HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-06 TCSD Resolution -
i
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 11-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE OLD TOWN
GYMNASIUM GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PUJOL STREET AND FIRST
STREET (APN 922100035 / LR09-0016)
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES
DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services
District of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. The Old Town Gymnasium ("Project") project proposes an 8,300-square
foot gymnasium featuring a basketball court and bleacher seating for approximately 120
spectators. The development will also include 38 parking spaces and associated
landscaping; and,
B. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA), City staff
prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the
Project, as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that
study, City staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the Project
could have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
was prepared.
C. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period
and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as required by law. The
public comment period commenced on March 31, 2011, and expired on April 19, 2011.
Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the
offices of the Department of Planning, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street,
Temecula, California 92590.
D. The Board of Directors has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and the one comment letter received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior
to and at the June 14, 2011 meeting, and based on the whole record before it finds that:
(1) the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2)
there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the
environment; and (3) Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment
and analysis of the Board of Directors. �
Section 2. The Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services
District of the City of Temecula hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
R:/CSD Resos 2011/CSD 11-06 1
Project and approves the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project as set forth on
Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any
and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula
Community Services District of the City of Temecula this 14 day of June, 2011.
a � s ,.,, _
Jeff Comerchero, President
ATTEST:
Susan W Jo es, MMC
City Cler Bo d Secreta
[S EAL]
R:/CSD Resos 2011/CSD 11-06 2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk/Board Secretary of the Temecula Community
Services District of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
No. CSD 11-06 was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula
Community Services District of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 14
day of June, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: 4 BOARD MEMBERS: Edwards, Naggar, Washington,
Comerchero
NOES: 0 BOARD MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 BOARD MEMBERS: Roberts
ABSTAIN: 0 BOARD MEMBERS: None
�t/
Susan . Jones, MMC
City Cler Board Secretary
R:/CSD Resos 2011/CSD 11-06 3
EXHIBIT "A"
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program
City of Temecula .
.
lanning epartment Agency Distribution List
PROJECT: Long Range Planning Application No. LR09-0016, Old Town Gymnasium
DISTRIBUTION DATE: March 31, 2011 CASE PLANNER: Cheryl Kitzerow
CITY OF TEMECULA: RIVERSIDE COUNTY:
Building & Safety .................................... (X) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors............ ()
Fire Department ...................................... (X) Airport Land Use Commission.................( )
Police Department ............. (X) Engineer..................................................(X)
Parks 8� Recreation (TCSD) ....:............... (X) Flood Control...........................................(X)
Planning, Advance ...................................( ) Health Department..................................( )
Public Works ........................................... (X) Parks and Recreation..............................( )
.........( ) Planning Department ............................... � )
Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) ... ( )
STATE: Riverside Transit Agency ......................... ( )
Caltrans ...................................................( ) ...... ( )
Fish & Game ........................................... (X)
Mines & Geolo9Y ......................................( ) UTILITY:
Regional Water Quality Control Board.... (X) Eastern Municipal Water District .............(X}
State Clearinghouse ............................... (X} Inland Valley Cablevision ........................ ()
State Cfearinghouse (15 Copies) .............( ) Rancho CA Water District, Wil! Serve .....(X)
Water Resources () Southern California Gas ..........................(X) �
.....................................
.......( } Southern California Edison ......................(X)
Temecula Valley School District ..............(X)
FEDERAL: Metropolitan Water District ......................( )
Army Corps of Engineers ........................ (X)
Fish and Wildlife Service .........................( ) OTHER:
.........( ) Pechanga Indian Reservation .................(X)
.........( ) Eastern Information Center ..................... ( )
Local Agency Formation Comm .............. ( )
REGIONAL: RCTC .....................................................(X)
Air Quality Management District ............. (X) Homeowners' Association ......................... ()
Western Riverside COG ..........................( ) .................................................................. �)
.....� )
CITY OF MURRIETA:
Planning ...................................................{ )
.....� )
z
City of Temecula
P I a n n i n g D e pa rtm e nt Notice of Proposed Negative Deciaration
PROJECT: Long Range Planning Application No. LR09-0016, Old Town Gymnasium
APPLICANT: City of Temecula
LOCATION: Generally located at the southeast corner of Pujol Street and First Street,
just east of the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula
DESCRIPTION: The project involves the design, engineering and construction of an 8,300-
square foot gymnasium featuring a basketball court and bleacher seating
� for approximately 120 spectators. The development will also include 38
parking spaces and associated landscaping. Access to the project would
be provided from an existing driveway along First Street currently used to
access the Boys and Girls Club. There will be both vehicular and
pedestrian connections between the existing Boys and Girls Club and the
proposed Old Town Gymnasium. The new gymnasium will be utilized by
both the Boys and Girls Club and Citywide recreational needs. The project
will be constructed in 2 phases. Phase 1 will commence in Summer 2011
and will include the parking lot, lighting and site utilities. Approximately
2,500 cubic yards of fill dirt will be imported to the site for construction.
Phase 2 will commence at a future date and will include site landscaping
and the gymnasium building. The pad will be hydroseeded for the interim
. period until Phase 2 commences. The project does require acquisition of
approximately 28,625 square feet from the Riverside County Flood Control
District (RCFD).
The City of Temecula intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe project described
above. Based upon the information contained in the attached Initial Environmental Study and
pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); it has been
determined that this project as proposed, revised or mitigated will not have a significant impact
upon the environment.
The mitigation measures required to reduce or mitigate the impacts of this project on the
environment are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached to this Notice
and will be included as part of the Negative Declaration for this project.
The Comment Period for this proposed Negative Declaration is March 31, 2011 to April 19,
2011. Written comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact
person listed below at the following address: City of Temecula, P.O. Bvx 9033, Temecula, CA
92589-9033. City Hall is located at 41000 Main Street.
The public notice of the intent to adopt this Negative Declaration is provided through:
X The Local Newspaper _ Posting the Site X Notice to Adjacent Property Owners
If you need additional information or have any questions concerning this project, please contact
Cheryl Kitzerow at (951) 69 -6409.
Prepared by: — Cheryl Kitzerow, Associate Planner
Si nature Name and Title
i
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Pro'ect Title Old Town G mnasium — LR09-0016
Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9Q33
Contact Person and Phone Number Cheryl Kitzerow, Associate Planner
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, Ca 92089
951 694-6409
Project Location This project is generally located at the southeast corner of Pujol
Street and First Street.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
General Plan Desi nation O en S ace OS
Zonin Public Park/Recreation PR and 0 en S ace Conservation OS-C
Description of Project The project involves the design, engineering and construction of an
8,300-square foot gymnasium featuring a basketball court and
bleacher seating for approxirrtately 120 spectators. The
development will also include 38 parking spaces and associated
landscaping. Access to the project would be provided from an
existing driveway along First Street currently used to access the
Boys and Girls Club. There will be both vehicular and pedestrian
� connections between the existing Boys and Girls Club and the
proposed Old Town Gymnasium. The new gymnasium will be
utilized by both the Boys and Girls Club and citywide recreational
needs. The project will be constructed in 2 phases. Phase 1 will
commence in Summer 2011 and will include the parking lot, lighting
and site utilities. Approximately 2,500 cubic yards of fill dirt will be
imported to the site for construction. Phase 2 will commence at a
future date and will include site landscaping and the gymnasium
building. The pad will be hydroseeded for the interim period until
Phase 2 commences.
The project does requi�e acquisition of approximately 28,625 square
feet from the Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFD).
The subject site is located within the City of Temecula General Plan
area and will be subject to the criteria contained within the City of
Temecula General Plan EIR (2005) which contains current and
reliable data for an adequate analysis of the proposed project. In
addition, studies were completed for Biological and Cultural
Resources.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The project is located on a vacant parcel located at the southeast
corner of First and Pujol Streets in the City of Temecula. The project
site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Open Space and is
zoned Public Park/Recreation. Surrounding uses include the Boys
and Girls Club to the west, an Eastern Municipal Water District pump
station to the north, Murrieta Creek to the east, and vacant publicly
owned land to the south. Further southwest of the project site is the
Cit of Temecula Communit Center. Residential develo ment in the
G:IPLANNING\2009\LR09-0016 Old Town Gym\Environmental\CEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
1
project vicinity includes multi-family units.
Other public agencies whose approval Riverside County Flood Control District
is re uired
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Mineral Resources
A riculture and Forest Resources Noise
Air Qualit Po ulation and Housin
Biolo ical Resources Public Services
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Recreation
Cultural Resources Trans ortation and Traffic
Geolo and Soils Utilities and Service S stems
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mandator Findin s of Si nificance
H drolo and Water Qualit None
Land Use and Plannin
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
X be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the ro'ect ro onent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared.
