Sundays or legal holidays.
Construction is allowed between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm as long as noise levels at the property line of a legal dwelling unit do not exceed a 75 dBA average. Pile driving would be approximately
77 dBA and blasting would be approximately
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-32 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 91 dBA, but both would only be intermittent and not occur for an average
of an hour. Therefore construction noise levels at nearby residences in San Diego County are less than significant. 5.3 Growth Inducing Impacts According to CEQA Guidelines (Section
15126.2 [d]), a project may foster economic or population growth, or additional housing, either indirectly or directly, in a geographical area if it meets any one of the following criteria
below: • A project would remove obstacles to population growth. • Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, causing significant environmental effects.
• A project would encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. The project site consists of approximately 4,997 acres of publicly and privately
owned primarily undeveloped land; most of which is undisturbed natural open space within within the SMER. The majority of the area is comprised of steep hills with scattered outcroppings
of granite boulders, sloping in a southwesterly direction with elevations ranging from approximately 530 feet to 2,330 feet above mean sea level. Within the lower reaches of the project
area is the Santa Margarita River which flows year round. From the river bottom up into the hills are many seasonal drainages. Future development within the project area will be limited
to the development of approximately 81 new single-family dwelling units on approximately 718 acres of privately-owned land. This property would be developed in accordance with the City’s
HR land use designation permitting 1 DU/10 AC.2 Individual developments within this area could potentially influence adjacent privately-owned property to develop by providing or extending
driveways or roadways, and utility and energy services to the immediate area. This could eliminate potential constraints for future development in this area. However, the remainder of
the project area consists of approximately 4,279 acres of land within the SMER that will be designated as open space. This open space area will not be subject to future development.
Additionally, this open space property separates the developable portion of the project site from other developable property within vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the proposed
project’s potential to foster growth will be limited to only that development permitted within the boundaries of the project area. As discussed in Section 3.6 (Public Services and Utilities)
of this EIR, the proposed project will not tax existing community service facilities and will not have a significant impact upon public services and utilities. 2 It is noted that each
existing lot, regardless of size, may be developed with one dwelling unit. Therefore, when the maximum number of lots that can be created from existing 20-acre and larger lots is added
to the number of lots smaller than 10 acres (that cannot be further subdivided), a maximum of 81 new dwelling units may be developed within that portion of the project area with this
designation.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-33 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Therefore, due to the project’s limited development potential and
the geographic separation of the developable property from surrounding developable property, the proposed project will not have growth-inducing impacts. 5.4 Short-Term Uses versus Long-Term
Productivity If the proposed project is approved and constructed, a variety of short-term and long-term impacts will occur on both local and regional levels. During construction, portions
of surrounding lands may be temporarily impacted by dust and noise over the project build-out. Short-term erosion may occur during grading and construction activities. These disruptions,
however, are temporary and can be mitigated to a large degree. The long-term effect of the proposed project and the subsequent development will be to convert a portion of the project
site into hillside residential development. In relation to this process, the characteristics characteristics of the physical, biological, cultural, and human environment will be impacted,
as with any form of residential development. The consequences of this development include an incremental increase in traffic volumes, incremental degradation of the regional air quality,
incremental demands for public services and utilities, and increased natural resource consumption. Ultimate development of the project area would create long term environmental consequences
that are connected with any form of rural residential development. However, the proposed project will benefit the community and population by providing increased opportunities for large
lot hillside residential housing and will ultimately provide for a form of long-term productivity which appears compatible with human needs in the area. 5.5 Alternatives to the Proposed
Project The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6, identify the parameters within which consideration and discussion of alternatives to the proposed project should occur. As stated in in
this section of the guidelines, alternatives must focus on those that are reasonably feasible and which attain most of the basic objectives of the project. Each alternative must be capable
of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the proposed project. The rationale for selecting the alternatives to be evaluated and a discussion of the "no project"
alternative are also required, per Section 15126.6. As stated in Section 3.0 of this document, SMAA project objectives are: • To integrate the SMAA area into the City’s General Plan,
adopting general plan and zoning amendments that establish the general framework for ultimate development within the study area. • To preserve public lands within the SMAA area in natural
open space; while retaining the existing rural residential/agricultural character of privately-owned lands. • To protect the research value of the SMER by prohibiting incompatible land
uses within adjacent properties.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-34 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 This section of the EIR will look at 1) a No Project Alternative that
retains existing use of the site with no new development, 2) an alternative that considers development pursuant to the existing Riverside County’s General Plan Land Use designations
with large-lot residential development within the RM designation, 3) an alternative that considers development pursuant to the existing Riverside County’s General Plan Land Use designations
with large-lot residential development and quarry development within the RM designation, and 4) an alternative consisting of City annexation of only that portion of the project area
(554 acres) currently located within the City’s sphere of influence. Impacts associated with the above-outlined alternatives to the proposed project are evaluated and documented on a
worst case basis. Physical impacts associated with each alternative assume that the entire parcel area proposed for a specific alternative land use would be impacted and the alternatives
would allow for site preparation and vegetation clearing for agricultural and/or fuel modification requirements. Although the proposed hillside ordinance and physical design constraints
would not allow this to occur, it is evaluated as a worst case scenario. The alternatives are also assumed to have a similar design year build-out as the proposed project -2015. Rationale
for Alternative Selection Pursuant to CEQA (15126.6(a)), each alternative must in some way avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects created by the proposed
project and meet most of the basic project objectives, as shown above. The direct significant environmental effects that result from the proposed project, after mitigation measures are
implemented, are direct impacts to mineral resources. The proposed project has no cumulatively considerable impacts. The project, as proposed, consists of the annexation of approximately
4,997 4,997 acres of unincorporated County territory to the City. Approximately 554 acres of the area proposed to be annexed is already in the city’s sphere of influence. The project
includes a General Plan Amendment to adopt land use designations for the annexation area (OS and HR, 1 DU/10 AC) and adoption of pre-zoning to implement the General Plan land use designations.
The proposed land use designations and pre-zoning are anticipated to result in unavoidable adverse impacts related to the mineral resources. Therefore, alternatives with higher intensities
of residential uses or commercial and/or industrial uses would clearly result in more traffic, and therefore, poorer air quality than the proposed project, and were not considered further.
Likewise, land uses significantly different than those allowed under the present County of Riverside land use designations (i.e., OS-CH and RM), which would not meet the project objectives
in any way are not considered. It is required under CEQA that alternative site(s) be evaluated if any feasible sites exist where significant impacts can be lessened. However, the proposed
project consists of the annexation of specific property into the City. Annexation of alternative property in the City will not implement any of the project’s objectives. Therefore, an
alternative location is not considered a feasible alternative to the proposed project. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (3), the "no project" alternative could take two forms: 1)
no change from the existing uses (ecological reserve, natural land, six existing dwelling units)
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-35 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 or, 2) pursuant to the existing general plan designations. Since the
Riverside County Southwest Area Plan’s Land Use Map designates the project site for OS-CH and RM uses and the RM uses permit both residential and surface mining land uses, development
pursuant to the existing general plan designations can take two different forms. Therefore, in this section, the “no project” alternative (No Project – No Development Alternative) will
consider no change from the existing uses on the subject property and the two approaches to development under the Riverside County General Plan’s land use designations (Existing County
General Plan -Residential Only Alternative and Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative) will also be considered. Description and Evaluation of Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Project – No Development Alternative Description of Alternative The No Project – No Development Alternative would retain the project site in its current primarily undeveloped
state. The 718 acres of privately-owned land would remain primarily vacant and in its natural state, with the exception of the four existing single-family residences. Approximately 4,279
acres located within the SMER would continue to be conserved. This alternative evaluates the environmental impacts resulting from a continuance of the project site with existing but
no new development. Evaluation of Alternative Agricultural Resources Under the No Project – No Development Alternative, the project site would primarily remain in its current conservation
and natural open space conditions. The four existing dwelling units, located outside of the SMER, are primarily large ranch estates involved with agriculture or equestrian activities.
There would be no loss of agricultural land and no contribution to the cumulative loss of agricultural resources. This alternative would have no adverse impacts upon agricultural resources,
just like the proposed project. Air Quality Since no construction activity would occur, this Alternative would not have any short-term impacts on air quality. Also, no new long-term
sources of air pollution would result from increased traffic and increased use of energy resources. This impact would be avoided compared to the proposed project. Biological Resources
The No Project – No Development Alternative would not result in a change to the existing biology of the project site. Use of the project site for habitat would continue and there would
be no contribution to cumulative loss habitat within the vicinity of the project site. Other existing or potential sensitive species would be able to continue to utilize the project
site as habitat
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-36 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 (including breeding and/or seasonal foraging habitat). This impact
would be avoided compared to the proposed project. Cultural Resources There are eight known cultural resource sites within the project area. There is also a potential for the discovery
of cultural and paleontological resources during grading of the project site. Since the No Project – No Development Alternative would not involve additional or deeper grading of the
project area, it will have no impact upon any known or potentially buried cultural resources. This impact would be avoided compared to the proposed project. Geology and Soils This Alternative
would not involve any additional development on the site. The project site is not subject to potentially significant geologic hazards involving fault rupture or seismic ground failure.
It is susceptible to seismic ground shaking and landslides, along the steeper hillsides. This Alternative will not result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil, or be located within
geologic unit or soil that results in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The project will have no impact or less than significant impacts
related to geology and soils. Like the proposed project, this alternative would not result in significant geology or soils impacts. Hydrology and Water Quality Under this Alternative
no changes in the existing drainage patterns within the project area will occur. This impact would be avoided compared to the incremental but less than significant impacts of the proposed
project. Land Use and Planning Under this Alternative, the site would not be converted to City land use designations. Existing land use on site would remain. These uses are consistent
with the existing general plan land use designations and zoning on the subject property. Like the proposed project, this alternative would not result in significant land use and planning
impacts.3 Mineral Resources The No-Project – No Development Alternative will retain existing land uses. The mineral resources located on the project site within MRZ-2a designated areas
would remain in place but there would be no mining of those resources. This impact would be the same as the significant unmitigable impact associated with the proposed project. 3 As
previously described in Section 3.4 the majority of the project area is zoned R-R with a small area zoned R-A-20 by Riverside County. Based on Riverside County’s Land Use Designations
– Zoning Consistency Guidelines, the R-R zoning is considered to be “conditionally consistent” with the county’s RM land use designation and “inconsistent” with the county’s OS-CH designation.
R-A-20 zoning is considered “inconsistent” with the county’s OS-CH designation. Therefore, current Riverside County zoning for most of the project area is inconsistent with County’s
current land use designations.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-37 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Noise Since no construction activity would occur, this Alternative
would not have any short-term noise impacts. Traffic-related noise increases created by project-related operations and traffic would not occur. Like the proposed project, this alternative
would not result in potentially significant noise impacts. Recreation It should be noted that access to the SMER is by permission only; as such use of the site is somewhat restricted
from the general public. Under this Alternative, the existing land use on the site would be retained. The approximate 4,997 acres of publicly and privately owned primarily undeveloped
land, most of which is undisturbed natural open space within the SMER, would remain. Like the proposed project, this alternative would not result in significant recreation impacts. Public
Services and Utilities This Alternative would not result in the creation of additional demand for public services and utilities. Fire Department and police response times would remain
unchanged. The No Project -No Development Alternative would not create an increase in the amount of solid waste generated on the project site and will not increase the demand upon libraries,
schools and parks. There would be no demand for water, sewer, or utility services. These impacts would be avoided compared to the incremental but less than significant impacts of the
proposed project. Transportation/Traffic The No Project – No Development Alternative would not increase site-generated traffic above current levels, would not contribute to delays at
study area intersections or result in an increase in the volume to capacity ratio on study area roadway segments. This impact would be avoided compared to the incremental but less than
significant impacts of the proposed project on most study area intersections and roadways. This impact would be avoided compared to the significant direct and cumulative impacts of the
proposed proposed project upon the I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Blvd. intersection. Regional Element The No Project – No Development Alternative would not result in the creation
of additional residences within the local area. As with the proposed project, there would be no adverse impact upon the existing jobs to housing ratio. Alternative 2: Existing County
General Plan – Residential Only Alternative Description of Alternative The Existing County General Plan – Residential Only Alternative would result in development of the project’s site
in accordance with its current general plan designation (see Figure 5-4). Within the project area 4,284 acres have a Riverside County General Plan Land Use designation of OS
Riverside County San Diego County City of Temecula LEGEND City of Temecula Boundary Project Boundary Parcels Rural Mountainous -Riverside County GP 1 Dwelling Unit /10 Acres 79 15 City
of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 5-4 Alternative 2 Existing County General Plan Residential Only Alternative SOURCE: City of Temecula, June 2007, Riverside County GIS,
2007 North Not to Scale
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-39 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 CH while the remaining 713 acres are designated RM. For the purposes
of this analysis, the RM designated property would be developed with single-family residential development at a density of 1 DU/10 AC. Since each existing lot, regardless of size, may
be developed with one dwelling unit; when the maximum number of lots that can be created from existing 20-acre and larger lots is added to the number of lots smaller than 10 acres (that
cannot be further subdivided), a maximum of 80 new dwelling units may be developed within that portion of the project area under Alternative 2. The OS-CH designated property would remain
in open space and not be developed. Table 5-8, Comparison of Proposed Project to Existing County General Plan – Residential Only Alternative shows a comparison of the proposed project
to the No Project – No Development Alternative. TABLE 5-8 COMPARISON
OF PROPOSED PROJECT TO EXISTING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN – RESIDENTIAL-ONLY ALTERNATIVE Component of Development Proposed Project Existing County General Plan – Residential Only Alternative
Single-family residential 718 acres with 81 new dwelling units 713 acres with 80 new dwelling units Open Space & Conservation 4,279 acres 4,284 acres Estimated New Residentsa 263 241
a It is noted that the city of Temecula uses a population generation rate of 3.24 persons per single-family dwelling unit while the County of Riverside General Plan utilizes a population
generation rate of 3.01 persons per dwelling unit. The estimated number of new residents reflects this difference in generation rates. Evaluation of Alternative Agricultural Resources
Development of the Existing County General Plan -Residential Only Alternative would result in the development of 80 new dwelling units on approximately 713 acres. The four existing dwelling
units, located outside of the SMER, are primarily large ranch estates involved with agriculture or equestrian activities, activities, but there are no other agricultural uses within
the developable portion of the project site. There should be no loss of agricultural land and no contribution to the cumulative loss of agricultural resources. Like the proposed project,
this alternative would not result in significant impacts to agricultural resources. Air Quality The Existing County General Plan – Residential Only Alternative would result in impacts
to air quality comparable to those of the proposed project. Daily construction emissions would remain unchanged and operation of the 80 residential units associated with this Alternative
would result in a slightly lower emissions profile than the proposed project. The impact to local air quality from construction activities would be less than significant, assuming a
similar construction schedule. The impact to criteria pollutants from project operation would be less than significant. With regard to greenhouse gases, Riverside County does not have
any green building standards
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-40 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 by which the residences would be constructed. New construction without
any green building design features would not represent improvements above “business as usual” and development under the County’s requirements would result in GHG emissions greater than
those under the proposed project. Therefore, development under this Alternative would not be consistent with the State’s goals and AB 32, and could result in a significant impact to
global climate. Biological Resources The Existing County General Plan -Residential Only Alternative will result in the conversion of the project site from the existing uses to a combination
of large lot residential development and preserved open space. Under this alternative, a total of 712.2 acres of vegetation /habitat would be impacted. Broken down as follows (chaparral
– 589 acres, costal sage scrub – 41 acres, oak Woodland – 36 acres, and ruderal – 9 acres). Future development within the annexation area will have the potential to result in impacts
to sensitive wildlife species found within the area. Potential impacts upon these species would include an incremental loss of habitat (including breeding and/or seasonal foraging habitat)
locally. Individuals present within zones of project grading and other direct development impacts could potentially be lost or displaced by construction activities. The potential direct
and indirect adverse impacts of this alternative on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species should be reduced to below the level of significance through
compliance with the provisions of the MSHCP and relevant provisions of the proposed pre-zoning (The HR-SM zone requires any hillside development plan to be designed to protect sensitive
wildlife habitat areas, biological corridors, native plants, and plant communities. The HR-SM zone supports interconnected, contiguous, and integrated open space systems within an area,
particularly when located contiguous to open space preserves as well as containing grading limitations, ridgeline protections and standards to reduce green house gas emissions.). Grading
and development under this alternative has the potential to adversely affect federally protected wetlands. Additionally, sensitive bird species that have been seen within the project
site, or those that have a moderate or high potential to occur on-site are protected under the federal MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code. However, such impacts should be reduced
to less than significant levels through compliance with the same mitigation measures as required for the proposed project. Like the proposed project, this alternative would result in
less than significant impacts upon biological resources. Cultural Resources Eight cultural resources sites are recorded within the project boundaries. One of these, the Murrieta Creek
Archaeological Area/District is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and in the California Registry. There is a potential that buried cultural resources and/or paleontological
resources may be discovered during project construction under this Alternative 2, but such impacts should be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with the same
mitigation measures as required for the proposed project. Like the proposed project, this alternative would result in less than significant impacts upon cultural resources.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-41 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Geology and Soils The Existing County General Plan -Residential Only
Alternative would permit development of approximately 80 new dwelling units within the project site. The project site is not subject to potentially significant geologic hazards involving
fault rupture or seismic ground failure. The site is susceptible to seismic ground shaking and landslides along the steeper slopes. This alternative will not result in substantial erosion
or loss of topsoil, or be located within a geologic unit or soil that results in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The project will have
no impact or less than significant impacts related to geology and soils. Like the proposed project, this alternative would not result in significant geology or soils impacts. Hydrology
and Water Quality Under this Alternative development within the project area has the potential to affect existing drainage patterns and water quality, however, potential hydrology and
water quality impacts should be less than significant as a result of the County’s grading plan review process and compliance with regulatory requirements. This impact would be similar
to the incremental but less than significant impacts of the proposed project. Land Use and Planning Under this Alternative 2, the site would not be converted to City land use designations.