I find that the proqosed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re uired.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is re uired, but it must anal ze onl the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
im osed u on the ro osed ro'ect, nothin further is re uired.
1 3 �, t
Signature Date
Cheryl Kitzerow City of Temecula
Printed Name For
G:IPLANNING�20091LR09-0016 Old Town Gym\EnvironmentallCEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
2
.- -
. ,. . ,�..,.
�� , r
� � . ,
/ / � , \ ` �*�'� i �, �; �
� �a� x
� � � � � r►. ' ' . �. , �
�. ,�� _
. �� _
. .
, , ,
.
-
,
� , . . � :.. � . . �.
,
;.
"R, / . . . ' r.
� g . �
_,,,�. �� .. . y4 4` ; f�' , ��! � y,a�
J � �� � �� � �� ° , ?� 'r �;
� €� ,�` f „�� -^ �.� . � � �' � � �, ` , # , �+� �
' r �" ^ � �, y,."� �� 4 - � � � � �k�„� .� ,�.� - � 3 �" .
.r'�� � �`, ' z`�"" x ' i�� = t ;� � �s. �, �r� FA-�' >
, a � h � �.'"� � l
.s� �,�: a �'/ l � f a ' ;`d% + � 1 .i?
.rJ �� .;� .� 3 ` ,:
.
. , ,
, , � � v
��`�''�}� � •/ -` � 4' " �.d��'a�t. a.. � �'� j
�� ,�}� �r. " `y �, �r�'� '��° � 1 �h_ � � , ;��*..�
G�' � ��
. �.
,
��
,.
.,
� �� /j F a � '� � o-> � X� f � i�a ' Y�'�
� ` r � ' ` ` �' � ' �� ` � � `
. '.''
�' ,�� � '� • �,
� '` '� ' k > � � . � � . � � ��
� V* .i.. :��t�s .rw+c �.�.. � � � � o ,urr.mn�-n °
! � , ct�rnic.eaNrrv �� � r.c��+m �w�n.cr�e.!e,�•Nn ,{� ;.
6 �` � � otf Sr,t.VnP�wr'r � .
��,. ��} ��'. f �, �`,...� '��}��`.
5 �.�.� �� ";: 1 _� , � �
„� r � � ;c'�` t� ` ti� - �i,' �� '�'�i
"' .� <:., 1 PMWNti� � t '�' ;i � 1� "L
. . ,i,k'. � 1 � � �� �`� }�° , �, � � " ` ,���°
,� ,.1` . ° ;.s' .� � f ' � ' rr it�t ` �,�r . �"� `, ; �� �
` �
�,�' .:,,,� �,�� � . �� � . � .i�'�� .� t.`�, �1��,�,,,,', r �� ''� `s'� � yj � �i , t �. ..
t
Kmh^.aUaoisO ` ' 1 ■ ` -��{:. �� ' � , �., h�'� �
rMnrnY � � � � �� ,,},�a .. � . .� � �. . ��a� � . °'` , �'••
�":� � � v4,t �^r F�� � Ze+°M�A'�tii�llr r.r �.� �'1�,��L ' � .�
,. � ..,� � � . � = dt�?' � � - � i/.t-' t�ncuara�a�nrr �y;,,,,� •
''� ' �.� � ���` +�'"� � 2�`,t �,w �a�.' � �r � a � � � � � � �S, �� � z.
�a �9';". r ! s ti_, ,� ,�y s { �?� y �., y _. fti i.� '�SS .
} �` �. �, ' `� n�'" g c�r4 � " �`�t�'� �t 4 t' a ,�� � � �« � a� . �ir
' ' - <#. � �
� ;�� �� ""'- NEVJGYMNASIUiN �� b ` ��,;��` 4 ly'y, y �u .
. :: . , �. �. .
i. � � � ,N . ��� G, ra��� # 'k' ��i�� � �'�. �� ����;'� �.. , .
4 P �
� ,�� ` J( � T � f��.''� p.li`i�_Y � ����j��+$ ` �I . .Y. � �_ a,�' � � ..
•G � '^
, 4� EXISTING \ �r,��"• � �°��,,�,���7�'�'� f; '�' l;�` .� ,
, � ,{.�� � , �, r .
4�a �UVS� �?��.� y t�i�� ��~���ki+r���� � � € i �
� � C,i�f�LS �i�.���g ' t � � � y- i 3i: .. , �+� , �
�,d'� t =� '� s `y` t � `i � �"� '�
' '�pt�4�� �s . �,�..� '
��.� �i .,Y - , i . � � � _�. �� �
� . �- - � �. 4 � <.
� �. �:._ . . . _ t , (
�, � � _ .. � � } � � � " ' .. ���� � TS "�`' ';��.
,
.. � � y ,... '�'� .
» . . �,; ,. . ., � . .
� � yyy [pp ' y � . - ' . `�1; � t '" '� �� � �. ' f ';;
� � . �, , Y, i � 5 ' Y�" 4� .
� ... t a f� �'. � 1 k.
�� � �� jj''([ a ��� x ' ., t i �A �a.�.ncr,+n. a E 7�r. �, �9� .
� ,. . ..
ap
* ` t )OI �Y:1 4 /YAi4 �` �.M194-Eerx �ft
� �` � ,� .t i'� � * t{
y,$� � f 1 ` CI11N�:1�! � �. �
� "'� �. - ` _ t3 .��'""� . � � � �,` t ;b a'
�'�'' � ¢ � d '�'* e �. �` � t' . '�` � t'�
� � � � i.
.� � ��, 9 4�, 1` �
: . � , " '' � � �' ;.�; ` � �,. 1,� 1 [
4 , : t . .,3 .� } 1
, k
w � a �� ri �o � }t � z� jt �' y � ����r a �
k �i"`� , 5� 1 �,� � �.� �'�; ��qr�:;�,.��
�v± , ,r �r ,� t• :� �;— �: ��>��` �s �, � 6 ��� . ,�`
rv.��rt.t:r,• iu;:�=.:�?:;,,�,<r,;av��uv�,;i• cc.:�n::.���.,;
pu�;S}ith�i%eSa�i>r<.�i�iTr ',�:;C�i�C�;na'tt��_t.
.� Li',� l i_I: �'O: .. �! �: :� !'I�;;r! ': /'u �i_ � -
�U bdq 0 U Voo (i,�
000r�n�wono�o�
. ��� �°,° C(iNS11tUi:1'U1N,1{tE,! OI..[:l'i'<.)t1�� (:�YA1�;\SII.J�I
.,i�:tl.l:.l "�il'
— — — — c�KUr�•.Hrsi,ttst,r• I'R(:)I'I?Il'I'Y (.1\1`�'I{Ittil III' �(.
o ao c��
t"c►V57'CtUC'T1ci1� C.f�f1T'ti
Fr•i�r ruuti�c-i csxfrrw��
---.-- rr,q�rx';icat�nr.t�i:r�tit�
Ci:\PLANNINV12UUy1LKU9-U0�6 Ultl lown Gym\tnvironmental\UEC.�A IrnUal Stutly'LU�U.tloc
3
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Incor orated Im act Im act
a Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic hi hwa ?
c Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality X
of the site and its surroundin s?
d Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X
adversel affect da or ni httime views in the area?
Comments:
1.a. No Impact: There are no designated scenic vistas affected by the project. The proposed project
involves the construction of an 8,300-square foot gymnasium featuring a basketball court and bleacher seating
for approximately 120 spectators. The development will also include 38 parking spaces and associated
landscaping. The project is located along the south side of First Street, approximately 150 feet east of Pujol
Street. The Community Design Element of the City of Temecula's General Plan identifies important scenic
viewsheds to ensure that all new public and private development projects will not obstruct the pubfic views of
scenic resources. According to the Generaf Plan exhibit on page CD-5, the subject property has not been
identified as a viewshed. The closest viewshed is located south of the project site along the west side of Pujol
Street, where there is no project relationship to this area. Therefore, no scenic vistas or identified viewsheds
will be affected by the construction of the project.
1.b. No Impact: The project site is not located on a scenic highway. The natural configuration of the site is
a flat disturbed parcel. As addressed above in Section 1.a. and according to the General Plan, the project site
contains no scenic vistas or viewsheds. There are no historical buildings that exist on site and no tree
resources on the property, therefore no impact is anticipated.
1.c. Less than Significant lmpact: The site has been disturbed. The project will not degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. The new building will be located immediately adjacent
to the existing Boys and Girls Club and Community Center to the west. The project is consistent with the
existing visual character in this area of the City. The project will not degrade the existing character of the
community or the immediately surrounding areas, as the new development will be consistent with the existing
development pattern in the surrounding area. A less than significant impact is anticipated.
1.d. Less than Signi�cant /mpact: The proposed project will create minimal new sources of light or glare
that may adversely affect the day or nighttime views within the project area. The project will include the
development of an 8,300-square foot gymnasium featuring a basketball court and bleacher seating for
approximately 120 spectators. The development will also include 38 parking spaces and associated
landscaping. The construction of this project will introduce new generations of light and glare not currently
occurring on the vacant site, however the City of Temecula requires all new development to comply with the
Palomar Lighting Ordinance (Ordinance 655). Ordinance 655 requires that all lighting be shielded and directed
downward to avoid glare on adjacent properties, and ensure low levels of glare in the sky. Lighting issues will
be addressed, during the building plan check and inspection process. Therefore, since the project will be
required to be in compliance with Ordinance 655, it will not adversely affect the day or nighttime views or
create substantial light or glare, resulting in a less than significant impact.
G:IPLANNING120091LR09-0016 Old Town Gym\Environmental\CEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
4
2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest
land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Fo�est Legacy Assessment
Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted
by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Incor orated lm act Im act
a Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of X
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to
non-a ricultural use?
b Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest X
land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104 ?
d Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land X
to non-forest use
e Involve other changes in the existing environment which, X
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
Comments:
2.a.c-e. No Impact: The project site is not currently in agricultural production and will not convert Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. Nor would the
project result in the loss or conversion of forest land. This property is not considered Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Forest Land, pursuant the Farmfand Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency or the City of Temecula's General Plan. Therefore, there are no
impacts related to this issue.
2.b. No /mpacr: The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the City of Temecula,
and the site is not regulated by a Williamson Act contract. Consequently, there are no impacts related to this
issue.
G:IPLANNING\2009\LR09-0016 Old Town GymlEnvironmental\CEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
5
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Signiflcant With Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Incor orated Im act fm act
a Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X
air ualit lan?
b Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially X
to an existin or ro'ected air ualit violation?
c Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed uantitative thresholds for ozone recursors ?
d Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
e Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X
of eo le?
Comments: A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted with the City's General Plan EIR for City-
wide Air Quality impacts, primarily from mobile sources.
3.a.b. Less then Significant lmpact: The project site is located within the Temecula Planning Area which is
surrounded by mountains to the west, east and south. The project site is located within the southernmost
portion of the South Coast Air Quality Basin. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
has jurisdiction over stationary source air quality emissions and issues within the South Coast Air Quality
� Basin. The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable air quality plans nor violate air quality or
pollution standards. The project proposes to construct an 8,300 square foot gymnasium featuring a basketball
court and bleacher seating for approximately 120 spectators. The development will also include 38 parking
spaces and associated landscaping. Earthwork quantities include an estimated 2,500 cubic yards of fill import
to be transported on existing paved City streets. The project site is currently vacant. Construction activities will
include those associated with new construction. The General Plan EIR analyzed the potential impacts of
development within the City. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted with the General Plan
EIR for the Citywide air quality impacts, and mitigation measures were adopted. The implementation of the
goals and policies of the Generaf Plan, and the continued implementation of the associated mitigation
measures adopted with the General Plan EIR, will result in a less than significant impact as a result of this
project.
3.c. Less than Significanf wifh Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed project will not result in a
cumulatively considerab{e net increase of any criteria pollutant under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard. However, since the project includes new construction, it is anticipated that the proposed
project will emit typical exhaust emissions and dust associated with construction and grading activities. The
following mitigation measures are recommended as a preventative measure to minimize the emissions of
PM10 and PM2.5 during construction:
AirQual 1: During construction activities water shal! be applied every three hours to disturbed areas within
the construction site.
AirQual 2: In order to control track out dust, a gravel apron shafl be utilized, 25 feet long by road width, to
reduce the mud/dirt track out from unpaved truck exit routes.
G:\PLANNING12009\LR09-0016 Old Town Gym\Environmental\CEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
6
AirQual3: Nearby paved streets shall be swept once per day if there is evidence of dirt that has been
carried onto the roadway.
AirQual4: During grading activities ground covers shall be replaced as quickly as possible.
AirQual5: All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose material are to be tarped with a fabric cover.
AirQual6: The developer shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's rule 403-
Fugitive Dust.
AirQual7: The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is maintained in peak
working order to reduce emissions during construction and grading activities.
AirQual8: The alfowable idling time for all trucks and heavy equipment shall not exceed 10 minutes in
order to reduce emissions during construction and grading activities.
AirQual9: Grading and earth moving activities will be put on hold when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per
hour unless the soil is wet enough to prevent dispersion
3.d. Less than SigniFcant /mpact: Sensitive receptors include the very young, elderly, and persons
suffering from illness and are normally associated with locations such as schools, daycare facilities,
convalescent care facilities, medical facilities, and residential areas. Sensitive Receptors are shown on page
AQ-7, Figure AQ-2 "Sensitive Receptors," within the Air Quality Element of the City of Temecula General Plan.
The adjacent Boys and Girls Club is considered a Sensitive Receptor, located approximately 35 feet to the
west of the project site. In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) classifies the
surrounding residences as sensitive receptors. The Boys and Girls Club and surrounding residences may be
exposed to some pollutant concentrations on a short-term basis during construction and grading activities. The
proposed recreational gym is not anticipated to generate substantial pollutant concentrations and therefore,
there is minimal opportunity for any exposure. The mitigation measures identified in Section 3.c above will
reduce the fugitive dust and equipment emissions impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, a less
then significant impact to sensitive receptors will occur as a result of this project.
3.e. Less than Signi�cant Impact: : Implementation of the project will create minimal objectionable odors
associated with construetion activity which will be temporary. During construction the proposed project will
have odors associated with equipment and materials. Diesel fuel odors from construction equipment and new
asphalt paving fall into this category. These impacts will be of short duration and are considered less than
significant. No objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people will be created during when the
project is operational as a recreational facility. In considering the scope of the project and the fact that
construction activities will occur on a temporary basis, the impact is anticipated to be less than significant.
G:IPLANNING\2009\LR09-0016 Old Town Gym\EnvironmentallCEQA lnitial Study 2010.doc
7
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project?
Less Than
Potentially Significani With Less Than
Issues and SuppoAing Information Sources Significant MiGgation Signiticant No
Im act Incor orated Im act Im act
a Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X
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
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected X
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interru tion, or other means?
d Intertere substantially with the movement of any native X
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or im ede the use of native wildlife nurse sites?
e Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation lan?
Comments:
Riverside County adopted the Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
on June 17, 2003. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Opinion in favor of adopting the
MSHCP was released on June 22, 2004. The City of Temecula is a signatory to the MSHCP, and therefore,
the project is required to comply with the MSHCP. Section 6.0 of the MSHCP identifies the local
implementation measures. Section 6.1.6 details the County and Cities Obligations and corresponds with
Section 13.2 of the Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS. The program requires the City to undertake the
following steps to insure compliance with the requirements of the MSHCP.
• Payment of local development mitigation fees and other relevant fees (Section 8.5)
• Comply with the Habitat Assessment program (HANS) processor equivalent process to satisfy� local
acquisition obligation
• Comply with the survey requirements (Section 6.3.2)
• Comply with the policies of the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (Section 6.1.2)
• Comply with the policies of the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species (Section 6.1.3)
• Comply with the policies of the Urban/Wildlands Interface (Section 6.1.4)
G;IPLANNING\2009\LR09-0016 Old Town GymlEnvironmentallCEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
8
• Comply with the Best Management Practices (Section 7.0; Appendix C)
4.a-d. Less Than Significant Impacf: The subject site is a vacant site located within the boundaries of the
City of Temecula. The site elevation is approximately 1,000 feet above mean sea level over the entire site
which is generally flat. The parcels to the west and north of the site are developed with the Boys and Girls
Club/Temecula Recreation Center and multi-family residences. The parcel located to the south is vacant and
disturbed land. The property to tfie east is the Murrieta Creek.
According to the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) the subject parcel is within an MSHCP
criteria cell. In order to determine whether or not the proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or indirectly, through habitat modifications, or on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status in local or regional plans, palicies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a Biological Report was conducted by LSA Associates, Inc. in July
2010. This study was prepared to analyze the presence of sensitive habitat or species existing on the site, as
well as to determine consistency with the MSHCP. The study determined that the site is highly disturbed and
consists primarily of bare ground with scattered patches of ruderal, non-native vegetation. While the site is
adjacent to Murrieta Creek, the project footprint will not encroach on any potentially jurisdictional areas
associated with Murrieta Creek. The project will not interfere with the movement of any native resident of
migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites. As such, the project is anticipated to result in less than significant
impacts to biologica! resources.
4.e. Less fhan Significant /mpact: The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Fee Area. The project will be conditioned to comply with provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation), which requires payment of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat fee prior to the issuance
of a grading permit. There are no trees on the project site and therefore no conflict with the City's Heritage
Tree Ordinance would result from the project. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this
project.