Existing Riverside County land use designations and zoning would remain. Development of the privatelyowned portion of the project site with approximately 80 dwelling units will be consistent
with the existing general plan land use designations and zoning on the subject property. Like the proposed project, this alternative would not result in significant land use and planning
impacts. Mineral Resources Alternative 2 will retain existing Riverside County land use designations and zoning. The mineral resources located on the project site within MRZ-2a designated
areas would remain in place, but there would be no mining of those resources. This impact would be the same as the significant unmitigable impact associated with the proposed project.
Noise Construction of this Alternative 2 would result in short-term noise impacts and constructionrelated vibration; however, through compliance with Section 1.G.1 of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 457 these impacts should remain below the level of significance. Noise increases created by project-related operations and traffic would be minimal due to the small increase
in traffic affecting local roads. Like the proposed project, this alternative would not result in potentially significant noise impacts. Recreation As previously noted, that access to
the SMER is by permission only; as such use of the site is somewhat restricted from the general public. The Existing County General Plan -Residential Only Alternative will result in
the conversion of the project site from the existing uses to a combination of large lot residential development and preserved open space. This alternative
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-42 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 would permit development of approximately 80 new dwelling units within
the project site. Similar to the proposed project, should optimal residential development occur under this alternative, the increase in additional residents would not cause significant
impacts to area recreation. Public Services and Utilities This Alternative 2 has the potential for a limited number of dwelling units to be built (approximately 80 dwelling units). However,
implementation of this Alternative will not result in any significant impacts to public services and utilities. As a result, no mitigation measures would be required. However, payment
of development impact fees to offset any potential public servicerelated impacts should be required through compliance with adopted County regulatory requirements. Like the proposed
project, this alternative would not result in potentially significant impacts upon public services and utilities. Transportation and Traffic The Existing County General Plan – Residential
Only Alternative will increase traffic levels upon existing streets by approximately 766 trips daily with 60 trips in the AM Peak hour and 81 trips in the PM Peak hour. This is nine
daily trips lower than that projected for the proposed project. AM Peak hour traffic is the same as that of the proposed project and the PM Peak hour traffic is only 1 trip less than
that of the proposed project. Potential alternative-related and cumulative impacts should be less than significant. This alternative's traffic impacts will be slightly less than that
of the proposed project, but will not be measurably different than the project’s impacts upon the level of service of area-wide intersections and roadway segments. Like the proposed
project, this alternative would require mitigation of impacts to the I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Blvd. intersection. Although the same mitigation measure as for the proposed
project should be implemented to reduce the impact upon this intersection to less than significant levels, implementation will require approval of other agencies (Caltrans and San Diego
County). Because it is possible that the required improvements will not be constructed in order to mitigate this Alternative’s impacts to this intersection, direct and cumulative transportation
and trafficrelated impacts will remain significant. Like the proposed project, this alternative would result in significant transportation and traffic-related impacts. Regional Element
The Existing County General Plan -Residential Only Alternative is consistent with regional plans. It will have a slightly negative, but not significant, impact upon area’s job/housing
ratio. Like the proposed project, this alternative will not have a significant impact upon the area’s job/housing ratio.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-43 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Alternative 3 –Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface
Mining Alternative and Surface Mining Reclamation Plan Description of Alternative The Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative would result in development
of the project site in accordance with its current general plan designation (see Figure 5-5 and Figure 5-6). Within the project area 4,284 acres have a Riverside County General Plan
Land Use designation of OS-CH while the remaining 713 acres are designated RM. For the purposes of this analysis, the 414 acres of the Rural Mountainous-designated property would be
developed with a surface mining operation for the extraction of aggregate resources and 299 acres of the RM designated property would be developed with 25 single-family dwelling units.
Upon completion of mining excavation activities, a reclamation plan of the site would be implemented. The reclamation plan could generally consist of the quarry being developed and utilized
for public raw water storage by a public water agency to be determined. Table 5-9, Comparison of Proposed Project to Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative,
shows a comparison of the proposed project to this Alternative 3. TABLE 5-9 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PROJECT TO EXISTING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN – RESIDENTIAL PLUS SURFACE MINING ALTERNATIVE
Component of Development Proposed Project Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative Single-family residential 718 acres with 81 new dwelling units 713
acres with 25 new dwelling units Surface Mining Operation 0 acres 414 acres Open Space & Conservation 4,279 acres 4,284 acres Estimated New Residentsa 263 75 a It is noted that the city
of Temecula uses a population generation rate of 3.24 persons per single-family dwelling unit while the County of Riverside General Plan utilizes a population generation rate of 3.01
3.01 persons per dwelling unit. The estimated number of new residents reflects this difference in generation rates. Evaluation of Alternative Agricultural Development of the Existing
County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Development of the Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative would result in the development of
25 new dwelling units on approximately 299 acres and a surface mining operation. The four existing dwelling units, located outside of the SMER, are primarily large ranch estates involved
with agriculture or equestrian activities, but there are no other agricultural uses within the developable portion of the project site. There would be no loss
Riverside County San Diego County City of Temecula LEGEND City of Temecula Boundary Project Boundary Parcels Mine Boundary Mine Impact Area 79 15 Residential -1 Dwelling Unit /10 Acres
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 5-5 Alternative 3 Existing County General Plan Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative SOURCE: City of Temecula, June 2007,
Riverside County GIS, 2007 North Not to Scale
City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 5-6 Alternative 3 Mine Impact Area SOURCE: Liberty Quarry, 2008. Mine Boundary Mine Impact Area
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-46 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 of agricultural land and no contribution to the cumulative loss of
agricultural resources. The surface mining operation would involve the excavation, stockpiling and processing of large quantities of aggregate mineral resources and other materials over
a long period of time. Such an operation has a significant potential to generate dust and other airborne particulate matter which would blow from the site to the nearby agricultural
uses, thereby potentially negatively impacting agricultural production. This alternative would have substantially greater impacts upon agricultural resources than those of the proposed
project which has no impacts upon agricultural resources. While there is limited agricultural activity in the annexation area, there are numerous residences dependent on water wells.
Igneous and metamorphic bedrock areas within the Santa Margarita Watershed area are generally non-water water bearing, with the exception of joints, fractures, fault zones or deeply
weathered zones from which the yield is generally small. In some localities however, these sources are extremely important in that they provide the only presently available water supply.
Agricultural land use and water wells located at an elevation higher than the bottom of the pit could be severely depleted in the Rainbow Valley and other surrounding valleys flanking
the mountain. Surface Mining Reclamation Plan As previously mentioned under the description of the reclamation plan, upon completion of mining activities and reclamation of the site,
the quarry would be developed and utilized for public raw water storage by a public water agency to be determined. It is not anticipated that additional agricultural impacts would result
from the eventual reclamation of the mining site under this alternative. Air Quality Development of the Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining The Existing County
General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative would result in impacts to air quality exceeding those of the proposed project. The alternative would increase the overall
amount of earth moving and construction activities when compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, construction of this alternative would generate pollutant emissions
through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment and haul trucks. Emissions from construction and operations of the surface mine were previously calculated in the Air Quality Impact
Analysis (AQIA) for Liberty Quarry4. A comparison of maximum daily construction emissions for this alternative would increase criteria pollutants by a factor of two to four. With such
an increase, this alternative would cause criteria pollutants to exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. As a result, regional impacts for this alternative are predicted to be significant
and unavoidable for ROG, NOx, CO, PM-10 and PM-2.5. Operational emissions from surface mining were also calculated in the Liberty Quarry AQIA (Kleinfelder West, Inc., 2007). The number
of daily trips would be one to two orders of magnitude greater compared to the proposed project. The Liberty Quarry AQIA however, 4 http://www.libertyquarryfacts.com/pdfs/hessel_report_final.pdf
(Kleinfelder West, Inc., 2007)
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-47 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 assumed a net reduction of operational truck trips due to the project
providing an aggregate source closer to markets. As a result of locating the source closer to markets, this would reduce VMT in the region by approximately 26,000 miles per day5. A more
recent study performed by Fehr & Peers demonstrates that it is unlikely that the proposed surface mining operation would result in a reduction in trips, but would actually increase VMT
in the region by approximately 45,000 miles per day which in turn would increase operational emissions6. Therefore, total contributions to regional emissions under this alternative would
result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to regional emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, PM-10 and PM-2.5. Localized operational impacts are determined mainly by the peak hour
intersection traffic volumes. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative is forecasted to generate more operational trips during the peak hour. Since the localized CO hotspot
analysis for the Liberty Quarry AQIA did not result in any significant impacts, this alternative would likewise not have any localized impacts due to a similar number of trips generated
during the peak hour.7 With respect to potential air toxic impacts, a health risk assessment (HRA) was performed in the Liberty Quarry AQIA. Results of the HRA shows that cancer, chronic,
and acute health risk remain below their respective SCAQMD and ARB significance thresholds. Thus, similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in a less than significant
air quality impact related to air toxics.8 With regard to greenhouse gases, Riverside County does not have any green building standards by which the residences would be constructed.
New construction without any green building design features would not represent any improvements above business as usual. Therefore, development under this Alternative would not be consistent
with the State’s goals and AB32, and could result in a significant impact to global climate. Surface Mining Reclamation Plan Upon completion of mining activities and reclamation of the
site, the quarry would be developed and utilized for public raw water storage by a public water agency to be determined. It is not anticipated that additional air quality impacts would
result from the eventual reclamation of the mining site under this alternative; however possible cumulative GHG impacts could result from the energy consumption needed to transport the
water needed to fill the reservoir could result. Biological Resources Development of the Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative 3 will result in the
conversion of the project site from the existing uses to a combination of large lot residential development, surface mining and preserved open space. Under this alternative, a total
of 712.2 acres of vegetation /habitat would be impacted. Broken 5 Liberty Quarry Truck Traffic Miles Reduced Evaluation, April 12, 2006. Urban Cross Roads 6 Email correspondence with
Chris Gray, Fehr and Peers. September 9, 2008. 7 Note: Even though the Liberty Quarry AQIA reached these CO hotspot and HRA conclusions, present evidence is inconclusive to support these
conclusions. 8 Note: Even though the Liberty Quarry AQIA reached these CO hotspot and HRA conclusions, present evidence is inconclusive to support these conclusions.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-48 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 down as follows (chaparral – 589 acres, costal sage scrub – 41 acres,
oak Woodland – 36 acres, and ruderal – 9 acres). Future development within the annexation area will have the potential to result in impacts to sensitive wildlife species found within
the area. Potential direct impacts upon these species would include an incremental loss of habitat (including breeding and/or seasonal foraging habitat) locally. Individuals present
within zones of project grading and other direct development impacts could potentially be lost or displaced by construction and mining activities. The potential direct impacts of this
Alternative on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species should be reduced to below the level of significance through compliance with the provisions
of the MSHCP and relevant provisions of the proposed pre-zoning (The HRSM zone requires any hillside development plan to be designed to protect sensitive wildlife habitat areas, biological
corridors, native plants, and plant communities. The HR-SM zone supports interconnected, contiguous, and integrated open space systems within an area, particularly when located contiguous
to open space preserves as well as containing grading limitations, ridgeline protections and standards to reduce green house gas emissions.). Grading and development under this alternative
has the potential to adversely affect federally protected wetlands due to contaminated runoff that could ultimately reach the Santa Margarita River. Additionally, sensitive bird species
that have been seen within the project site, or those that have a moderate or high potential to occur on-site are protected under the federal MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code.
Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in the development of an aggregate mine on 414 acres and 25 residential dwelling units directly within the area identified by the MSHCP as
Special Linkage Area. The MSHCP describes the Special Linkage area as follows: This Special Linkage Area will contribute to assembly of a portion of the SAPML for the benefit of MSHCP
covered species. Tribal coordination regarding American Indian Lands will be necessary in this area. The SAPML includes locations within and outside the MSHCP Plan Area. Features of
the entire linkage area are described in the SAPML Conservation Design Plan Working Draft (SDSU Field Station Programs and South Coast Wildlands Project, February 2003). A working draft
of the Conservation Design Plan is attached to Comment Letter X3 in Volume V, of the MSHCP. Local Permittees will apply the following rebuttable presumption of significance, taken from
Appendix G to the 1998 State CEQA Guidelines, in CEQA review of proposed public and private projects within this Special Linkage Area and apply mitigation measures as appropriate: "Would
the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?" Draft and Final CEQA documentation prepared by Local Permittees for projects within this Special Linkage Area will be forwarded to
the RCA for informational purposes to provide for MSHCP coordination regarding this area. There are eight (8) existing culverts that traverse I-15 in the vicinity of the project site
and the identified Special Linkage Area, that are large enough to support large mammal movement between the east and west sides of I-15. Large mammal wildlife movement has been documented
by camera monitoring stations installed by the SDSU Field Station Program. Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in increased impacts to wildlife movement as compared to the proposed
project.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-49 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Surface mining within the project area would bring a higher level
of human activity into the area. This increased activity as well as mining impacts related to noise, blasting, and grading, light and glare, dust and other particulate matter, and potential
contamination of surface waters, will have potentially significant indirect impacts upon surrounding natural open space areas. These indirect impacts would adversely affect the sensitive
species that reside in the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, which is adjacent to private lands that could be used for mining. Although development under this alternative should be
required to implement all feasible mitigation, this alternative’s impacts upon biological resources would be greater than the less than significant impacts of the proposed project. Surface
Mining Reclamation Plan The quarry excavation will disrupt the natural groundwater pathways pathways (fractures) and general groundwater flow in the area. Spring supplies could be adversely
affected and most likely stop flowing during the 20-year life of the quarry. Once the bedrock is removed, water pathways along joint fractures and weathered zones will be gone. Although
the proposed lake, as the proposed pit mitigation, may provide a source for water in the distant future, springs fed from higher topographic sources will permanently stop flowing due
to the missing void spaces that existed within the quarried rock mass. Biological and botanical species dependent on these spring-fed water sources will be permanently affected. Cultural
Resources Development of the Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Eight cultural resources sites are recorded within the project boundaries. Eight cultural
resources sites are recorded within the project boundaries. One of these, the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and in
the the California Registry. There is a greater potential that buried cultural resources and/or paleontological resources may be discovered during project construction under this Alternative
due to the large scale excavations related to surface mining operations, but such impacts should be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with the same mitigation
measures as required for the proposed project. This impact would be greater than those of the proposed project’s less than significant impacts upon cultural resources. Surface Mining
Reclamation Plan It is not anticipated that additional cultural resource impacts would result from the eventual reclamation of the mining site under this alternative. Geology and Soils
Development of the Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Development of the Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative will result
in the construction of single-family residences
and structures related to surface mining of aggregate mineral resources. The site is not subject to potentially significant geologic hazards involving fault rupture or seismic ground
failure. The hazards of seismic ground shaking, and landslides along steep slopes exist. However, due to the significant amount of earth movement
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-50 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 that would accompany surface mining operations, this alternative has
the potential to result in substantial erosion and loss of topsoil, resulting in on-site landslides and slope collapse. Development under this alternative should be required to implement
all feasible mitigation measures to lessen these impacts. However, due to the scope of potential impacts from the surface mining operation, this alternative’s geology and soil impacts
would be potentially significant whereas the proposed project will not have significant geology and soil impacts. Surface Mining Reclamation Plan Development of the Existing County General
Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative will result in the construction of single-family residences and structures related to surface mining of aggregate mineral resources.
The site is not presently subject to potentially significant geologic hazards involving fault fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure and landslides. However proposed
changes to the site could potentially trigger slope instabilities and microseismic events. Steeper natural slopes on this mountain have been mapped as containing late-Pleistocene landslide;
other unpublished landslides are thought to exist. The California Geologic Survey now classifies the steeper slopes in this area as being susceptible to seismically induced landslides.
Therefore, “inherently unstable conditions” should be assumed unless proven otherwise. Landsliding probably occurred as a result of late-Pleistocene wetter climatic conditions, along
with the possibility of a seismic trigger, causing a pseudo-stable rock mass to become unstable. Rock discontinuities exist throughout the rock mass and their orientation in regard to
the slope orientation are critical to assessing stability. A second factor influencing stability is water pressure. With the introduction of a deep reservoir (as part of the reclamation
reclamation plan), tremendous hydraulic driving forces will force groundwater travel in areas not presently affected by flow. Fracture flow can occur rapidly and at significant distances
from the source. Thus, a slope on the west side of I-15 that is presently dry and stable, must now be re-evaluated with the knowledge that groundwater seeps along the faults and fractures
could induce unstable conditions. The inducement of seismic events by the presence of this reservoir load on the rock mass must also be investigated. Hydrology and Water Quality Development
of the Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Under this Alternative, development within the project area has the potential to affect existing drainage patterns
and water quality. The substantial landform alteration that will accompany this alternative’s surface mining operation will significantly impact the natural drainage within the project
area. Due to the industrial nature of a surface mining operation and related uses, this this alternative will have an increased potential for contaminated runoff that would significantly
impact the water quality in receiving water bodies. Surface mining operations also have significant potential to deplete the groundwater table and degrade the quality of the groundwater.
Although potential hydrology and water quality impacts should be less than significant as a result of the County’s grading plan review process and compliance with regulatory requirements,
there is the potential that adverse water quality impacts will still occur. Therefore, due to the potential impacts of the surface mining operation, this alternative’s hydrology and
water quality impacts would have potential to be significant whereas the proposed project’s impacts would not.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-51 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Surface Mining Reclamation Plan Under this Alternative, development
within the project area has the potential to affect existing surface water flow, groundwater flow and water quality. The substantial landform alteration that will accompany this alternative’s
surface mining operation will significantly impact the natural drainage within the project area. Due to the industrial nature of a surface mining operation and related uses, this alternative
will have an increased potential for contaminated runoff that would significantly impact the water quality in receiving water bodies. Surface mining operations also have significant
potential to alter the groundwater surface and degrade the quality of the groundwater. A 75-year mining operation to elevation of the I-15 freeway will drastically change the mountain
groundwater hydrology during the active mining duration. Springs could be depleted and flow paths in the mountain changed. Groundwater chemistry could be affected by the new exposure
of open un-weathered joints, fractures, and faults. Thus, the natural filtering process that has developed over geologic time will now be removed. This exposure of the openings in the
rock mass will continue once the mine excavation is filled with water and could have the effect of “supercharging” the mountain with groundwater. There is no data to support assertions
that the groundwater regime will return to a pre-mining condition, however; it is a reasonable interpretation that the introduction of these types of water depths and pressures will
far exceed any wetter Pleistocene climatic conditions experience at the mine site. Thus, groundwater seeps around the mountain slopes would be expected to increase above premining conditions.
The hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the reclamation plan for this alternative would have the potential to be significant whereas the proposed project’s impacts would
minor or no impacts on the geology and hydrology. Land Use/Planning Development of the Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Under the Existing County General
Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative the site would not be converted to City land use designations. Existing Riverside County land use designations and zoning would remain.
Development of the privately-owned portion of the project site with approximately 25 dwelling units and surface mining operations will be consistent with the existing general plan land
use designations. However, a change in the existing zoning may be required to accommodate processing operations developed in conjunction with the surface mining operation. The permitting
of surface mining operations, although consistent with the existing general plan designation, would be a significant change in the existing land use pattern within the project area.
Therefore, Alternative 3 would have significant impacts upon land use which are substantially greater than those of the proposed project which has less than significant impacts upon
land use and planning. Surface Mining Reclamation Plan As with surface mining operations, the site would not be converted to City land use designations under the reclamation plan. Existing
Riverside County land use designations and zoning would remain. Upon completion of mining activities and reclamation of the site, the quarry would be
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-52 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 developed and utilized for public raw water storage by a public water
agency to be determined. Reclamation of the site would also be a significant change in the existing land use pattern within the project area. Therefore, as with surface mining operations,
the reclamation plan would have significant impacts upon land use which are substantially greater than those of the proposed project which has less than significant impacts upon land
use and planning. Mineral Resources Development of the Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining The Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining
Alternative will retain existing Riverside County land use designations and zoning. The mineral resources located on the project site within MRZ-2a designated areas would remain in place,
and surface mining of those resources would occur. The ability to mine the mineral resources resources found on the project site means that this alternative will have no adverse impacts
upon the availability of mineral resources. This impact would be avoided compared to the significant unmitigable impact associated with the proposed project. However, the development
of existing un-permitted reserves and resources adjacent to existing mining operations could have the same effect as development of a surface mining operation under Alternative 3 by
also providing a large new source of aggregate mining operations with sand and aggregate along with concrete and asphalt generation to the construction industry in southwest Riverside
County and to San Diego County. In addition, the development of new resources or undeveloped resources in many other areas in the region, away from the annexation area, could also have
the same effect as the opening of a new mine in the Alternative 3 location. Yet other alternatives that could have some of the same effects could be imports from outside the region such
as in San San Diego and Los Angeles, offshore sources of material, and from recycled concrete and asphalt. There are large areas in Riverside County, San Diego County and Imperial County
that could provide enormous amounts of aggregate to the region. It is expected that those areas, with suitable geologic conditions for mineral aggregate resources, will be developed
in the future as many of those areas are amenable for securing property and obtaining mine permits. In terms of volume, the amount of area that could be developed could conservatively
exceed by over 10 times the amount of current lands having permits or even identified by the State of California. In addition, imports of aggregate to California are increasing from
Canada and Mexico, with southern California receiving aggregates by ocean barge shipment to ports in San Diego and Los Angeles. These imports are expected to increase, and the impact
will be most significantly felt in San Diego and Los Angeles County. However, this may also result in a lower demand of exported aggregate that is produced in Riverside County. In the
future it is anticipated that sand and aggregate production offshore from the southern California Coast will occur. That would further lessen the need for exports from Inland area aggregate
mines. Continuing and increased asphalt recycling into new asphalt finished products will certainly reduce the demand for new aggregates for road construction and repair. The use of
recycled demolition concrete, for fill and road base, will further reduce the need for new aggregate.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-53 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Surface Mining Reclamation Plan The surface mining reclamation plan
would not result in and additional adverse impacts upon the availability of mineral resources. This impact would also be avoided compared to the significant unmitigable impact associated
with the proposed project. Noise Development of the Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Construction of the Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus
Surface Mining Alternative would result in short-term noise impacts and construction-related vibration related to construction of 25 single-family homes. Noise increases created by residential-relate
d operations and traffic would be less than those generated by the proposed project due to a reduction of residentialgenerated traffic. However, with the inclusion of traffic generated
from surface mining operations, the total traffic generated under this alternative would be substantially greater than that generated by the proposed project. This is because in addition
to automobile traffic, this alternative would have a substantial amount of diesel truck traffic and noise generated by diesel trucks (85 dBA at 50 feet, 40 mph) is greater than noise
generated from automobiles (65 dBA at 50 feet, 30 mph to 80 dBA at 50 feet, 65 mph).9 This overall increase in project-site generated traffic will result in substantial increases in
traffic-generated noise from the project area. Additionally, substantial noise levels, and vibration impacts from mining equipment and blasting can be expected from this alternative’s
surface mining operations. This noise impacts will affect the residential development developed as part of this alternative and adjacent areas of the SMER. The reserve itself is considered
a sensitive land use. SDSU conducts several field classes through the SDSU extension program which occur within the SMER. A real-time sensor network has been established within the SMER
that includes climate stations, hydrographic stations, and several real-time cameras. Specifically, students have the ability to view real-time sensor network data from state-of-the-art
global change technology and meteorological instruments at field stations located within the SMER while sitting in their campus classroom. These real-time data networks, available to
researchers and students, are located throughout the SMER. The networks compile information related to weather and atmospheric data while also comparing with data from ongoing biological
monitoring programs, including surveys of insects, birds, amphibians, and small mammals. Additionally, collaborating researchers from UC San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography
have added sensors to tower instruments that add data for seismological and watershed modeling to the databases within the SMER. As such, ongoing research, field classes, real-time monitoring
activities are all highly-sensitive to air and impacts, as well as ground vibrations. Residences and biological resources are also highly sensitive to blasting and associated mining
activities. It is estimated that the nearest residence to blasting operations would be approximately 2,500 feet away, while the nearest conservation habitat/SMER sensitive research land
use area to quarry blasting operations would be approximately 50 feet away. The nearest residence to surface mining processing plants would be approximately 2,000 feet away, while the
nearest conservation 9 California Department of Transportation, California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, Figure 6A, January 2002.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-54 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 habitat/SMER sensitive research land use area to surface mining processing
plants would be approximately 900 feet away. Construction activities for a surface mining operation would consist mainly of excavation and the creation of roadways. Noise from construction
activities generally attenuates at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling distance. Based on the Alternative 3 scenario location and terrain, an attenuation of 7.5 dBA will be assumed.
Residences to the east of the proposed surface mining operation site could experience construction noise from the processing area approximately as close as 2,000 feet (worst case). Table
5-10, Vibration Velocities for Construction Equipment states that excavation is 89 dBA at 50 feet, and if attenuated out to 2,000 feet, the residence would experience noise levels of
approximately 48 dBA Leq during finishing and excavation. Construction noise at these levels would be substantially greater than existing noise levels at nearby sensitive receptor locations.