4.f. Less Than Significant /mpact: The project site is located within MSHCP Criteria Cell 7166. Criteria
for this cel! include conservation objectives to contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13
(Murrieta Creek) and Proposed Constrained Linkage 10. Within Cell 7166, 35-55 percent of the southwest
portion is targeted for conservation. The proposed project will be developed in a part of the southeastern
portion of Cell 7166. According to the findings presented by LSA Associates in the General Biological
Resources and MSHCP Compliance Report (July 2010) prepared for the project, development of the project
will not result in the loss of riparian scrub, woodland, or forest habitat associated with Murrieta Creek or
interfere with habitat connectivity associated with the Santa Rosa and Santa Margarita Ecological Reserves.
Development of the project will not interfere with assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkages 10 or 13. A
Joint Project Review with the Regional Conservation Authority was completed in November 2010 (JPR # 10-
08-17-01). The review concluded that the project is consistent with both the Criteria and other Plan
' requirements. As such, less than significant impacts to the provisions of the MSHCP are anticipated.
G:IPLANfVING\2009\LR09-0016 Old Town GymlEnvironmental\CEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
9
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentlatly Significant With Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significa�t Mitigation Significant No
!m act Incor orated Im act Im act
a Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
b Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
an archaeolo ical resource ursuant to Section 15064.5?
c Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontolagical X
resource or site or uni ue eolo ic feature?
d Disturb any human remains, including those interred X
outside of formal cemeteries?
Comments:
5.a-d. Less than Significanf with Mitigation Incorporated: The project site is disturbed; it has been graded
in the past and the proposed project requires import of fill materials. According to the Cultural Resource
Assessment prepared by LSA Associates for the proposed project, the records search and field survey did not
identify any cultural resources that will be affected by the project and the graded alluvial setting offers potential
for previously undocumented cultural resources within the project boundary, although such resources may be
in secondary deposits; however, based on the negative results of surface survey and the slopes of the
embankment of Murrieta Creek, further investigation or monitoring was not recommended.
Implementation of the project is not expected to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries. As has been previously discussed the site has been graded in the past.
Although the Cultural Assessment prepared by LSA does not include mitigation measures, the City received a
letter from the Pechanga Tribe. In response to the concerns raised by the Tribe, the following mitigation
measures will be required:
CuliResl: The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during
excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other
objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural .or archaeological resource are
discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall
cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The
Planning Director at his/her sole discretion may require the property owner to deposit a sum of
money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an
independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess
� the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/
cultural resource, the Planning Director shall notify the property owner of such determination
and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an
archaeological/cultural resource, the Planning Director shall notify the property owner that no
further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective
measures have been approved by the Planning Director.
CultRes2: The developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment Agreement with the
Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural
resources and human remains that may be impacted as a result of the development of the
project, as well as provisions for tribal monitors.
G:IPLANNING12009\LR09-0016 Old Town GymlEnvironmental\CEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
1D
_ CultRes3: If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all
work in the area of the find shall cease; and the Riverside County qualified project archaeologist
and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall investigate the find, and make
recommendations as to treatment and mitigation.
CultRes4: A Riverside County qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to
stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and their designated
monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the
property.
CultRes5: Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to monitor al! grading, excavation and
groundbreaking activities, including all archaeological surveys, testing, and studies, to be
compensated by the developer.
CultRes6: The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all
archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper
treatment and disposition.
CultRes7: All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved.
G:IPLANNING120091LR09-0016 Ofd Town GymlEnvironmental\CEQA Initial Study 2010 rev FINAL.doc
11
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant W ith Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Incor orated Im act Im act
a Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injur , or death involvin :
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the X
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geolo S ecial Publication 42.
ii Stron seismic round shakin ? X
iii Seismic-related round failure, includin li uefaction? X
iv Landslides? X
b Result in substantiaf soil erosion or the loss of to soil? X
c Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that X
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
s readin , subsidence, li uefaction or colla se?
d Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of X
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or ro ert ?
e Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Comments:
6.a.i-ii. Less than Signi�cant Impact: The City of Temecula Generaf Plan does not identify any known faults
through the project site. The project site is not located within a State of California Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture
Hazard Fault Zone. A Geotechnical Exploration Study, conducted by Leighton Consulting, Inc. for the subject
property, dated June 9, 2010, indicated that the nearest Alquist-Priolo `zoned faulY is the Wildomar/Temecula
segment of the Elsinore Fault; the most accurately mapped portion of this fault system has been mapped
approximately 0.6 miles northeast of the project site. In addition, the project site lies partially within a Riverside
County Fault hazard area and approximately 350 feet southwest of a northwest striking segment of the Willard
Fault. The current seismic maps show no fault trace within, or trending towards the project site. Additionally,
all of Southern California is within a highly active seismic region, and Riverside County is traversed by a
number of active and potentially active faults and has historically experienced earth quakes of moderate
magnitudes. Historically, significant earthquakes causing strong ground shaking have occurred on local and
regional faults near the site. Since Southern California, in general, is considered susceptible to large
earthquakes, and the project site is in close proximity to certain known major fault systems, development of the
project site in conformance with City codes and ordinances, particularly the most recent Uniform Building
Code, will result in less than significant impacts.
6.a.iii. Less than Significanf lmpact: Soil liquefaction is caused by the loss of soil strength, which is a result
of increased pore water pressures related to significant seismic activity. This phenomenon occurs primarily in
loose to somewhat dense cohesion-less soils, which are located within a groundwater zone. When seismic
shaking occurs a rearrangement of the soil particles take place, putting them into a denser condition, which
results in the localized settlement, sand boils and/or flow failures. Tf�e Liquefaction Area Map provided by the
City of Temecula's Geographic Information System indicates that the subject parcel is moderately susceptible
G:\PLANNING\2009\LR09-0016 Old Town GymlEnvironmental\CEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
12
to liquefaction in the event of strong seismic ground shaking. A Geotechnical Exploration Study, conducted by
Leighton Consulting, Inc. for the subject property, dated June 9, 2010, included a liquefaction potential
analysis. The analyses concluded that based on the subsurface exploration data and lab test results, there is
a potential for liquefaction in a relatively deep thin layer. The study indicated that the total seismically induced
settlement in the upper 50 feet is estimated to be approximately one inch. Based on the above, the
liquefaction potential is anticipated to be low and therefore a less than significant impact is anticipated.
6.iv. Less than Signi�cant Impact: Landslides are a geological process which can be induced by seismic
activity. The process involves the downslope movement of geologic materials. The stability of slopes is
related to a variety of factors including the slope's steepness, the strength of the geologic materials in terms of
resistance to the downslope stress of gravity, the characteristics of the bedding planes, joints and faults,
surface water and groundwater conditions, along with other factors. The City of Temecula General Plan has
not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, a
less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
6.b. Less than Significant Impact: The site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The proposed project
has the potential to result in soils erosion due to construction. Approximately 2,500 cubic yards of fill material
will be imported to the site for construction. The project will be required to comply with all recommendations
contained within the Geotechnical Exploration Study, conducted by Leighton Consulting, Inc. for the subject
property, dated June 9, 2010. Additionally the project will be developed according to all applicable City of
Temecula standards, including. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, which
require the implementation of erosion control and best management practices (BMP's) to protect the site and
adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a
� result of this project.
6.c. Less than Signi�cant /mpact: The project would not be located in a geologic unit or on soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The subject parcel is moderately susceptible
to liquefaction in the event of strong seismic ground shaking as indicated on the City's Geographic Information
System map. The project will be required to comply with all recommendations contained within the
Geotechnical Exploration Study, conducted by Leighton Consulting, Inc. for the subject property, dated June 9,
2010. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
6.d. Less than Significant Impact: The project is not located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-
B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. {n addition, the project is
afso required to comply with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Exploration Study, conducted by
Leighton Consulting, Inc. for the subject property, dated June 9, 2010. A less than significant impact is
anticipated as a result of this project.
6.e. No Impact: The proposed project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. The project will connect to an
existing sewer line located in First Street. No impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
G:\PLANNING12009\LR09-0016 Old Town Gym\Environmental\CEQA Initia! Study 2010.doc
13
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentlally Significant With Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Signiffcant Mitiga6on Significant No
Im act Incor orated Im act Im act
a Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or X
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted X
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
ases?
Comments:
7.a.b. Less Than Significant Impact. Global Climate Change (GCC) refers to changes in average climatic
conditions on Earth as a whole, including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Global
temperatures are moderated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases. These gases allow sunlight into
Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radioactive heat from escaping, thus warming the Ea�th's atmosphere. Gases
that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called greenhouse gases, anatogous to a greenhouse. GHGs are
emitted by both natural processes and human activities. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere
regulates the Earth's tempe�ature. Emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle
use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere.
At this time there are no adopted statewide guidelines for greenhouse gas emission (GHG) impacts, but this is
being addressed through the provisions of Senate Bill 97 (SB 97). The California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association recommended that any project with GHG emissions above 3,000 metric tons of CO2e be required
to conduct a GCC analysis. The 3,000 metric tan threshold was developed in order to ensure capture of 90
percent or more of likely future discretionary developments. Projects with GHG emissions above 3,000 metric
tons of CO2e may still be able to demonstrate that their impacts are less than significant provided that they can
demonstrate that the project would not conflict with the goals and strategies of AB 32 to reduce GHGs to 1990
levels by 2020. The URBEMIS results for emission of CO2e for construction activity at 2,372 tons/year and for
building at 879 ton/year. Draft guidance from the South Coast Air Quality Management District recommends
amortizing construction emissions over a 30-year period to account for their contribution to project lifetime
greenhouse gas emissions. Amortizing these emissions over 30 years would result in emissions below the
3,000 metric tons threshold suggested by CAPCOA. Construction emissions would therefore have a less than
cumulatively contribution to global climate change impacts.
Based on the air quality emissions contained in the URBEMIS report, the project would not conflict with the
SCAQMD's AQMP. In addition, the City of Temecula does not have any plans, policies or regulations adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The project is expected to have a less than significant
impact with regard to greenhouse gas emissions.
G:IPLANNING12009\LR09-0016 Old Town GymlEnvironmental\CEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
14
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Issues and Supporting information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No
im act Incor orated Im act Im act
a Create a significant hazard to the pubiic or the environment X
through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existin or ro osed school?
d Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X .
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
si nificant hazard to the ublic or the environment?
e For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
ro'ect area?
f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the X
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workin in the ro'ect area?
g Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation lan?
h Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, X
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
8.a-h. No Impact: The project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials because the project will not require a significant
amount of export fill, and the site is not known to contain any hazardous soils or other hazardous materials
onsite. The project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment
because the project involves the construction of an 8,300 square foot gymnasium featuring a basketball court
and bleacher seating for approximately 120 spectators. The development will also include 38 parking spaces
and associated landscaping, and will not include any hazardous materials. The project will not emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school because the project will not
emit hazardous emissions beyond those anticipated for a public recreation project. The project is not located
on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a resuft, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The
project is not located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
G:IPLANNING�2009\LR09-0016 Old Town GymlEnvironmentallCEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
15
� miles of a public airport or public use airport, the project not result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The project would not impair the
implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving
wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wild lands because the project is located in an infill area, and the project plans include adequate access
for public safety vehicles, including fire apparatus. No impacts regarding hazards or hazardous materials are
anticipated with the construction of the project.
G:\PLANNING12009\LR09-0016 Old Town GymlEnvironmental\CEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
16
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentialiy Significant With Less Than
Issues and Supporting tnformation Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Incor orated im act Im act
a Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water
ualit ?
b Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would .
not suppo�t existing land uses or planned uses for which
ermits have been rag nted�?
c Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
e Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f Re uire the re aration of a ro'ect-s ecific WQMP? X
g Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as X
mapped �on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X
would im ede or redirect flood flows?
i Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation b seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Comments:
9.a. Less than Significanf lmpact: The project will not violate water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements. The project is an 8,300-square foot gymnasium and associated parking lot and is required to
compfy with all current soil erosion and national pollutant discharge elimination system standards in effect at
the time of grading permit issuance. The project will be required to comply with the requirements of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit from the State Water Quality Resources
Control Board. A less than significant impact is anticipated.
9.b. Less than Significant /mpact: The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the producfion rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop
G:IPLANNING�2009\LR09-0016 Old Town Gym\Environmental\CEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
17
to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). A
less than significant impact is anticipated.
9.c-e. Less than Significant lmpact A storm drain system capacity analysis will be prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer identifying any storm water run-off expected as a result of this project, and upstream
from this site. Any erosion and siltation issues will be controlled to a less than significant level of impact by
implementing best management practices (BMP's) during construction and earthmoving activities, as related to
the potential for erosion or siltation on or off-site. In addition, the adequacy of the capacity of existing
downstream drainage facilities shall be verified and any upgrading or upsizing of those facilities, as required,
will be incorporated as part of the project. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.
9.f. No Impact: The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
established by the State of California. However, the project is required to prepare a Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) pursuant to the Municipal Separate Storm-Sewer permit (MS4 permit) issued by
the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. No impact is anticipated.
9.g-h. Less than Significant lmpact The proposed project is not a residential project and therefore will not
place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. According to the City's Geographic Information
System Maps, the project site is located within Zone AE of the 100-year floodplain and a smali portion of the
project site along the western boundary is located in the 500-year floodplain (0.2 percent annual chance flood
hazard). However, the project design includes importing fill material to raise the finished grade above the
floodplain. The project will place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, but the structure will not
impede or redirect flood flows. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
9.i. Less ihan Significant Impact. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam. The proposed project is located in a Dam Inundation area for the Lake Skinner Dam. Said dam is a
43,800 acre-feet earthen dam �ocated to the north east (approximately 15 miles) and a failure would result in
the flooding of the Santa Gertrudis creek. In the event of a massive dam failure, there is a potential for
structure loss, however this is considered a remote potential. Minor dam failure would not result in significant
loss of structures or loss of life, injury or death on the project site. A less than significant impact is anticipated
as a result of the proposed project.
9.j. No /mpacr Due to the project area's distance from the ocean and other large bodies of water and
elevation, there is no potential for a tsunami. The project area is not located near a large surface water body
and there is no potential for inundation by seiche or mudflow. No impacts are anticipated.
G:\PLANNING12009\LR09-�016 Old Town Gym\Environmental\CEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
18
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
• Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigalion Significant No
Im act Incor orated Im act Im act
a Ph sicall divide an established communit ? X
b Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or X
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?
c Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X
natural community conservation plan?
Comments:
10.a. No Impact: The project will not divide the existing residential community. The proposed project will be
an asset to the entire Temecula community and will further implement the goals for recreation opportunities as
part of the Open Space element of the General Plan. No impact is anticipated.
10.b. No Impact: The project is a City initiated Capital Improvement Project. The subject site has a land use
designation of Open Space and a zoning designation of Public Park and Recreation. The Parks and
Recreation zoning district is intended to promote a wide range of public and private recreational uses in the
community. These uses include community facilities, golf courses, health clubs, public parks and recreation
areas, sports parks, or other outdoor athletic facilities and similar outdoor commercial recreational uses. The
proposed Old Town Gymnasium will be constructed by the City and managed by the Girls and Boys Club. The
zoning ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Gymnasium in the PR zone; however other
recreational facilities are permitted by right. The City has determined that the proposed project is a
recreational facility and permitted by right. Since it is a City project, any Conditions that may have been
required by a CUP will be automaticafly incorporated into the City's plans/implementation of the project (i.e.
architecture, use, parking, hours of operation). This determination does not represent a conflict with an
applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project is consistent with the intent of the
General Plan and Development Code and is compatible with the adjacent uses and surrounding neighborhood.
Therefore no impact is anticipated.
10.c. No /mpact: The project site is located within MSHCP Criteria Cell 7166. Criteria for this cell include
conservation objectives to contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek) and
Proposed Constrained Linkage 10. Within Cell 7166, 35-55 percent of the southwest portion is targeted for
conservation. The proposed project will be developed in a part of the southeastern portion of Cell 7166.
According to the findings presented by LSA Associates in the General Biological Resources and MSHCP
Compliance Report (July 2010) prepared for the project, development of the project will not result in the loss of
riparian scrub, woodland, or forest habitat associated with Murrieta Creek or interfere with habitat connectivity
associated with the Santa Rosa and Santa Margarita Ecological Reserves. Development of the project will not
interfere with assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkages 10 or 13. A Joint Project Review with the Regional
Conservation Authority was completed in November 2010 (JPR # 10-08-17-01). The review concluded that the
project is consistent with b�th the Criteria and other Plan requirements. As such, the project will not conflict
with the MSHCP. The project will be required to pay Kangaroo Rat fees since the project is within the
Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (SKR) fee area, and will also be conditioned to pay an MSHCP fees.
G:IPLANNING120091LR09-0016 Old Town Gym\Environmental\CEQA Initial Study 201d.doc
19
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Signiflcant No
Im act Inco orated Imoact Im act
a Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important X
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
eneral lan, s ecific lan or other land use lan?
Comments:
11.a. No lmpact: This project is not anticipated to result in the loss of a known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region or to the residences of the State. According to the General Plan, the State Division of
Mines and Geology has prepared a mineral resources report entitled, Mineral Land Cfassification of the
Temescal Valley Area, Riverside County, California, Special Report ?65, which evaluated mineral deposits
within the Temecula Planning Area. According to the State Geologist, the Temecula Planning Area was
classified as a Mineral Resources Zone-3a (MRZ-3a), which determined that the area contains sedimentary
deposits which have the potential to supply sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate,
however these areas are not considered to contain mineral resources of significant economic value. No icnpact
is anticipated.