These construction noise levels, especially if they were to occur during the nighttime hours when people are sleeping, would be potentially significant. The County of Riverside noise
ordinance states that the maximum noise level for residents between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am is 45 dBA, and the maximum noise level for residents between the hours of 7:00 am
and 10:00 pm is 55. TABLE 5-10 VIBRATION VELOCITIES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment/Activity PPV at 25 ft (inches/second)a RMS at 25 ft (Vdb)b Caisson Drilling 0.089 87 Large Bulldozer
0.089 87 Loaded Trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Impact Pile Driver 0.644 104 a Buildings can be exposed to ground-borne vibration levels of 0.2 PPV without experiencing structural
damage. b The human annoyance response level is 80 RMS. SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. The nearest conservation habitat/SMER
sensitive research land use area is located approximately 900 feet from construction of the surface mining processing area. Table 5-10 states that excavation is 89 dBA at 50 feet, and
if attenuated out to 900 feet, the conservation area would experience noise levels of approximately 58 dBA Leq during finishing and excavation. However, these construction noise levels
exceed the County of Riverside Noise Standard of 45 dBA maximum at anytime in a conservation habitat/SMER sensitive research land use area. Use of heavy equipment for project construction
(large bulldozer) would generate vibration levels of up to 0.089 PPV or 87 RMS at a distance of 25 feet. If development of a surface mining project under Alternative 3 were to occur,
the nearest residence would be approximately 2,000 feet from construction activity and could experience vibration levels of approximately 0.0001 PPV and 30 RMS. The nearest conservation
habitat/SMER sensitive research land use area would be approximately 900 feet from the construction of the processing area and could experience
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-55 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 vibration levels of approximately 0.0004 PPV and 40 RMS, all of which
would be below the potential building damage threshold of 0.2 PPV or the annoyance threshold of 80 RMS. To determine the noise levels that the processing and asphalt plants would produce,
noise levels at similar facilities were used. Specifically, measurements taken by ESA staff at a sand and aggregate processing facility in Yuba County found that short-term daytime noise
levels reached 82 dBA Leq and 86 dBA Lmax at 100 feet for the processing plant, and 82 dBA Leq and 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet for the asphalt plant.10 It is assumed that the surface mining
operations would generate similar noise levels. Processing plant noise, if attenuated 2,000 feet to the nearest residence, would produce 50 dBA Leq and 54 dBA Lmax. Processing plant
noise, if attenuated 900 feet to the nearest conservation habitat/SMER sensitive research land land use area, would generate 58 dBA Leq and 62 dBA Lmax. Asphalt plant noise, if attenuated
2,000 feet to the nearest residence, would produce 50 dBA Leq and 53 dBA Lmax. Asphalt plant noise, if attenuated 900 feet to the nearest conservation habitat/SMER sensitive research
land use area, would generate 58 dBA Leq and 61 dBA Lmax. These operational noise levels would exceed the County of Riverside Noise Standard of 45 dBA maximum at anytime in a conservation
habitat/SMER sensitive research land use area. Blasting noise emissions would be approximately 115 dBA at 50 feet and if attenuated to 2,500 feet to the nearest residence, blasting noise
could reach noise levels of approximately 73 dBA. At the nearest conservation habitat/SMER sensitive research land use area located about 50 feet away from blasting noise levels would
be approximately 115 dBA. As the pit blasting operations move further below the surface subsequent exposure to blasting noise could be lessened over time. These operation noise levels
would exceed the County of Riverside Noise Standards of 45 dBA maximum at anytime in a conservation habitat/SMER sensitive research land use area and 65 dBA daytime development under
this alternative should be required to implement all feasible mitigation measures to lessen these impacts. Due to the potential impacts of the surface mining operation, this alternative’s
noise and vibration impacts would be substantially greater than those of the proposed project which has no significant noise impacts. Surface Mining Reclamation Plan It is not anticipated
that additional noise impacts would result from the eventual reclamation of the mining site under this alternative. Public Services and Utilities Development of the Existing County General
Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative 3 will result in an increased demand for public services such as Fire Department and sheriff services because the more intensive uses
within this alternative and the related increases in traffic are expected to result in more accidents and injuries and increase wildland fire risk. Similarly, there are potential impacts
to hospital space, nursing services and doctors due to potential injuries on site and due to impacts associated with dust impacts to residents who deal 10 Measurements were collected
in 2004 and presented in the noise section of the Baldwin Hallwood Mine Expansion Project EIR (ESA, 2004) prepared for Yuba County.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-56 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 with current health issues such as asthma. This alternative’s impacts
upon recreational facilities and schools would be less than that of the proposed project due to the reduced number of residences that would be constructed. Use of a portion of the project
site for mining operations will result in a higher demand for natural gas and water because the surface mining operation and related uses will be an intensive water user and natural
gas will be required for on-site production of related aggregate material products. The availability of water to serve the surface mining operation will potentially adversely impact
the water available for nearby existing and future agricultural and residential uses as well as for the SMER. Mitigation measures should be imposed upon future development pursuant established
development impact fees to reduce potential impacts upon fire and sheriff services. However, potential increases in the demand for such services will not be eliminated. Increases in
the demand for natural gas and water will also remain. Therefore, this alternative’s impacts upon public services and utilities will be substantially greater and potentially significant,
as compared with the less than significant impacts of the proposed project. Surface Mining Reclamation Plan The surface mining reclamation plan itself would not result in an increased
demand for public services, as development of the quarry for public raw water storage by a public water agency would not create more intensive uses. However, as previously mentioned,
the proposed changes to the site could potentially trigger slope instabilities and microseismic events. The potential for “inherently unstable conditions” could occur. As such, there
could be additional impacts to hospital space, nursing services and doctors due to possible injuries on or surrounding the site related to potential events that could potentially occur
from the possible creation of inherently unstable conditions. Therefore, the reclamation plan’s impacts upon public services could be substantially greater and potentially significant,
as compared with the less than significant impacts of the proposed project. Transportation/Traffic Development of the Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative
3 would not reduce the need to import aggregate material. As compared to the proposed project, there are several reasons why development of a surface mining operation at this location
would not lessen traffic impacts by reducing the need to import aggregate material into the Temecula and Lake Elsinore area instead of more remote areas in the remaining areas of Riverside
County and San Bernardino County. Currently, there are already numerous surface mines already operating in Riverside County, several of which are nearby to the proposed project location.
For example, there are three surface mines active in Lake Elsinore with another twelve nearby in the Temescal Canyon area. In addition, there are several nearby areas of Riverside County
which contain potential sources for aggregate material as noted previously by Figure 3.5.-1 in Section 3.5. Additional figures in Section 3.5 are provided which indicate the potentials
sources for aggregate materials in San Diego and Imperial Counties (Figure 3.5-2 and Figure 3.5-3 in Section 3.5). The previous analysis in Section 3.5 also discusses some of emerging
trends in aggregate production and distribution. For example, the Port of San Diego currently receives aggregate shipped in from
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-57 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 both Canada and Mexico. The long distance shipment of aggregate material
is economically viable because of the large amounts of material shipped simultaneously. Additional aggregate material is also imported into San Diego County from Mexico through the use
of conveyor belts and rail facilities. The mineral deposits throughout the Riverside/San Diego region are predominantly used for Portland cement and crushed stone, thus a surface mining
operation at the Alternative 3 location would not produce product that differs from that produced at nearby quarries. There are a number of sites with mineral deposits throughout the
Riverside/San Diego region that can produce aggregate materials for the region, some located closer to Northern San Diego County, where it would be estimated that aggregate produced
from the a mine at this location would travel to. Aggregate materials currently come from Corona, Corona, Lake Elsinore, San Bernardino, and Irwindale. Some of the operating quarries
are located in close proximity to the proposed quarry. Thus, it is unlikely that the transport of products from the quarry would suddenly and substantially shift the regional flow of
aggregate resources. Given that aggregate materials would arrive from the closest quarry possible trips from a surface mining operation at the Alternative 3 location would be displaced
by the quarry located in Pala, which is planned to be activating in the next few years. The Pala quarry is located south of the proposed Alternative 3 site, and would provide materials
for the San Diego region. Thus, a surface mining operation at this location would not be significantly displacing a number vehicle trips, as there are aggregate materials arriving from
the Northern San Diego area that would ultimately take a share of the “displaced trips.” Currently, some of the material for the region travels by ship from Ensenada, Mexico. Although
the larger travel distance impacts cost, ships can hold larger amounts of aggregate, which ultimately keeps costs competitive with aggregate from nearby quarries. Two companies, Hanson
and Polaris, currently import aggregate to California, and are looking into shipping additional construction materials. Hanson currently ships from British Columbia, Canada to the Port
of San Francisco, and is considering bringing aggregate materials to the Port of San Diego. Additionally, the Port of San Diego approved a proposal by Polaris to import aggregate from
Canada. These products would be used for San Diego County, which is more likely to displace truck trips from the Inland Empire than the presence of a mining operation at the Alternative
3 location would. Additionally, the United States government is also looking into offshore mining. There are currently offshore mining locations being proposed in California. If this
strategy is put into place in the next twenty years, it too will provide additional aggregate material for San Diego County; thereby lessening the need from a mining operation at the
Alternative 3 location and the surrounding area. Alternative 3 would increase traffic levels as compared to the proposed project. Rather, Alternative 3 would increase traffic levels
at study area intersections and roadway segments by approximately 1,939 trips daily. (239 daily trips generated by the 25 single-family dwelling units and a minimum of 400 daily passenger
car trips and 1,300 daily truck
trips related to surface
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-58 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 mining operations.11) This is a significant increase in future daily
trips. As discussed in Section 3.7 (Transportation and Traffic) and above, traffic from the project site will directly and cumulatively affect intersections and roadway segments that
are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service E or F. Traffic that would be generated by Alternative 3 would have a greater impact upon these intersections and roadway segments
due to the substantially greater amount of daily trips. Additionally, the substantial number of daily truck trips has the potential to adversely impact traffic flow on area streets and
highways due to the longer acceleration and deceleration times needed by the trucks and the larger turning movements required by the trucks. The surface mining operation-related trucks
also have a greater potential to cause increased deterioration of local streets and highways due to their size and weight, thereby increasing the extent of and frequency of road maintenance.
This alternative’s potential impacts upon area roadway segments and intersections may require the construction of off-site improvements. The number of intersections and roadway segments
that would require such improvements would be greater than identified for the proposed project due to the substantial increase in average daily trips. Even though development pursuant
to this alternative should be required to pay development impact fees and TUMF to offset the project’s contribution to transportation and traffic impacts, it is possible that the required
improvements will not be constructed in time to mitigate the project’s impacts to below the level of significance. Therefore, direct and cumulative impacts may remain significant. This
impact would be greater than that of the proposed project. This alternative would result in significant transportation and traffic-related impacts that would be greater and would affect
more intersections and roadway segments than the proposed project. As shown in Table 5-11, Trip Generation for Proposed Projects a mining operation would generate three to four times
as many daily trips as the proposed project. Additionally, a surface mining operation would result in increased intersection and roadway segment impacts than the proposed project as
shown in Tables 5-12, Existing Plus Project; 5-13, Cumulative Conditions and 5-14, Build-out or Horizon Year. For purposes of this comparison, three different conditions have been compared:
• Existing Plus Project • Existing Plus Project Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative (Cumulative) • Horizon Year or General Plan Build-out It should be noted that the analysis of the
proposed project in Section 3.7 does not address intersection impacts for the Horizon Year or General Plan. To provide a comparison, it has been assumed that the impacts for the proposed
project would be the same as they were identified in the Cumulative Scenario. 11 It is noted that that traffic study methodology usually converts average daily truck trips to passenger
car equivalents, whereby truck trip is converted to between 2 and 3 equivalent passenger car trips in order to reflect the different impacts that heavy trucks have upon intersections
and roadway segments than do passenger cars. Therefore, the estimated 1,300 daily truck trips would be actually be expected to have impacts upon area-wide intersections and roadway segments
equivalent to between 2,600 and 3,900 passenger cars.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-59 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 5-11 TRIP GENERATION FOR PROPOSED PROJECTS Trip Generation Project
AM Peak PM Peak Daily Surface Mining – 3.5 MTPY 221 211 2,794 Surface Mining – 5.0 MTPY 281 280 3,934 Annexation 60 82 775 SOURCES: Santa Margarita Area Annexation Traffic Impact Study,
2008, Liberty Quarry Traffic Impact Analysis, 2007. TABLE 5-12 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Scenario Surface Mining Operation Proposed Project Significant Impact 3.5 MTPY 5.0 MTPY
81 Single-Family DU Intersections Old Hwy 395/Rainbow Valley Blvd. X X I-15 NB Ramps/Rainbow Valley Blvd. X I-15 SB Ramps/Rainbow Valley Blvd. X I-15 SB Ramps/Pala Rd. -SR -76 I-15 SB
Ramps/Mission Rd./Old Hwy 395 X X Roadway Segments Mission Rd.-Old Hwy 395 between I-15 SB Ramps and I-15 NB Ramps Pala Rd. between I-15 SB Ramps and I-15 NB Ramps X X SOURCE: Fehr &
Peers, 2008 The level of roadway design-related impacts and improvements would be much less with with the proposed project as compared to development of a surface mining operation. For
example, the improvements to the curb radii that would be required for a surface mining operation would not be needed for the proposed project, as the daily traffic associated with the
proposed project would be entirely passenger cars. It should be noted that impacts resulting from the proposed project and impacts resulting from development of a surface mining operation
cannot be mitigated. For the proposed project, associated impacts at the intersection of I-15/Rainbow Valley Road were determined to be significant and unavoidable since the proposed
improvements would require the concurrence of San Diego County and the City could not assure their implementation. A significant and unavoidable impact along I-15 would also occur as
a result of a surface mining operation.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-60 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 5-13 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Scenario Surface Mining Operation
Proposed Project Significant Impact 3.5 MTPY 5.0 MTPY 81 Single-Family DU Intersections Old Hwy 395/Rainbow Valley Blvd. X X I-15 NB Ramps/Rainbow Valley Blvd. X I-15 SB Ramps/Rainbow
Valley Blvd. X I-15 SB Ramps/Pala Rd. -SR -76 X X I-15 SB Ramps/Mission Rd./Old Hwy 395 X X Roadway Segments Mission Rd.-Old Hwy 395 between I-15 SB Ramps and I-15 NB Ramps Pala Rd.