11.b. No Impact: This project is not anticipated to result in the loss of locally important mineral resources, as
the project site which is within the Temecula Planning area, which has been classified as a Mineral Resources
Zone-3a (MRZ-3a), and according to the General Plan is not considered to contain mineral resources of
significant economic value.
G:\PLANNING\2009\LR09-0016 Old Town GymlEnvironmentallCEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
20
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Inco orated Im act Im act
a Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
a encies?
b Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X
roundborne vibration or roundborne noise levels?
c A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the �
ro'ect?
d A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the ro'ect?
e For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X
the project expose people residing or working in the
ro'ect area to excessive noise levels?
Comments:
� 12.a.b. Less than Signi�cant Impact: The project is not anticipated to expose persons to, or cause the
generation of noise levels to exceed the standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies. The General Plan Noise Element identifies the project area within the
65 CNE� Noise Contour, which is below the maximum allowable exterior noise level of 70 CNEL for public
uses. The proposed 8,300-square foot gymnasium and associated parking lot is anticipated to result in a less
than significant impact.
12.c. Less than Significant /mpact: The project will create a small permanent increase above the currently
existing ambient noise levels within the project vicinity. The project is an 8,300-square foot gymnasium and
associated parking lot, which will increase noise levels above that of the existing vacant parcel, however the
impact is anticipated to be less than significant. The project is not anticipated to cause a significant negative
impact on existing ambient noise levels.
12.d. Less than Significant lmpact: A temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above existing levels will occur during grading and construction activities associated with the new
development, however the impact will be temporary and should not constitute a significant negative impact. A
less than significant impact is anticipated.
12.e.f. No /mpac� The project is not located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has been
adopted, nor is the project within two miles of a private or public airport or airstrip. No impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
G:\PLANNING\20091LR09-0016 Old Town GymlEnvironmentallCEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
21
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentialiy Significant W ith Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Incor orated im act Im act
a Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure ?
b Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X
construction of re lacement housin elsewhere?
Comments:
13.a. Less than Significant lmpact: The project will not induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly or indirectly. The project does not involve any residential construction, nor does it require
extension of any infrastructure. The project consists of the construction of an 8,300 square foot public
gymnasium and associated parking lot on a currently vacant site. An indirect impact on population growth is
not anticipated as a result of this project. Since this project is consistent with the General Plan and
Development Code, its potential impacts as it relates to an increase in the population have been previously
considered and analyzed. A less than significant impact on population growth as a result of this project is
anticipated.
13.b.c. No /mpacfi The project site is currently vacant and therefore the project does not involve the
displacement of any existing housing, nor does the project consist of the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. .
G:IPLANNING12009\LR09-0016 Old Town Gym\Environmental\CEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
22
14. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Less Than
Potentially Signiflcant W ith Less Than
Issues and Supporting Informatfon Sources Signiffcant Mltigation Signiflcant No
Im act Incor orated Im act Im act
a Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
erformance ob'ectives for an of the ublic services:
Fire rotection? X
Police rotection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other ublic facilifies? X
Comments:
14.a. Less than Significant Impact: The proposed 8,300 square foot gymnasium will be a public recreation
facility. The General Plan EIR has analyzed the need for public services and facilities in light of the needs of
the City at maximum build-out, which considered the zoning and land use of the project site at maximum
buildout. A less than significant impact on public services or facilities is expected as a result of the project.
The project has been designed to ensure and protect the public health, safety and welfare, and the Fire
Prevention Bureau has reviewed the project to ensure fire protection and accessibility standards will be met.
The project will not result in a need for new or altered fire or police facilities. The project will not have an
impact upon, and will not result in the need for additional school facilities. A less than significant impact on
public services is anticipated as a result of this project. .
G:\PLANNING\20091LR09-0016 Old Town Gym\Environmental\CEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
23
15. RECREATION.
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Stgnificant No
Im act Incor orated Im act �m act
a Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood X
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b Does the project include recreational facilities or require the X
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
mi ht have an adverse h sical effect on the environment?
Comments:
15.a. Less then Significant Impact: The City owns and maintains 39 parks. The City also has two
recreation centers, an outdoor amphitheater, a gymnasium, two swimming pools (including a joint use
agreement with TVUSD for the Chaparral HS pool during the summer), a senior center, the Temecula History
Museum and Chitdren's Museum, and Public Library. According to the City of Temecula General Plan Update
EIR (section 5.12-13), the City has set a standard of five acres of City-owned parkland per 1,000 residents,
and based upon the City's population of 72,715 residents at the time that the General Plan was updated, the
City should offer 364 acres of parkland. Currently there are 309 acres of parkland existing within the City (plus
an additional 37.75 school acres via a joint use agreement with NUSD). The project provides for an
additional 1.5 acres of recreational facilities in the area and further implements the goals and policies of the
Open Space/Conservation Element of the General Plan. The impact of this project on park and recreation
facilities is anticipated to be less than significant.
15.b. No Impact The project includes the construction of additional recreationa! facilities with the
construction of an 8,300-square foot gymnasium and associated parking lot, however it will not result in an -
adverse physical effect on the environment. The project has been designed to ensure compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood and provide an added benefit to the residents of Temecula.
G:\PLANNING12009\LR09-0016 Old Town Gym\EnvironmentallCEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
24
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Signifioant With Less Than
lssues and Supporting information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Incor orated fm act Im act
a Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or palicy X
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance
of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways
and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass
transit?
b Conflict with an applicable congestion management X
program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency
for desi nated roads or hi hwa s?
c Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an X
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safet risks?
d Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., X
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses e. ., farm e ui ment ?
e Result in inade uate emer enc access? X
f Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding X
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the ertormance or safet of such facilities?
Comments:
16.a. Less than Significanf lmpact: The project will create a less than significant increase in traffic volume
in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The project site is comprised of 1.5
acres that is proposed for an 8,300 square foot gymnasium. Access to the project will be via an existing
driveway along First Street currently used to access the existing Boys and Girls Club. The Roadway Plan
contained in the Gene�al Plan classifies First Street as a Secondary Arterial (4 lanes undivided) and the street
is improved along the project frontage. No additional street improvements are proposed with the project. The
General Plan EIR assumed that development would occur on the project site consistent with the Land Use
Designation of Open Space, which is implemented by the City's zoning designation of Public and Recreation
(PR). The impacts of this project have been analyzed as a part of the long-range implementation of the
General Plan, and the continued implementation of the mitigation measures adopted as part of the General
Pfan EIR Update will ensure that the traffic impacts associated with this recreation facility are less than
significant.
16.b. Less than Significant lmpact: �The project will not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, the level
of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways as the project includes an 8,300-square foot gymnasium that is consistent with the zoning standards
for the project site. Current level of service standards are anticipated to be maintained as consistent with the
General Plan. A less than significant impact is anticipated.
16.c. No /mpact No significant change in air traffic patterns, traffic levels or locations that result in a
substantial safety risk is anticipated as a result of this project; therefore no impact is anticipated.
G:IPLANNING\20091LR09-0016 Old Town Gym\EnvironmentallCEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
25
16.d. Less than Significant Impact: The project as stated above will not involve a substantial increase in
hazards due to design or incompatible uses. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this
project.
16.e. Less than Significant Impact: This project has been reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau to
ensure that all access to the site meets all applicable standards and requirements. Safe and adequate
emergency access will be ensured, as all streets and driveways will be required to be improved to meet all
applicable City standards for width, grade and length. A less than significant impact is associated as a result of
this project.
16.f. No Impact The project does not include the addition of alternative transportation methods. The
project does not conflict with any adopted plans, policies or programs in regards to alternative transportation.
All dedications and/or easements will be required to be provided where necessary. No impact is anticipated a
result of this project.
G:IPLANNING\2009\LR09-0016 Old Town Gym\EnvironmentallCEQA Irtitial Study 2010.doc
26
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im act Incor orated Im act Im act
a Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X
a licable Re ional Water Qualit Control Board?
b Require or result in the construction of new water or X
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c Require or result in the construction of new storm water X
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
ex anded entitlements needed?
e Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the rovider's existin commitments?
f Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X
accommodate the ro�ecYs solid waste dis osal needs?
g Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X
re ulations related to solid waste?
Comments:
17.a.b.e. No /mpact: The proposed project will not exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements,
require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. All utilities
exist in adjacent roadways. The project will meet all Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. A less
than significant impact is anticipated.