between I-15 SB Ramps and I-15 NB Ramps X X SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2008 TABLE 5-14 BUILD-OUT OR HORIZON YEAR CONDITIONS (2030) Scenario Surface Mining Operation Proposed Project Significant
Impact 3.5 MTPY 5.0 MTPY 81 Single Family DU Intersections Old Hwy 395/Rainbow Valley Blvd. X X I-15 NB Ramps/Rainbow Valley Blvd. X I-15 SB Ramps/Rainbow Valley Blvd. X I-15 SB Ramps/Pala
Rd. -SR -76 X X I-15 SB Ramps/Mission Rd./Old Hwy 395 X X Roadway Segments Mission Rd.-Old Hwy 395 between I-15 SB Ramps and I-15 NB Ramps Pala Rd. between I-15 SB Ramps and I-15 NB
Ramps X X SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2008 Assumption that Alternative 3 would reduce traffic levels as compared to the proposed project. The following information has been included in this
analysis under the assumption that a surface mining operation at the Alternative 3 location would reduce truck trips and truck miles traveled. However, as noted above, there are numerous
reasons to conclude that the reduction in
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-61 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 truck trips due to development of a surface mining operation at this
location is unlikely to occur. This comparison discusses the transportation impacts associated with the following scenarios: • A surface mining operation at the Alternative 3 location
does result in a reduction in truck traffic and VMT with up to 3.5 MTPY of aggregate produced. • A surface mining operation at the Alternative 3 location does result in a reduction in
truck traffic and VMT with up to 5 MTPY of aggregate produced. The impacts associated with the development of a surface mining operation at the Alternative 3 location as compared to
the proposed project are provided in Table 5-15, Existing Plus Project Conditions assuming that a reduction in truck trips occurs. As noted in these tables, the impacts associated with
development of a surface mining operation at this location are much less than those previously identified in the previous discussion. Table 5-16 shows Cumulative Conditions and Table
5-17 shows the Build-out or Horizon Year Condition (2030). Even if it is assumed that development of a surface mining operation at this location would result in the project truck trip
reduction, the truck trips would be reduced by a maximum of 1% along the I-15 corridor. This would be an unnoticeable improvement as the freeway segments would continue to operate at
an unacceptable level. Even a reduction of regional VMT by some 16.5 million miles per year as a result of a surface mining operation at this location would be minimal TABLE 5-15 EXISTING
PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Scenario Surface Mining Operation Proposed Project Significant Impact 3.5 MTPY 5.0 MTPY 81 Single-Family DU Intersections I-15 NB Ramps/Rainbow Valley Blvd. X
I-15 SB Ramps/Rainbow Valley Blvd. X SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2008 TABLE 5-16 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Scenario Surface Mining Operation Proposed Project Significant Impact 3.5 MTPY 5.0 MTPY
81 Single-Family DU DU Intersections Old Hwy 395/Rainbow Valley Blvd. X I-15 NB Ramps/Rainbow Valley Blvd. X I-15 SB Ramps/Rainbow Valley Blvd. X SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2008
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-62 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 5-17 BUILD-OUT OR HORIZON YEAR CONDITIONS (2030) Scenario Surface
Mining Operation Proposed Project Significant Impact 3.5 MTPY 5.0 MTPY 81 Single-Family DU Intersections I-15 NB Ramps/Rainbow Valley Blvd. X I-15 SB Ramps/Rainbow Valley Blvd. X SOURCE:
Fehr & Peers, 2008 compared to the VMT for the Riverside County and the larger region. Table 5-18, Impact of Surface Mining on Regional Traffic Reductions below outlines the VMT for
Riverside County, southern California Region, and southern California freeways in both the current and 2035 scenarios. These projections were developed by the SCAG. TABLE 5-18 IMPACT
OF SURFACE MINING ON REGIONAL TRAFFIC REDUCTION Existing Conditions Future Conditions (2035) Area Annual VMT (billions) Change in Trips from Liberty Quarry Annual VMT (billions) Change
in Trips from Liberty Quarry Riverside County Only 16.0 1.0% 31.1 0.5% Southern California Freeways 71.7 0.2% 90.7 0.2% Southern California (SCAG Region) 149.1 0.1% 205.6 0.08% SOURCE:
SCAG, Fehr and Peers, 2008 Surface Mining Reclamation Plan It is not anticipated that additional traffic impacts would result from the eventual reclamation of the mining site under this
alternative. Recreation Development of the Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining The SMER maintains classrooms and laboratories, and databases. Access to the
reserve is by permission only; as such use of the site is somewhat restricted from the general public. Development of the Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining
Alternative would result in the development of 25 new dwelling units on approximately 299 acres and a surface mining operation. This alternative’s impacts upon recreational facilities
would be less than that of the proposed project due to the reduced number of residences that would be
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-63 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 constructed. Therefore, this alternative’s impacts upon recreation
would be less significant than impacts of the proposed project. Surface Mining Reclamation Plan It is not anticipated that additional impacts to recreation would result from the eventual
reclamation of the mining site under this alternative. Regional Element The Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative will generate new jobs within the
project area. These jobs, in combination with the anticipated new residents within the project area, will result in a slightly positive effect upon the jobs to housing ratio for the
local area. Although the proposed project does not have an impact upon the area’s jobs to housing ratio, this alternative’s slightly positive effect would be more beneficial to the jobs
to housing ratio. Alternative 4: Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Alternative Description Description of Alternative For purposes of analysis, the Annexation of Existing Sphere
of Influence Alternative would result in the annexation of 554 acres into the City and the balance of the project site remaining in unincorporated Riverside County (see Figure 5-7).
The property annexed into the City would consist of approximately 236 acres of privately-owned property designated HR and developed with 21 single-family dwelling units, and 318 acres
designated as Open Space. Property remaining in unincorporated Riverside County would include approximately 232 acres developed with 27 new single-family dwelling units, 250 acres developed
with a surface mining operation and 3,966 acres of open space. It is assumed under this alternative that surface mining operations would be similar to that under the Existing County
General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative (Alternative 3) with the same intensity of operation, but that such operations would occur within a smaller project site. Due
to the smaller area available for the excavation of mineral resources, surface mining operations would exhaust available resources sooner and therefore would extend over a shorter overall
period of time. Similar to Alternative 3, upon completion of mining excavation activities, a reclamation plan of the site would be implemented. The reclamation plan could generally consist
of the quarry being developed and utilized for public raw water storage by a public water agency to be determined. Table 5-19, Comparison of Proposed Project to Annexation of Existing
Sphere of Influence Alternative shows a comparison of the proposed project to the Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Alternative. Evaluation of Alternative Agricultural Development
of the Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Alternative would result in the development of 47 new dwelling units on approximately 463 acres and a surface mining operation on 250
acres. The four existing dwelling units, located outside of the SMER, are primarily large ranch estates involved with agriculture or equestrian activities, but there are no
Riverside County San Diego County City of Temecula LEGEND City of Temecula Boundary Project Boundary Existing Sphere of Influence Boundary Parcels Residential -1 Dwelling Unit /10 Acres
79 15 City of Temecula -Santa Margarita Area .. 208485 Figure 5-7 Alternative 4 SOURCE: City of Temecula, June 2007, Riverside County GIS, 2007 North Not to Scale
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-65 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 TABLE 5-19 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PROJECT TO ANNEXATION OF EXISTING
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ALTERNATIVE Component of Development Proposed Project Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Alternative Single-family residential 718 acres with 81 new dwelling
units 463 acres with 47 new dwelling units Surface Mining Operation N/A 250 acres Open Space & Conservation 4,279 acres 4,284 acres Estimated New Residentsa 263 146b a It is noted that
the city of Temecula uses a population generation rate of 3.24 persons per single-family dwelling unit while the County of Riverside General Plan utilizes a population generation rate
of 3.01 persons per dwelling unit. The estimated number of new residents reflects this difference in generation rates. b Assumes 21 dwelling units within city of Temecula and 26 dwelling
units in unincorporated Riverside County. other agricultural uses within the developable portion portion of the project site. There would be no loss of agricultural land and no contribution
to the cumulative loss of agricultural resources. The surface mining operation would involve the excavation, stockpiling and processing of large quantities of aggregate mineral resources
and other materials over a long period of time. Such an operation has a significant potential to generate dust and other airborne particulate matter which would blow from the site to
the nearby agricultural uses, thereby potentially negatively impacting agricultural production. This alternative would have substantially greater impacts upon agricultural resources
than those of the proposed project which has no impacts upon agricultural resources. Air Quality For purposes of this analysis, the Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Alternative
would result in the annexation of 554 acres into the city of Temecula and the balance of the project site remaining in unincorporated Riverside County. The property annexed into the
city of Temecula would consist of approximately 236 acres of privately-owned property designated HR and developed with 21 single-family dwelling units, and 318 acres designated as OS.
Property remaining in unincorporated Riverside County would include approximately 232 acres developed with 27 new single-family dwelling units, 250 acres developed with a surface mining
operation and 3,966 acres of open space. It is assumed under this alternative that surface mining operations would be similar to that under the Existing County General Plan – Residential
Plan Surface Mining Alternative (Alternative 3) with the same intensity of operation, but that such operations would occur within a smaller project site. Due to the smaller area available
for the excavation of mineral resources, surface mining operations would exhaust available resources sooner and therefore would extend over a shorter overall period of time. The Annexation
of Existing Sphere of Influence Alternative would result in impacts to air quality exceeding those of the proposed project. The alternative would increase the overall amount of earth
moving and construction activities when compared to the proposed project. As with the
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-66 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 proposed project, construction of this alternative would generate
pollutant emissions through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment and haul trucks. Emissions from construction and operations of the surface mine were previously calculated in
the Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) for Liberty Quarry.12 Although this alternative would result in a smaller surface mine, the intensity of construction and operations of the surface
mine would be similar to that of the Liberty Quarry AQIA. Emissions from construction and operations of this alternative would be similar to those of the Liberty Quarry AQIA on a daily
basis. A comparison of maximum daily construction emissions for this alternative would increase criteria pollutants by a factor of two to four. With such an increase, this alternative
would cause criteria pollutants to exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. As a result, regional impacts for this alternative are predicted to be significant and unavoidable for ROG,
NOx, CO, PM10 and PM-2.5. Operational emissions from surface mining were also calculated in the Liberty Quarry AQIA. The number of daily trips would be one to two orders of magnitude
greater compared to the proposed project. The Liberty Quarry AQIA however, assumed a net reduction of operational truck trips due to the project providing an aggregate source closer
to markets. As a result of locating the source closer to markets, this would reduce VMT in the region by approximately 26,000 miles per day13. A more recent study performed by Fehr and
Peers demonstrates that a surface mining operation would not result in a reduction in trips, but would actually increase VMT in the region by approximately 45,000 miles per day which
in turn would increase operational emissions14. Therefore, total contributions to regional emissions under this alternative would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect
to regional emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM-2.5. Localized operational impacts are determined mainly by the peak hour intersection traffic volumes. Compared to the proposed project,
this alternative is forecasted to generate more operational trips during the peak hour. Since the localized CO hotspot analysis for the Liberty Quarry AQIA did not result in any significant
impacts, this alternative would likewise not have any localized impacts due to a similar number of trips generated during the peak hour. With respect to potential air toxic impacts,
a health risk assessment (HRA) was performed in the Liberty Quarry AQIA. Results of the HRA shows that cancer, chronic, and acute health risk remain below their respective SCAQMD and
ARB significance thresholds. Thus, similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in a less than significant air quality impact related to air toxics. With regard to
greenhouse gases, Riverside County does not have any green building standards by which the residences would be constructed. New construction without any green building design features
would not represent any improvements above business as usual. Therefore, 12 http://www.libertyquarryfacts.com/pdfs/hessel_report_final.pdf (Kleinfelder West, Inc., 2007) 13 Liberty Quarry
Truck Traffic Miles Reduced Evaluation, April 12, 2006. Urban Cross Roads 14 Email correspondence with Chris Gray, Fehr and Peers. September 9, 2008.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-67 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 development under this Alternative would not be consistent with the
State’s goals and AB32, and could result in a significant impact to global climate. Biological Resources Alternative 4 will result in the conversion the project site from the existing
uses to a combination of large lot residential development, surface mining and preserved open space. Future development within the annexation area will have the potential to result in
impacts to sensitive wildlife species found within the area. Potential direct impacts upon these species would include an incremental loss of habitat (including breeding and/or seasonal
foraging habitat) locally. A total of 235 acres of vegetation/habitat would be impacted by the Alternative 4, apportioned as follows: Chaparral – 206 acres and oak woodland 29 acres.
Individuals present within zones of project grading and other direct development impacts could potentially be lost or displaced by construction and mining activities. The potential direct
impacts of this Alternative on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species should be reduced to below the level of significance through compliance with
the provisions of the MSHCP and relevant provisions of the proposed pre-zoning (The HR-SM zone requires any hillside development plan to be designed to protect sensitive wildlife habitat
areas, biological corridors, native plants, and plant communities. The HR-SM zone supports interconnected, contiguous, and integrated open space systems within an area, particularly
when located contiguous to open space preserves as well as containing grading limitations, ridgeline protections and standards to reduce green house gas emissions.). Grading and development
under this alternative has the potential to adversely affect federally protected wetlands due to contaminated runoff that could ultimately reach the Santa Margarita River. Additionally,
sensitive bird species that have been seen within the project site, or those that have a moderate or high potential to occur on-site are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code. Surface mining within the project area would bring a higher level of human activity into the area. This increased activity as well as
mining impacts related to noise, blasting, and grading, light and glare, dust and other particulate matter, and potential contamination of surface waters, will have potentially significant
indirect impacts upon surrounding natural open space areas. These indirect impacts would adversely affect the sensitive species that reside in the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve,
which is adjacent to private lands that could be used for mining. Although development under this alternative should be required to implement all feasible mitigation, this alternative’s
impacts upon biological resources would be greater than the less than significant impacts of the proposed project. Cultural Resources Eight cultural resources sites are recorded within
the project boundaries. One of these, the Murrieta Creek Archaeological Area/District is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and in the California Registry. There is a
greater potential that buried cultural resources and/or paleontological resources may be discovered during project construction under this Alternative due to the large scale excavations
related to surface mining operations, but such impacts should be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with the same mitigation measures
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-68 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 as required for the proposed project. This impact would be greater
than those of the proposed project’s less than significant impacts upon cultural resources. Geology and Soils Development of the Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Alternative
will result in the construction of single-family residences and structures related to surface mining of aggregate mineral resources. The site is not subject to potentially significant
geologic hazards involving fault rupture or seismic ground failure. The hazards of seismic ground shaking, and landslides on steep slopes exist. However, due to the significant amount
of earth movement that would accompany surface mining operations, this alternative has the potential to result in substantial erosion and loss of topsoil, resulting in on-site landslides
and slope collapse. Development under this alternative should be required to implement all feasible mitigation measures to lessen these impacts. However, due to the scope of potential
impacts from the surface mining operation, this alternative’s geology and soil impacts would be potentially significant, whereas the proposed project will not have significant geology
and soil impacts. Hydrology and Water Quality Under this Alternative, development within the project area has the potential to affect existing drainage patterns and water quality. The
substantial landform alteration that will accompany this alternative’s surface mining operation will significantly impact the natural drainage within the project area. Due to the industrial
nature of a surface mining operation and related uses, this alternative will have an increased potential for contaminated runoff that would significantly impact the water quality in
receiving water bodies. Surface mining operations also have significant potential to deplete the groundwater table and degrade the quality of the groundwater. Although, potential hydrology
and water quality impacts should be less than significant as a result of the County’s grading plan review process and compliance with regulatory requirements, there is the potential
that adverse water quality impacts will still occur. Therefore, due to the potential impacts of the surface mining operation, this alternative’s hydrology and water quality impacts would
have potential to be significant whereas the proposed project’s impacts would not. Land Use/Planning Under the Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Alternative the site would not
be converted to City land use designations. Existing Riverside County land use designations and zoning would remain. Development of the privately-owned portion of the project site with
approximately 47 new dwelling units and surface mining operations will be consistent with the existing general plan land use designations. However, a change in the existing zoning may
be required to accommodate processing operations developed in conjunction with the surface mining operation. The permitting of surface mining operations, although consistent with the
existing general plan designation, would be a significant change in the existing land use pattern within the project area. Therefore, Alternative 4 would have significant impacts upon
land use which are substantially greater than those of the proposed project which has less than significant impacts upon land use and planning.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-69 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Mineral Resources The Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus
Surface Mining Alternative
will retain existing Riverside County land use designations and zoning on that portion of the site remaining in unincorporated Riverside County. That portion annexed into the City would
be rezoned to match the city’s existing HR and OS general plan designations. The mineral resources located on the project site within MRZ-2a designated areas remaining in unincorporated
Riverside County would remain in place, and surface mining of those resources would occur. However, MRZ-2a annexed into the City would no longer be available for mining. This alternative
would result in some impact upon Mineral Resources due to the loss of availability of mineral resources annexed into the city. However, the ability to mine the mineral resources on 250
acres of the project site means that this alternative will have reduced adverse impacts upon the availability of mineral resources. This impact would be partially avoided compared to
the significant unmitigable impact associated with the proposed project. Noise Construction of the Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Alternative would result in shortterm noise
impacts and construction-related vibration related to construction of 47 single-family homes. Noise increases created by residential-related operations and traffic would be less than
those generated by the proposed project due to a reduction of residential-generated traffic. However, with the inclusion of traffic generated from surface mining operations, the total
traffic generated under this alternative would be substantially greater than that generated by the proposed project. This is because in addition to automobile traffic, this alternative
would have a substantial amount of diesel truck traffic, and noise generated by diesel trucks (85 dBA at 50 feet, 40 mph) is greater than noise generated from automobiles (65 dBA at
50 feet, 30 mph to 80 dBA at 50 feet, 65 mph).15 This overall increase in project-site generated traffic will result in substantial increases in traffic-generated noise from the project
area. Additionally, substantial noise levels, and vibration impacts from mining equipment and blasting can be expected from this alternative’s surface mining operations. These noise
impacts will affect the residential development developed as part of this alternative and adjacent areas of the SMER. Blasting may adversely affect seismic and other research equipment
located within the SMER. Development under this alternative should be required to implement all feasible mitigation measures to lessen these impacts. However, due to the potential impacts
of the surface mining operation, this alternative’s noise and vibration impacts would be substantially greater than those of the proposed project which has no significant noise impacts.
Recreation The SMER maintains classrooms and laboratories, and databases. Access to the reserve is by permission only; as such use of the site is somewhat restricted from the general
public. Development of the Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Alternative would result in the development of 47 new dwelling units on approximately 463 acres and a surface mining
operation on 250 acres. This alternative’s impacts upon recreational facilities would be less than 15 California Department of Transportation, California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook,
Figure 6A, January 2002.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-70 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 that of the proposed project due to the reduced number of residences
that would be constructed. Therefore, this alternative’s impacts upon recreation would be less significant than impacts of the proposed project. Public Services and Utilities Alternative
4 will result in an increased demand for public services such as Fire Department and sheriff services because the more intensive uses within this alternative and the related increases
in traffic are expected to result in more accidents and injuries and increase wildland fire risk. Similarly, there are potential impacts to hospital space, nursing services and doctors
due to potential injuries on site and due to impacts associated with dust impacts to residents who deal with current health issues such as asthma. This alternative’s impacts upon recreational
facilities and schools would be less than that of the proposed project due to the reduced reduced number of residences that would be constructed. Use of a portion of the project site
for mining operations will result in a higher demand for natural gas and water because the surface mining operation and related uses will be an intensive water user, and natural gas
will be required for on-site production of related aggregate material products. The availability of water to serve the surface mining operation will potentially adversely impact the
water available for nearby existing and future agricultural and residential uses as well as for the SMER. Mitigation measures should be imposed upon future development pursuant to established
development impact fees to reduce potential impacts upon fire and sheriff services. However, potential increases in the demand for such services will not be eliminated. Increases in
the demand for natural gas and water will also remain. Therefore, this alternative’s impacts upon public services and utilities will be substantially greater and potentially significant,
as compared with the less than significant impacts of the proposed project. Transportation/Traffic The Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Alternative would increase traffic levels
at study area intersections and roadway segments by approximately 2,150 trips daily. (450 daily trips generated by the 47 single-family dwelling units and a minimum of 400 daily passenger
car trips and 1,300 daily truck trips related to surface mining operations.16) This is a significant increase in future daily trips. As discussed in Section 3.7 (Transportation and Traffic)
and above, traffic from the project site will directly and cumulatively affect intersections and roadway segments that are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service E or
F. Traffic that would be generated by Alternative 4 would have a greater impact upon these intersections and roadway segments due to the substantially greater amount of daily trips.
Additionally, the substantial number of daily truck trips has the potential to adversely impact traffic flow on area streets and highways due to the longer acceleration and deceleration
times needed by the trucks and the larger turning movements required by the trucks. The surface mining operation-related trucks also have a greater potential 16 It is noted that traffic
study methodology usually converts average daily truck trips to passenger car equivalents, whereby truck trip is converted to between 2 and 3 equivalent passenger car trips in order
reflect the different impacts that heavy trucks have upon intersections and roadway segments than do passenger cars. Therefore, the estimated 1,300 daily truck trips would actually be
expected to have impacts upon area-wide intersections and roadway segments equivalent to between 2,600 and 3,900 passenger cars.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-71 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 to cause increased deterioration of local streets and highways due
to their size and weight, thereby increasing the extent of and frequency of road maintenance. This alternative’s potential impacts upon area roadway segments and intersections may require
the construction of off-site improvements. The number of intersections and roadway segments that would require such improvements would be greater than identified for the proposed project
due to the substantial increase in average daily trips. Even though development pursuant to this alternative should be required to pay development impact fees and TUMF to offset the
project’s contribution to transportation and traffic impacts, it is possible that the required improvements will not be constructed in time to mitigate the project’s impacts to below
the level of significance. Therefore, direct and cumulative impacts may remain significant. This impact would be greater than that of the proposed project. This alternative would result
in significant transportation and traffic-related impacts that would be greater and would affect more intersections and roadway segments than the proposed project. Regional Element The
Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Alternative will generate new jobs within the project area. These jobs, in combination with the anticipated new residents within the project
area, will result in a slightly positive effect upon the jobs to housing ratio for the local area. Although the proposed project does not have an impact upon the area’s jobs to housing
ratio, this alternative’s slightly positive effect would be more beneficial to the jobs to housing ratio. Comparison of Alternatives The matrix approach to comparing the above described
alternatives is used for ease of directly comparing the proposed project's significant effects with those of the alternatives, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (d). Table 5-20, Comparison
of Alternatives Matrix, identifies the areas of potential environmental effects per CEQA and ranks each alternative as better, the same, or worse than the proposed project with respect
to each area. Environmentally Superior Alternative The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2), requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative. Of the alternatives
evaluated above, the No Project – No Development Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative with respect to reducing impacts created by the proposed project. The CEQA Guidelines
also require the identification of another environmentally superior alternative if the No Project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. Of the three remaining project
alternatives, the Existing County General Plan – Residential Only Alternative meets most of the project objectives while being marginally environmentally superior to the proposed project.
The Existing County General Plan – Residential Only Alternative would retain the proposed project’s allowable land uses of open space and large-lot residential development, although
it would result in one fewer single-family dwelling unit than the would the proposed project. Implementation of this alternative would be virtually identical to the proposed
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-72 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Preliminary − Subject to Revision TABLE 5-20 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
MATRIX Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Environmental Issue Proposed Project: Santa Margarita Area Annexation No Project – No Development Existing County General
Plan – Residential Only Alternative Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Agricultural Resources Same
-No loss of farmland. No significant impact. Same -No loss of farmland. No significant impact. Same -No loss of farmland. No significant impact. More Impactful -No direct loss of farmland.
There is the potential to generate dust and other airborne particulate matter which will blow from the site to the nearby agricultural uses, thereby negatively impacting agricultural
production. Potentially significant impact. More Impactful -No direct loss of farmland. There is the potential to generate dust and other airborne particulate matter which will blow
from the site to the nearby agricultural uses, thereby negatively impacting agricultural production. Potentially significant impact. Air Quality Less than Significant-Consistent with
AQMP and will not exceed SCAQMD short-term or long-term thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, SO, PM-10, and PM-2.5. Given the global nature of GHG and their ability to alter the Earth’s climate,
it is not anticipated that a single development project, particularly one of this limited density, would have an effect on global climate conditions. It is, however, reasonably foreseeable
that emissions resulting from this project in combination with statewide, national, and international emissions could cumulatively contribute to a change in Earth’s climate, i.e., global
warming. Without any Less Impactful -Minimal impacts to air quality. No significant impact. Similar – This alternative will generate virtually the same short-term and longterm emissions
as the proposed project and will not exceed SCAQMD short-term or long-term thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, SO, PM-10, and PM-2.5. Given the global nature of GHG and their ability to alter
the Earth’s climate, it is not anticipated that a single development project, particularly one of this Alternative’s limited density, would have an effect on global climate conditions.
It is, however, reasonably foreseeable that emissions resulting from this project in combination with statewide, national, and international emissions More Impactful – Increased traffic
and surface mining operations will result in greater emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, PM-10 and PM-2.5 than from the proposed project. At a minimum NOx emissions during construction and ROG
winter emissions will exceed thresholds of significance. Diesel truck emissions will increase carcinogenic risk caused by exposure to such emission. It is reasonably foreseeable that
emissions resulting from this project in combination with statewide, national, and international emissions could cumulatively contribute to a change in Earth’s climate, i.e., global
warming. More Impactful – Increased traffic and surface mining operations will result in greater emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, PM-10 and PM-2.5 than from the proposed project. At a minimum
NOx and ROG emissions during construction and ROG winter emissions will exceed thresholds of significance. Diesel truck emissions will increase carcinogenic risk caused by exposure to
such emission. It is reasonably foreseeable that emissions resulting from this project in combination with statewide, national, and international emissions could cumulatively contribute
to a change in Earth’s climate, i.e., global warming.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics TABLE 5-20 (continued) COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-73 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Alternative
1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Environmental Issue Proposed Project: Santa Margarita Area Annexation No Project – No Development Existing County General Plan – Residential
Only Alternative Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence regulatory guidance or actual threshold of significance
for global warming or GHG, making significance findings for associated impacts is considered speculative. However, the limited development potential envisioned by this project suggests
that the project’s contribution to a cumulative impact is less than significant. Nevertheless, mitigation measures are included that will help ensure that the project’s impacts will
remain below the level of significance. could cumulatively contribute to a change in Earth’s climate, i.e., global warming. Without any regulatory guidance or actual threshold of significance
for global warming or GHG, making significance findings for associated impacts is considered speculative. However, the limited development potential envisioned by this Alternative suggests
that the Alternative’s contribution to a cumulative impact is less than significant. Nevertheless, compliance with the same mitigation measures as required for the proposed project will
help ensure that the Alternative’s impacts will remain below the level of significance. Air quality impacts will be significant. Air quality impacts will be significant. Biological Resources
Future development within the annexation area will have the potential to result in impacts to sensitive wildlife species including an incremental loss of habitat (including breeding
and/or seasonal foraging habitat) locally. Individuals present within zones of project grading and other direct development impacts could potentially Less Impactful -No loss of habitat.
No significant impact. Same – Will result in similar impacts. upon sensitive species and riparian and other habitat. No significant effect, with mitigation. More Impactful – Will result
in greater direct and indirect impacts upon sensitive species within the project area. Has greater potential impacts upon the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. More impactful to wildlife
movement and the Special Linkage Area. More Impactful – Will result in greater direct and indirect impacts upon sensitive species within the project area. Has greater potential impacts
upon the SMER.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics TABLE 5-20 (continued) COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-74 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Alternative
1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Environmental Issue Proposed Project: Santa Margarita Area Annexation No Project – No Development Existing County General Plan – Residential
Only Alternative Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence be lost or displaced by construction activities.
No significant effect, with mitigation. Cultural Resources There are no known historical period sites and seven known archaeological sites on the project site. No known paleontological
resources will be impacted by project development. Development may impact unknown buried cultural resources. No significant impact, with mitigation. Less Impactful – No loss of known
cultural or paleontological resources and no potential to impact unknown buried cultural resources. No significant impact. Same -No significant effect with same mitigation measures as
the proposed project. More Impactful – Greater potential for impacts to buried cultural resources. No significant effect with same mitigation measures as the proposed project. More Impactful
-Greater potential for impacts to buried cultural resources. No significant effect with same mitigation measures as the proposed project. Geology and Soils Will not expose people or
structures to potentially significant impacts involving fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure and landslides. The project will not result in substantial erosion
or loss of topsoil, or be located within geologic unit or soil that results in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The project will have
no impact or less than significant impacts related to geology and soils. Same – No impact or less than significant impacts related to geology and soils. Same -No impact or less than
significant impacts related to geology and soils. More Impactful – Surface mining operations have a greater potential for adverse impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil, resulting
in on-site landslides and slope collapse. Potentially significant impacts even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. More Impactful – Surface mining operations have
a greater potential for adverse impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil, resulting in on-site landslides and slope collapse. Potentially significant impacts even with implementation
of all feasible mitigation measures. Hydrology and Water Quality Development within the project area has the potential to affect existing drainage patterns and Less Impactful – No development
will occur and there will be no changes in the existing drainage Same -Development within the project area has the potential to affect existing drainage patterns More Impactful -Development
within the project area has the potential to affect existing More Impactful-Development within the project area has the potential to affect existing
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics TABLE 5-20 (continued) COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-75 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Alternative
1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Environmental Issue Proposed Project: Santa Margarita Area Annexation No Project – No Development Existing County General Plan – Residential
Only Alternative Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence water quality, however, potential hydrology and
water quality impacts will be less than significant as a result of the City’s grading plan review process and compliance with regulatory requirements. patterns within the project area.