17.c. Less than Significant /mpact: It is not anticipated that the project will create a significant amount of
storm water to require or result in the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects. A storm drain system capacity analysis will be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer identifying storm water run-off that is expected from the project site, and upstream from the project
site. Additionally the adequacy of the capacity of downstream facilities will be verified, and any upgrading or
upsizing of such facilities shall be provided if necessary. Considering the limited scope of the project, the
project is anticipated to have a less then significant impact.
17.d. No lmpact. The project will not have a significant impact on the water supply for the area. The
Rancho California Water District has provided a letter indicating that sufficient water supply would be available
to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources provided the appropriate agreements are
completed. No new or expanded facilities are anticipated to be constructed as a result of the proposed project.
17.f. No /mpact The proposed project is not anticipated to create a significant amount of solid wastes. The
project will be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the projecYs solid waste
disposal needs.
G:1PLAfVNfNGl2009\LR09-0016 Old Town Gym\Environmental\CEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
27
17.g. No Impacf: The project will comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste. No impacts are anticipated for the proposed project.
G:IPLANNINGl20091LR09-0018 Old Tovm Gym\Environmen.tal\CEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
28
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project:
Less Than
Potenttally Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Signiflcant No
Issues and Su ortin Informatlon Sources Im act Inco orated Im act fm act
a Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of X
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history
or rehisto ?
b Does the project have impacts that are individualfy limited, X
but cumulatively considerable ("Cumulativefy considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of robable future ro'ects ?
c Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directl or indirectl ?
Comments:
18.a. Less than Significant Impact: The proposal for Old Town Gymnasium will have a less than
significant impact for the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantiafly reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The proposed
project has been design to have a less than significant impact, as all applicable environmental reports and
surveys have been prepared and reviewed to ensure that any potentially adverse impact is eliminated.
18.b. Less fhan Significant Impact: The project does not have, either individually or cumulatively, a
significant adverse impact on the environment. The project has been designed to avoid any significant impacts
to the area individually and cumulatively, and has been conditioned to avoid these impacts. Mitigation
measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that any potentially significant impacts will be
reduced to a less than significant level. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a resuft of the proposed
project.
18.c. Less than Significant Impact: The project will not have significant environmental impacts that will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because the project site is
zoned for residential uses and is consistent with the density for the project site. The proposed building will
comply with the California Uniform Building Code, and the project has been designed to protect the public
health, safety and welfare and to avoid any impacts to other persons directly and/or indirectly. Mitigation
measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that any potentially significant impacts will be
reduced to a less than significant level. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed
project
G:\PLANNING12009\LR09-0016 Old Town GymlEnvironmental\CEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
29
19. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program
EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier
EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify
the following on attached sheets.
a Earlier anal ses used. Identif earlier anal ses and state where the are available for review.
b Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and stafe
whether such effects were addressed b miti ation measures based on the earlier anal sis.
c Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant wifh Mitigation Incorporated," describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to
which the address site-s ecific conditions for the ro�ect.
Comments:
19.a. The City's General Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report and the City of Temecula's Geographic
Information System Map Sets were used as a referenced source in preparing the Initial Study for this project.
The City' s General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report are available for review at the City of
Temecula Planning Department located at 41000 Main Street in Temecula. The Geographic Information
Systems Map Sets are available online at www.cityoftemecula.orq.
19.b. The affects of the proposed project were adequately analyzed when the City of Temecula's General
Plan and General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report were adopted and mitigation measures were
� incorporated.
19.c. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that any potentially significant
impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. All mitigation measures will be required and incorporated
into the project design, all grading activities and the future construction of the Old Town Gymnasium. The
Mitigation Monitoring Program is attached hereto to ensure that mitigation is implemented, monitored and
enforced by all necessary departments and agencies.
SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan, April 12, 2005
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, April 12, 2005
, 3. City of Temecula GIS: www.citvoftemecula.orq
4. South Coast Air Quality District Website: www.AQMD.gov and URBEMIS models
5. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Old Town Gymnasium Project, prepared by LSA, February
2011
6. General Biological Resources and MSHCP Compliance Report for the Old Town Gymnasium Project,
prepared by LSA, July 27, 2010
7. Geotechnical Exploration, Old Town Gymnasium, prepared by Leighton Consulting Group, Inc. , Dated
June 9, 2010
G:\PLANNING\2009\LR09-0016 Old Town Gym\Environmental\CEQA Initial Study 2010.doc
30
_ � �
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
LONG RANGE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. LR09-0016, OLD TOWN GYMNASIUM
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
General Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame / Monitoring Milestones Responsible Monitoring Party
AIR QUALITY
The project has the AirQual1: During construction activities water shall be applied Prior to issuance of City of
potential to create an every three hours to disturbed areas within the construction site. grading permits and Temecula
adverse air quality impact AirQual 2: In order to control trackout dust, a gravel apron shall during grading activities Planning and
only during short-term Public Works
construction activity. Air be utilized, 25 feet long by road width, to reduce the mud/dirt Departments.
quality impacts for trackout from unpaved truck exit routes.
operational activity do not AirQual3: Nearby paved streets shall be swept once per day if
exceed the thresholds set there is evidence of dirt that has been carried onto the roadway. �
forth by the South Coast AirQual4: During grading activities ground covers shall be
Air Quality Management replaced as quickly as possible.
District (SCAQMD). The
analysis results AirQualS: All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose
demonstrated that with the material are to be tarped with a fabric cover.
appropriate mitigation AirQual6: The developer shall comply with the South Coast
measures implemented, Air Quality Management DistricYs rule 403-Fugitive Dust.
any short-term
construction impact can be AirQual7: The construction contractor shall ensure that all
reduced to less than construction equipment is maintained in peak working order to
significant. reduce emissions during construction and grading activities.
AirQual8: The allowable idling time for all trucks and heavy
equipment shall not exceed 10 minutes in order to reduce
emissions during construction and grading activities. '
AirQual9: Grading and earth moving activities will be put on
hold when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour unless the soil is
wet enough to prevent dispersion
G:�PLANNITvG�2009\LR09-0016 Old Town Gym\Environmental�1Aitigation Monitoring Program rev F11AL.doc
Page I of 3
� � �
MlTIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
General Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame 1 Monitoring Responsible
- Milestones �Monitoring Party
CULTURALRESOURCES
Directly or indirectly CultRes1: The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Prior to City of
destroying any unique Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, issuance of a Temecula
paleontological archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which grading permit Planning and
resources. reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource and during Public Works
are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of grading activity Departments
such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of as appropriate.
the affected area to immediately cease. The Planning Director at his/her Written _
sole discretion rnay require the property owner to deposit a sum of money it documentation
deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize of agreements
an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the and contracts to
City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that be submitted to
the discovery is not an archaeological/ cultural resource, the Planning Planning
Director shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall Department.
authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is
an archaeological/cultural resource, the Planning Director shall notify the
property owner that no further excavation or development may take place
until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by
the Planning Director.
CultRes2: The developer is required to enter into a Cultural Resources
Treatment Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will
address the treatment and disposition of cultural resources and human
remains that may be impacted as a result of the development of the project,
as well as provisions for tribal monitors.
CultRes3: If cultural resources are discovered during the project
construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall
cease, and the Riverside County qualified project archaeologist and
representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall investigate the find, and make
recommendations as to treatment and mitigation.
G^,PLANNING`2009\LR09-0016 Old Town Gym�Environmental\Mitigation Monitoring Program rev FMAL.doc
Page 2 of 3
_ _ _
CultRes4: A Riverside County qualified archaeological monitor will be Prior to City of
present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in issuance of a Temecula
consultation with the Pechanga Tribe and their designated monitors, to grading permit Planning and
evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on and during Public Works
the property. grading activity Departments
CultRes5: Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to as appropriate.
monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities, including all W�tten
archaeological surveys, testing, and studies, to be compensated by the documentation
developer. of agreements
and contracts to
CultRes6: The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural be submitted to
resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the Planning
project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. Department.
CultRes7: All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved.