and water quality, however, potential hydrology and water quality impacts should be less than significant as a result of the County’s grading plan review process and compliance with
regulatory requirements. drainage patterns and water quality due to changes in natural drainage patterns and increased potential for contaminated runoff. Although, potential hydrology
and water quality impacts should be less than significant as a result of the County’s grading plan review process and compliance with regulatory requirements, there would still be the
potential for significant impacts. drainage patterns and water quality due to changes in natural drainage patterns and increased potential for contaminated runoff. Although, potential
hydrology and water quality impacts should be less than significant as a result of the County’s grading plan review process and compliance with regulatory requirements, there would still
be the potential for significant impacts. Land Use and Planning Changing the existing Riverside County Land Use designations of OSCH and RM to city of Temecula land use designations
of OS-CH and RM are considered compatible changes with minimal overall differences and would have few impacts relevant to the general plan and zoning consistency requirements. There
will be no significant significant impacts. Less Impactful – There will be no changes in the general plan designations or the zoning of the project site. Same -There will be no changes
in the general plan designations or the zoning of the project site. Development within the project area will remain consistent with current general plan and zoning designations. There
will be no significant impacts. More Impactful -There will be no changes in the general plan designations or the zoning of the project site. Development within the project area will
remain consistent with current general plan and zoning designations. The permitting of surface mining operations, although consistent with the existing general plan designation, would
be a significant change in the existing land use pattern within the project area. More Impactful -There will be no changes in the general plan designations or the zoning of most of the
project site. Development within the project area will remain consistent with current general plan and zoning designations. The permitting of surface mining operations, although consistent
with the existing general plan designation, would be a significant change in the existing land use pattern within the project area. Mineral Resources The proposed project will result
in zoning and general plan land use designations that do not allow mining operations being placed upon the Same-Although mineral resources located on the project site within MRZ-2a designated
areas would remain in place under this Same -Although mineral resources located on the project site within MRZ-2a designated areas would remain in place under this Less Impactful -This
alternative retains existing potential to mine on-site aggregate resources, and Less Impactful -This alternative retains existing potential to mine on-site aggregate resources on 250
acres of the project
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics TABLE 5-20 (continued) COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-76 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Alternative
1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Environmental Issue Proposed Project: Santa Margarita Area Annexation No Project – No Development Existing County General Plan – Residential
Only Alternative Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence project site. This prohibition of mining of the
known aggregate resources found within the project area would result in the continued inability of mineral resource production to meet the consumption demand within the region. alternative,
no such mining will occur. alternative, no such mining will occur. includes surface mining operations. site, and includes surface mining operations Noise The proposed project does not
involve an action that would result in the approval of any policies which would expose persons to or generate excessive noise levels in excess of standards established in the city of
Temecula General Plan. The project will not expose persons to or generate groundborne vibrations or expose the vicinity of the project to a temporary or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels. The project will have no noiserelated impacts. Same – This alternative will not have any shortterm or long-term noise impacts. Same – This alternative will not have any
shortterm or long-term noise impacts. More Impactful – Higher levels of traffic-generated noise than from proposed project-related traffic. Surface mining operations will create increased
ambient noise levels from operation of mining equipment and blasting. Vibration from blasting may adversely affect research equipment in the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. More
Impactful – Higher levels of traffic-generated noise than from proposed project-related traffic. Surface mining operations will create increased ambient noise levels from operation of
mining equipment and blasting. Vibration from blasting may adversely affect research equipment in the SMER. Recreation Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant
impacts concerning recreation. Same-access to the SMER is by permission only; as such use of the site is somewhat restricted from the general public. Under this Alternative, the existing
land use on the site would be retained. Like the proposed project, this alternative would not Same-Should optimal residential development occur under this alternative, the increase in
additional residents would not cause significant impacts to area recreation. Less Impactful-This alternative’s impacts upon recreational facilities would be less than that of the proposed
project due to the reduced number of residences that would be constructed. It is not anticipated that additional impacts to Less Impactful-This alternative’s impacts upon recreational
facilities would be less than that of the proposed project due to the reduced number of residences that would be constructed.
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics TABLE 5-20 (continued) COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-77 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Alternative
1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Environmental Issue Proposed Project: Santa Margarita Area Annexation No Project – No Development Existing County General Plan – Residential
Only Alternative Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence result in significant recreation impacts. recreation
would result from the eventual reclamation of the mining site under this alternative. Public Services and Utilities Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant
impacts to public services and utilities. Less Impactful -Would not create an increase in the amount of solid waste generated on the project site and will not increase the demand upon
libraries, schools and parks. There would be no demand for water, sewer, or utility services. Same– Although this alternative will allow one fewer dwelling unit, it will have basically
the same demand for public services and utilities. It will not result in any significant impacts to public services and utilities. More Impactful – Greater impacts upon fire, sheriff
and health services. Increased demand for water and natural gas. Less impact upon parks and schools. Overall impacts will be potentially significant. More Impactful – Greater impacts
upon fire, sheriff and health services. Increased demand for water and natural gas. Less impact upon parks and schools. Overall impacts will be potentially significant. Transportation
and Traffic Will generate 775 trips daily,
with 60 trips in the AM Peak hour and 82 trips in the PM Peak hour. Project-related and cumulative impacts upon the I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Blvd. intersection will be
significant because the mitigation is beyond the control of the City and it is possible that the required improvements will not be constructed in time to mitigate the project’s impacts
to this intersection to below the level of significance. Less Impactful – No generation of new daily trips. No impacts upon intersections and roadway segments. Same – Will generate 766
trips daily with 60 trips in the AM Peak hour and 81 trips in the PM Peak Hour. Alternative-related and cumulative impacts upon the I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rainbow Valley W. Blvd. intersection
will be significant because the mitigation is beyond the control of the City and it is possible that the required improvements will not be constructed in time to mitigate the project’s
impacts to this intersection to below the level of significance. More Impactful – Approximately 639 passenger car and 1,300 diesel truck trips daily. Project-related and cumulative impacts
upon intersections and roadway segments will be greater than those from proposed project. The substantial number of daily truck trips has the potential to adversely impact traffic flow
on area streets and highways due to the longer acceleration and deceleration times needed by the trucks and the larger turning movements required by the trucks. The surface mining operationrelated
trucks also have a greater potential to cause increased deterioration of local streets and highways due to their size and More Impactful – Approximately 850 passenger car and 1,300 diesel
truck trips daily. Project-related and cumulative impacts upon intersections and roadway segments will be greater than those from proposed project. The substantial number of daily truck
trips has the potential to adversely impact traffic flow on area streets and highways due to the longer acceleration and deceleration times needed by the trucks and the larger turning
movements required by the trucks. The surface mining operationrelated trucks also have a greater potential to cause increased deterioration of local streets and highways due to their
size and
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics TABLE 5-20 (continued) COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES MATRIX City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-78 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Alternative
1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Environmental Issue Proposed Project: Santa Margarita Area Annexation No Project – No Development Existing County General Plan – Residential
Only Alternative Existing County General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence weight, thereby increasing the extent of and frequency
of road maintenance. Impacts will be significant. weight, thereby increasing the extent of and frequency of road maintenance. Impacts will be significant. Regional Element The proposed
project is consistent with regional plans. It will have a slightly negative impact upon area’s jobs to housing ratio. No significant impact. Less Impactful – Alternative will not generate
any housing to adversely affect the area’s jobs to housing ratio. No significant impact. Same –Although consistent with regional plans, it will have a slightly negative impact upon area’s
jobs to housing ratio. No significant impact. Less Impactful -Will result in a slightly positive effect upon the jobs to housing ratio for the local area. Less Impactful -Will result
in a slightly positive effect upon the jobs to housing ratio for the local area. Environmentally Superior to Proposed Project? Not Applicable Yes Marginally Superior No No Meets Project
Objectives? Yes No -Does not integrate the SMAA area into the City’s General Plan. Does not protect the research value of the SMER by continuing to describe incompatible land uses, such
as surface mining operations, as allowable land uses in the non-reserve properties. Partially – Does not integrate the SMAA area into the City’s General Plan. No – Does not integrate
the SMAA area into the City’s General Plan and does not preserve existing rural/residential character of 414 acres of privatelyowned lands. Does not protect the research value of the
SMER by including incompatible land uses, such as surface mining operations, in the nonreserve properties. Partially – Meets the project objectives on 544 acres of the project site.
Does not integrate most of the SMAA area into the City’s General Plan and does not preserve existing rural/residential character of 250 acres of privatelyowned lands Does not protect
the research value of the SMER by including incompatible land uses, such as surface mining operations, in the nonreserve properties..
5. Mandatory CEQA Topics City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 5-79 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 project, but would keep the entire project site within unincorporated
Riverside County, rather than annex it into the City. Project-related impacts would be similar to those of the proposed project, with marginally reduced air quality impacts and PM Peak
Hour traffic impacts. However, this alternative would still have significant unavoidable impacts to mineral resources and transportation and traffic. Most of the project objectives would
be met under this alternative, with the exception of the integration of the Santa Margarita Annexation Area into the City’s General Plan. Of the four alternatives, the Existing County
General Plan – Residential Plus Surface Mining Alternative and the Annexation of Existing Sphere of Influence Alternative are the only alternatives that completely avoid or substantially
reduce the proposed project’s significant unavoidable adverse impact upon mineral resources by including surface mining operations. However, due to the adverse impacts related to surface
mining operations, these alternatives are not environmentally superior to the proposed project. 5.6 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes which would be Involved in the Proposed
Action Should It Be Implemented Implementation of proposed project would irreversibly commit approximately 718 acres of the project site to development of large-lot single-family residential
uses. In addition to a commitment of specific land uses, the proposed project would result in a long-term, irreversible change in the visual character of the project site. The existing
natural open space character of that portion of the site would be transformed into a rural residential development. These changes to the visual environment are consistent in keeping
with the general trend in the area to develop large-lot residential properties. Night lighting in portions of the project vicinity would incrementally increase as a result of the proposed
development. Development would result in the utilization of various new materials, such as lumber, sand, and gravel for construction. The energy consumed in developing and maintaining
718 acres of the site for residential use may be considered a permanent investment. Implementation of the SMAA project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to mineral
resources. The Land Use and Planning, Public Services and Utilities, and Transportation and Traffic issue areas have less than significant adverse environmental effects and therefore
do not require mitigation measures. Air Quality, Biological Resources, and Cultural Resources have potential environmental effects that can be mitigated to below the level of significance.
Impacts associated with aesthetics, agriculture resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and population and housing were determined
not to be significant in the NOP (Appendix A). This EIR concludes that project-specific impacts related to mineral resources would be significant and unmitigable at the project level.
These impacts would require adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 6-1 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 CHAPTER 6 Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations 6.1
Documents Consulted The following documents were referred to as general information sources during preparation of this document. They are available for public review at the locations
noted. Some of these documents are also available at public libraries and at other public agency offices. Albert A. Webb Associates. 2008. Santa Margarita Area Annexation, Planning Application
PA07-02225, Planning Application PA07-0226, Environmental Impact Report EA-128 (SCH No. 2007041085). Prepared for the City of Temecula. Bean, L.J., and F.C. Shipek. 1978. “Luiseño in
California” in the Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution: Washington, D.C. California Air Resources Board, AB 32 Fact
Sheet and Timeline – California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, September 25, 2006. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/facts/facts.htm)
California Chapter of the Association of Environmental Professionals, Alternative Approaches to Analyze Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents, Final, June
29, 2007. (Available at on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at www.califaep.org) California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol, Version 2.2 March 2007. (Available on
the Internet on February 7, 2008 at http://www.climateregistry.org/Default.aspx?TabID=3347&refreshed=true)%20) California Department of Conservation, Aggregate Availability In California,
Map Sheet 52 (updated 2006), 2006. (Available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department and on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://www.consrv.ca. gov/CGS/information/publications/
ms/MS_52_map.pdf.) California Department of Conservation, California Surface Mining and Reclamation Policies and Procedures, Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral
Lands, 2000. (Available for review on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://www.consrv.ca.gov/SMGB/Guidelines/ClassDesig.pdf)
6. Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 6-2 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 California
Department of Conservation, Mineral Land Classification of the Granite Construction Company Liberty Quarry Site, Temecula, Riverside County, California-For Portland Cement Concrete-Grade
Aggregate. Special Report 200, 2007. (Available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department.) California Department of Conservation, Mineral Land Classification of The Temescal
Valley Area, Riverside County, Special Report 165, 1991. (Available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department.) California Department of Conservation, Update of Mineral
Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Western San Diego County Production-Consumption Region, 1996. (Available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department.) California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2008. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Wildlife Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Habitat Conservation Division, CDFG, Sacramento, CA. California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement, 1998. California Energy Commission, Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004, Publication
CEC-600-2006-013-SF, December 2006. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-600-2006-013/CEC-600-2006-013-SF.PDF) California Energy
Commission, Our Changing Climate, Publication CEC-500-2006-077, July 2006. (Available on the Internet on November 20, 2007 at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500-2006-077/CEC-500-2006-0
77.PDF) California Energy Commission, Scenarios of Climate Change in California: An Overview, Publication CEC-500-2005-186-SF, Published December 2005. (Available on the Internet on
February 7, 2008 at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005-186/CEC-500-2005-186-SF.PDF) California Executive Department, Executive Order S-3-05 by the Governor of the
State of California, June 2005. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/energy/Exec%20Order%20S-3-05.pdf) California Integrated Waste Management Board,
Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling. (Available on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ConDemo/) California Integrated Waste Management Board, Construction
and Demolition Materials. (Available on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ConDemo/Materials/default.htm) California Integrated Waste Management Board, Jurisdictional
Profile for Riverside County (Unincorporated). (Available on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfile1.asp?RG=U&JURID=410&JUR=River side%2DUnincorporated
) California Integrated Waste Management Board, Jurisdictional Profile for City of Temecula. (Available on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfile2.asp?
RG=C&JURID=529&JUR=Teme cula
6. Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 6-3 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 California
Integrated Waste Management Board, Residential Waste Disposal Rates. (Available on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at www.ciwmb.ca.gov/wastechar/ResDisp.htm) California Native Plant
Society. 2008. CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (available online). California Public Utilities Commission, News Release: PUC Sets GHG Emissions Performance
Standard to Help Mitigate Climate Change, January 25, 2007. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/Published/NEWS_RELEASE/63997.htm) California State
Senate, SB 1368, September 29, 2006. (Available on the Internet at http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/sen/sb_1351-1400/sb_1368_bill_20060929_chaptered.pdf on February 7, 2008) Cato
Geoscience, Inc., Aggregate Resources in the Temecula and Surrounding Inland Empire Areas – Development Opportunities & Current Conditions, January 25, 2008. (This report is contained
in its entirety in Appendix D of this document.) Chartkoff, J.L., and K.K. Chartkoff. 1984. The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press: Stanford, California. City of Temecula,
Final Environmental Impact Report, Temecula General Plan Update, March, 2005, Certified April 12, 2005. (Available the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr.,
Temecula, CA 92590, 951-694-6444.) City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan, April 2005. (Available at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA
92590, or on the Internet at http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm on January 10, 2008) City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan Land Use Map,
April 12, 2005, Map Prepared February 1, 2007. (Available at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, or on the Internet on January 10,
2008 at www.www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm) City of Temecula Internet Site. (Available on the Internet on January 10, 2008 at http://www.cityoftemecula.org)
City of Temecula, Municipal Code, October 2007. City of Temecula, (Draft) Plan for Provision of Municipal Services, Planning Applications No. P07-0225 and PA07-0226, Annexation of the
Santa Margarita Area to the City of Temecula, California, December, 2007. (Available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590.)
Claude, Hart T. County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use, Electronic Communication in regards to Surface Mines in San Diego County dated August 23, 2007. County of Riverside,
Riverside County General Plan, Adopted October 7, 2003. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, or on the Internet
on February 11, 2008 at http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/index.html)
6. Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 6-4 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 County of
Riverside, General Plan: Existing Settings Report, Revised in March 2000, Adopted October 7, 2003. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street,
Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200, and at the City of Temecula Planning Department.) County of Riverside, Geographic Information System Database. (Available for review at the County
of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200, or on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://www3.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/pa/rclis/index.html)
County of Riverside, Ordinance No. 348 – Regulating Land Use. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200,
or on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/planning/content/zoning/ordnance/ord348_article.html) County of Riverside, RCIP General Plan Land Use Designations
-Zoning Consistency Guidelines. (Available for review on the Internet on February 15, 2008 at http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/zoning.html) County of Riverside, RCIP General Plan Draft
Environmental Impact Report, August 14, 2002. (Available for review at the Riverside County Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200 or on the Internet
on February 11, 2008 at http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/index.html.) County of Riverside, Riverside County Integrated Project General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse No. 2002051143), March 2003. (Available for review at the Riverside County Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200 or on the Internet
on February 11, 2008 at http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/index.html.) County of Riverside, Southwest Area Plan, October 7, 2003. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning
Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 951-955-3200, or on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap1/swap.html) County of Riverside, Western
Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, Adopted June 17, 2003. (Available for review at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside,
CA 92501, or on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at www.rcip.org) County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use, San Diego County General Plan, January 2, 1979. (Available
on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://www.co.sandiego.ca.us/cnty/cntydepts/landuse/planning/gpupdate/pubs/existing.htm) County of San Diego, San Diego County Code, current though
July 25 2008. County of San Diego Fallbrook Planning Area Land Use Map, April 29, 2004. (Available on the Internet February 8, 2008 at http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/index.html to http://www.sangis.
org/LibraryService/DownloadedFiles/1gpcpafallbrook.jpg) Cunnif, Patrick, Environmental Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977.
6. Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 6-5 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Eastern Information
Center California Historical Resources Information System, Cultural Resources Records Search, RS #4006, June 29, 2007. (The results of this records search are considered to be confidential
by the Eastern Information Center and are on file at the City of Temecula Planning Department. They are only available for review by qualified archaeologists.) Fagan, B.M. 1995. Ancient
North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames & Hudson: New York Fagan, B.M. 2003. Before California: An Archaeologist Looks at Our Earliest Inhabitants. AltaMira Press: Walnut
Creek, California. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, Effects of Aviation Noise of Awakenings from Sleep, 1992. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment, 2006. Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants, Traffic Impact Study Report, Santa Margarita Area Annexation, City of Temecula, CA, Riverside County, September 2008. (This
report is contained in its entirety in Appendix C of this document.) The Gas Company, E-mail correspondence from Bruce R. Waddell for service availability, December 13, 2007. Hickman,
J.C. (ed.), 1993. The Jepson Manual of Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. The History of Temecula. Available for review on the
City of Temecula Internet site at www.cityoftemecula.org/temecula/visitors/about/history. Accessed on February 8, 2008. Holland, R.F. 1986.California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Contribution of Working
Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 2001. (Available for review on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm) Kohler, Susan, 2006, Aggregate Availability in California: California Geological Survey, Map Sheet 52 and report. (Available on the
Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/ms/Documents/MS_52.pdf) Legislative Counsel of California, AB 32 – California Global Warming Solutions
Act of 2006, September 2006. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_32_bill_20060927_chaptered.pdf) Leighton and
Associates, Inc., 2007, Final Mineral Resource Report, Merriam Mountains Property, San Diego County, California: Prepared for the Merriam Mountains Specific Plan (NNP-Stonegate Merriam,
L.L.C), draft report released 2005, Leighton and Associates, Inc., 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 310, San Diego, CA 92123, 21 p.
6. Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 6-6 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Marian Koshland
Science Museum of the National Academy of Sciences Internet Site. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at www.koshland-science-museum.org) Mayer, Kenneth E., and William F.
Laudenslayer. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA
Facts: The Balance of Power in the Earth-Sun System, 2005. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/NASA-Facts-EnergyBalance.pdf) National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Greenhouse Gases -Frequently Asked Questions. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 at http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html)
ParkNet. 2008. National Register Information System, Search by Location with links to Web pages. http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrloc1.htm . Search Parameters “CA” state code, “Temecula” city.
Accessed on September 3, 2008. PCR Services Corporation, Air Quality Impact Analysis, Santa Margarita Area Annexation, August 26, 2008. (This report is contained in its entirety in Appendix
B of this document.) Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians – History. (Available for review on the Pechanga Tribe Internet site on February 8, 2008 at http://www.pechanga-nsn.gov) Revey,
Gordon F. Blasting Impacts Assessment for Proposed Idaho-Maryland Mine, 2003. Riverside Transit Agency, Internet Site. (Available for review on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at www.riversidetransi
t.com) Riverside County Waste Management Department, E-mail correspondence from Sung Key Ma, Planner IV for landfill capacity, January 14, 2008. San Diego State University, Field Station
Program, Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve Internet Site. (Available on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://fs.sdsu.edu/kf/reserves/smer/) San Diego State University Field Field
Station Programs and South Coast Wildlands, A Linkage Design for the Santa Ana-Palomar Mountains Connection, May 2004. (Available on the Internet February 8, 2008 at http://www.scwildlands.org/report
s.aspx to http://www.scwildlands.org/reports/SCML_SantaAna_Palomar.pdf) San Diego State University, Field Stations Program. (Available on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://fs.sdsu.edu/kf/res
erves/smer/habitat.php) San Diego State University, Masters Thesis – Determining Suitable Wildlife Crossing Locations across a Southern Califoria Interstate, Philip Gibbons, Spring 2008
South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993, with November 1993 Update. (Available for review at South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865
East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182.) South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, June 2007. (Available for review at South Coast Air Quality
Management District, 21865 East Copley
6. Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 6-7 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Drive, Diamond
Bar, CA 91765-4182 or on the Internet on February 7, 2008 athttp://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/index.html) South Coast Air Quality Management District, Guidance Document for Addressing
Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, May 6, 2005. (Available on the Internet at http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/aqguide/doc/aq_guidance.pdf on February 7, 2008.) South Coast
Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data. (Available for review at South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21965 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 or on the
Internet on February 7, 2008 at www.aqmd.gov/smog/historicaldata.htm) South Coast Wildlands, South Coast Missing Linkages – A Wildland Network for the South Coast Ecoregion, Undated
Southern California Association of Governments, 2004 RTP Growth Forecasts. (Available for review on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at www.scag.ca.gov/forecast/index.htm and available
for review at Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435, 213-236-1800.) Southern California Association of
Governments, The New Economy and Jobs/Housing Balance in Southern California, April 2001. (Available for review on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at www.scag.ca.gov/Housing/balance.html)
Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Internet Site. (Available for review on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://www.metrolinktrains.com/) United States Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. (Available on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/ssurgo
/) United States Department of Agriculture, On-line Soil Surveys. (Available on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at http://www.soils.usda.gov/survey/online_surveys/california/w_riverside/maps/gsm.pdf
) U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1995. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, DC: National Park
Service. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Kids Site. (Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html on February 7, 2008.)
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2005, April 15, 2007. (Available on the Internet on February 7, 2008 athttp://www.epa.gov/cli
matechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division, Characterization of Building-Related Construction
and Demolition Debris in the United States, by Franklin Associates, Office of Solid Waste Report No. EPA 530-R-98-010, June 1998. (Available on the Internet on February 11, 2008 at www.epa.gov/epaosw
er/hazwaste/sqg/c&d-rpt.pdf)
6. Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 6-8 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building
Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971. United States Environmental Protection Agency, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13.3 (Available on the Internet on September 5, 2008 at http://www.epa.gov
/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s03.pdf) United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Six Common Air Pollutants”. (Available on February 7, 2008 on the Internet at www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/6poll.htm
l) United States Fish and Wildlife, Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit No. TE088609-0, June 22, 2004. (Available for review on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at www.fws.gov/carlsbad/WRV_MSHCP_BO.htm)
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Biological and Conference Opinion (FWS-WRIV-WRIV-870.19), June 22, 2004. (Available
for review on the Internet on February 8, 2008 at www.fws.gov/carlsbad/WRV_MSHCP_BO.htm) Warren C. N. 2004. “The Desert Region” in California Archaeology. By M. J. Moratto. Coyote Press:
Salinas, California. Reprinted from 1984, Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. The following reports and studies are contained in the Technical Appendices for the Santa Margarita Area Annexation
Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2007041085). (A copy of the Technical Appendices is available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
CA 92590, 951-694-6400.) Air Quality Impact Analysis, Santa Margarita Area Annexation, Albert A. Webb Associates, January 18, 2008. Traffic Impact Study Report, Santa Margarita Area
Annexation, City of Temecula, CA, Riverside County, Albert A. Webb Associates, February 1, 2008. Aggregate Resources in the Temecula and Surrounding Inland Empire Areas – Development
Opportunities & Current Conditions, Cato Geoscience, Inc., January 25, 2008. 6.2 Organizations and Persons Consulted City of Temecula Planning Department Steve Brown, Principal Planner
Dale West, Associate Planner Riverside County Planning Department Jerry Jolliffe, Principal Planner County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use Claude T. Hart, Sr. Civil
Engineer
6. Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 6-9 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 Riverside
County Waste Management Department, Sung Key Ma, Planner I Cato Geoscience, Inc Kerry Cato, PhD, CEG, PG Fehr and Peers Christopher Gray, Associate PCR Heidi Rous, CPP Associate Principal,
Director of Air Quality Services Amy Kidd, Environmental Analyst San Diego State University Field Station Programs Matt Rahn, Ph.D., Director Eastern Information Center California Historical
Resources Information System Rachel Williams, Information Officer The Gas Company Bruce R. Waddell 6.3 Documents Preparation Staff ESA, Planning and Environmental Services Eric Ruby,
Project Director Chris Knopp, Project Manager Mitch Marken, Cultural Resource Director Kim Maeyama, Associate Paul Miller, Senior Managing Associate Donald Ambroziak, Associate Jason
Nielson, Graphic Artist Gus JaFolla, Word Processor Albert A. Webb Associates, Inc., Planning Planning and Environmental Services Department Richard J. MacHott, Principal Environmental
Planner, Project Manager Kim Castruita, Associate Environmental Planner Katie Gallagher, Associate Environmental Analyst Eliza Laws, Assistant Environmental Analyst Dean Ritter, Assistant
Environmental Planner Merrill Norrdin, Assistant Environmental Analyst Lisa Lemoine, Project Coordinator City of Temecula Shawn Nelson, City Manager Bob Johnson, Assistant City Manager
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning Steve Brown, Principal Planner Dale West, Associate Planner Christine Damko, Associate Planner
6. Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 6-10 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 6.4 Acronyms
and Abbreviations μg/m3 Micrograms per Cubic Meter 1 DU/10 AC One Dwelling Unit per 10 Acres AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards AB 1327 California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act
of 1991 AB 939 California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 AB Assembly Bill AQIA Air Quality Impact Analysis AQMD Air Quality Management District AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARB Air Resources Board BLM Bureau of Land Management C&D Construction and Demolition CAA Clean Air Act CAL Fire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Caltrans California
Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resource Board CASSA Critical Area Species Survey Area CAT Climate Action Team CBC California Building Code CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDMG California Department of Mines and Geology CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California
Endangered Species Act CETAP Community and Environmental Transportation Plan CFC Chlorofluorocarbons CFL Compact Fluorescent Light CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH4 Methane City City
of Temecula CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
6. Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 6-11 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 CNPS California
Native Plant Society CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers County County of Riverside CPUC California Public
Utilities Commission CSS California Sage Scrub CWA Clean Water Act dB Decibels dBA A-weighted Decibels DIF Developer Impact Fees DNL Day-night Noise Level DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
du Dwelling Unit EIC Eastern Information Center EIR Environmental Impact Report EMWD Eastern Municipal Water District EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPS Emission Performance Standard
ESA Federal Endangered Species Act FHWA-RD-77-108 Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise FIND Facility Information
Database FTA Federal Transit Administration GHG Greenhouse Gas(es) GLO General Land Offices gpd Gallons per Day GPM Gallons per Minute GWP Global Warming Potential H2O Water H2S Hydrogen
Sulfide HANS Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Strategy HC Habitat Conservation HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
6. Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 6-12 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
HR Hillside Residential HRA Health Risk Assessment HR-SM Hillside Residential-Santa Margarita Hz Hertz I-15 Interstate15 I-215 Interstate 215 I-405 Interstate 405 (San Diego Freeway)
I-710 Interstate 710 (Long Beach Freeway) I-8 Interstate 8 IA Implementing Agreement IECC International Energy Conservation Code IPCC Intergovernmental Plan on Climate Change km Kilometer
kWh Kilowatt hour LAFCO Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission Leq Equivalent Sound Level Lmax Instantaneous Maximum Noise Level LOS Level of Service LST Localized Significance
Threshold MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MEIR Master Environmental Impact Report mgd Million Gallons per Day MM Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale MRZ Manufacturing Service Commercial
MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan msl Mean Sea Level MWh Megawatt hour N20 Nitrous Oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NEPSSA Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas NH4NO3 Ammonium Nitrate NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
6. Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 6-13 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 NMFS National
Marine Fisheries Service NMVOC Non-CH4-Volatile Organic Compounds NO Nitric Oxide NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOP Notice of Preparation NOX Nitrogen Oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System O3 Ozone ODS Ozone Depleting Substances OHP Office of Historic Preservation OPR (Governor’s) Office of Planning and Research OS-C Open Space-Conservation OS-CH Open
Space-Conservation Habitat OS-C-SM Open Space-Conservation –Santa Margarita PAC Project Area Committee P-C Production-Consumption PCC Portland cement concrete PFCs Perfluorocarbons PM-10
Particulate Matter (less than 10 microns) PM-2.5 Particulate Matter (less than 2.5 microns) PPM Parts per Million PPV Peak Particle Velocities PRC Public Resource Code PSI Pounds per
Square Inch R-A-20 Residential agriculture with a 20 acre minimum lot size RCIP EIR Riverside County Integrated Program General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report RCIP Riverside
County Integrated Plan RCPG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide RCWD Rancho California Water District RM Rural Mountainous RMS Root mean square ROG Reactive Organic Gas R-R Rural Residential
RTA Riverside County Transit Authority RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
6. Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 6-14 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 RTP Regional
Transportation Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAPML Santa Ana-Palomar Mountain Linkage SB Senate Bill SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association
of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SDSU San Diego State University SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SIP State Implementation
Plan SMAA Santa Margarita Area Annexation SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 SMER Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve SMGB State Mining and Geology Board SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SR State Route SRA Source Reception Area SSRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology SWANCC Ruling
Solid Waste Agency of North Cook County vs. United States Army Corps of Engineers SWAP Riverside County General Plan Southwestern Area Plan SZ Scientific Resources Zone TACs Toxic Air
Contaminants Temecula EIR Final Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula General Plan Update Tpd Tons per Day TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee U.S. United States URBEMIS
Urban Emissions Software USFWS Untied States Fish and Wildlife Service V/C Volume-to-Capacity VdB Vibration Decibels VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
6. Documents, Organizations, and Persons Consulted, and Acronyms and Abbreviations City of Temecula Santa Margarita Area Annexation 6-15 ESA /208485 Draft EIR September 2008 VOC Volatile
Organic Compound WDR Waste Discharge Requirement