G:�PLAVN WG�2009\LR09-U016 Old Town Gym\EnvironmentalVvtitigation Monitoring Program rev FINAL.doc
Page 3 of 3
COMMENT LETTER
PECHANGA LETTER, APRIL 19, 2011
G:\PLANNING\20091LR09-0016 Old Town GymlEnvironmental\CEQA Initial Study 2010 rev FINAL.doc
31
i
Chairperson:
Germainc Arcnas
°;> - PEC[ CULTURAL RESOURCES Vice Chairperson:
� r�. � �,
��';t Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Mary Bear Magee
Cammittee Members:
Post Office. Box 2183 • Temecula, CA 92593 Evie.Gerber
Tetephone (951) 308-9295 • Fax (951) 506-9491 Darlene Miranda
I3ridgett Barcello Maxwell
�l'��U15N Aurelia Marruffo
Richard B. Scearce, III
April 19, 2011 � D;7e��oT:
Gary DuBois
VtA E-Mail and USPS ����� �,' Coordinator:
q Paul Macarro
Cheryl Kitzerow � $ � ���� � Cultural Analyst:
Associate Ylanner �"��,� Anna Hoover
City of Temecula Planning Dept �-- Monitor Supervisor:
P. O. Box 9033 1im McPhcrson
Temecula, CA 92589-9J33
Re: Pechanga Tribe Cumments on the Notice of Availability (NOA) on the Mitigated
Negative Dcclaration (MND) for thc Long Range Planning Application No LR09-
0016, Old Town Gymnasium
Dear Ms. Kitzerow:
This comment letter is submitted by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (hereinafter,
"the Tribe"), a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign government, in response to the
NOA for the MND for the above named project dated March 28, 2011 from the City of
Temecula. The Tribe is formally requesting, pursuant to Public Resources Code §21092.2, to be
notified and involved in the entire C�QA environmental review process for the duration of the
above referenced project (the "Project"), and requests that these comments be parl of the record
of approval far this Project. We request that these comments also be incorporated into the record
of approval for this Project as wcll. -
CITY OF T�MECULA MUST INCLUDE INVOLVEMENT OF AND CONSULTATION
WITH THE PECNANGA TItIBE IN ITS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
It has been the intent of the Federal Government and the State of California that Indian
tribes be consulted with regard to issues which impact cultural and spiritual resources, as well as
other governmental concerns. The responsibility to consult with Indian tribes stems from the
unique government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes. "This
arises when tribal interests are affected by the actions of governmental agencies and departments.
1 See Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994 on Government-to-Government Relations with Native American
Tribal Governments and Executive Order of November 6, 2000 on Consultation and Coordination with [ndian Tribal
Governments.
2 See Califomia Public Resource Code §5097.9 et seq.; California Government Code §§65351,65352,65352.3 and
653 52.4
Sucred !s The Dury Trusted Unto Our Care And �th Honor We Rise To The IVeed
Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Temecula
Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the MND for the Old Town Gymnasium Project
April 19, 2011
Page 2
In this case, it is undisputed that the project lies within the Pechanga Tribe's traditional territory.
Therefore, in order to comply with CEQA and other applicable Federal and California law, it is
imperative that the City and the Project Applicant consult with the Tribe in order to guarantee an
adequate basis of knowledge for an appropriate evaluation of the project effects, as well as
generating adequate mitigation measures.
In regards to this Project, the City has consulted with the Tribe on several occasions and
the Tribe thanks the City for such involvement. The Pechanga Tribe has a strong interest in the
protection of invaluable Luiseno cultural resources which may be impacted by the proposed
Project and has had a long history of working with the City of Temecula. We request that all
comments be made part of the official record of approval for the Project and for SB18, NEPA
and Section 106 purposes.
PECHANGA CULTURAL AFFILIATION TO PROJECT AREA
The Pechanga Tribe asserts that the Project area is part of Luiseno and therefore the
Tribe's, aboriginal territory as evidenced by the existence of Luiseno place names, toota yixelval
(rock art, pictographs, petroglyphs), Village Complexes and an extensive Luiseno artifact record
in the vicinity of the Project. The Tribe further asserts that this culturally sensitive area is
affiliated with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians because of the Tribe's cultural ties to this
area and the proximity to the Tribe's reservation.
The Pechanga Tribe's knowledge of our ancestral boundaries is based on reliable
information passed down to us from our elders; published academic works in the areas of
anthropology, history and ethno-history; and through recorded ethnographic and linguistic
accounts. Of the many anthropologists and historians who have presented boundaries of the
Luiseno traditional territory, none have excluded the Temecula area from their descriptions
(Sparkman 1908; Kroeber 1925; White 1963; Harvey 1974; Oxendine 1983; Smith and Freers
1994), and such territory descriptions correspond almost identically with what was
communicated to the Pechanga people by our elders. While histaric accounts and
anthropological and linguistic theories are important in deterniining traditional Luiseno territory,
the Pechanga Tribe asserts that the most critical sources of information used to define our
traditional temtories are our songs, creation accounts, and oral traditions.
Our songs and oral accounts have transferred history and knowledge through the
generations for thousands of years. The origin of the Luiseno people is the sin�le most important
account in our culture. Our present-day practices, beliefs and social strueture are directly related
to our creation. Luiseno history begins with the creation of all things at `exva Temeeku and the
surrounding environs. The name `exva (EXH-vah) can be translated as a"p(ace of sand" and
Temeeku (Teh-MEH-koo) means "sun place." In fact, the place known today as Temecula,
derives its etymology from this physical location where the Murrieta and Temecula Creeks
converge to form the Santa Margarita River, whieh flows onto the Pacific Ocean.
Pec6tanga Cultural Resources • Ternecula Band of Luiseno il�tissiai l�idians
Post OfJice Boz 2183 • Temeculn, CA 92� 92
Sacred !,s The Dt�ty Trusted Untn Oc�r Care And With !lonor We Rise To The Need
Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Temecula
Re: Pechanga Tribe Comments on the MND fol• the Old To�vn Gymnasium Project
April 19, 20l I
Page 3
Many of our traditional son�s specifically mention the `exva 'lemeeku area. T'his is
where our Origin Story and ancestral songs say Ti�ukutnit (TOO-koo-mit, Father Night Sky} and
TamauycM�ut (Ta-MAI-yah-whoot, Mother Day Earih) created the vvorld. The Sun, Temet (teh-
ME'f), was a gift brought by Tuukurrzit to Tarruiayawut. When Tut�kurnit and Tamaayawut
became one, their first offspring were earth and sand, which in I.uise�io are 'exla (EXH-la) and
'exvul (EXH-vol). `exva Temeeku is therefore in reference to the tirst offspring of Ti�ukurnit and
Tamaayauwt (Elliott n.d., 1069). Their children were known as the first people or Keiamalam
(KAH-mah-lam) and were all creatures, including trees, roeks fog, mammals and birds.
Tne Pechanga "l'ribe has a specitic legal and cultural interest in this Project as the Tribe is
culturally affiliated with the geographic area, which comprises the Pr�ject property. The Tribe
has been named the Most Likely Descendent (Cal. Pub. Res. C. §5097.98) on Projects in the
nearby vicinity of the proposed Project and has specitic knowledge of cultural resources and
sacred places near the proposed Project. The Tribe has submitted information regarding cultural
aftiliation to the City in previous comment letters for this Project.
The Tribe welcoines the opportunity to meet with the Citv to further explain and provide
documentation concerning our specific cultural affiliation to lands within your jurisdiction.
PROJFCT TMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOtiRCES
The proposed Project is on land that is within the traditional territory of the Pechanga
Band of Luiseno Indians. The Pechanga Band is not apposed to this development Projcct. The
Tribe's primary concerns stem from the Project's potential impacts on Native American cultural
resources. The Tribe is concenied about both the protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural
resources, such as Luiseno viltage sites and archaeological items which would be displaced by
ground disturbing work an the Project, and on the praper and lawful treatment af cultural items,
Native American human remains and sacred items likely ta be c�iscovered in the course of the
work.
The Tribe understands that the proposed Project consists of a two-phase construction
process to develop a gymnasium ta be used by City residents and the adjacent Boys' & Girls'
Club. Also associated is a p�rking lot, landscaping aild site utilities. The Tribe thanks the City
for the inclusion of the mitigation tneasures and conditions of approval to address the potential
impacts to cultural resources, and for the inclusion of the Tribe in those measures. The City of
Temecula is culturally and historically significant to the Tribe and we greatly appreciatc the
� opportunity to mo�nitor earthrnoving activities in �the area.
PRO,TECT NIITIGATION MEASURES
The Tribe generally agrees with the proposed mitigation measures for cultural resources
��rt•��r�t��l in th� Mareh 2011 Mi+i��al��{ N��.��i��� Declaration ;'�l��i)� for this f',���ject. We
I � .7�: 1 �.� ..�� �j..<7'.'tt::t'�� �-'-, zC._i �7 !`tJ`�:jVf �tii.i'.jSl� �l�t�'.� ;7 �%!�l
� i�, � ij{i,... ;l �� ..� I�;r�F.�'Ltvt, f.:1 ,- i�i}
�!L: �+C_. �+Ic:li-e;,• i u r .,. ., (ly• , ......��?..� � �� I`:r�•i , . ".�:, I/. 1�i�.�.G'P'�
Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Temecula
Re: Peclianga Tribe Cornments on the MND for the Old Tow�� Gymnasium Project
April l9, 201 1
Page 4
request the existing MUl and the minor edits below be incorporated into the final MNU and
acided as conditions of' approval for the Praject. We further request that the Tribe be co�rtacteci
by the Ciiy, as Project Proponent, at least 30 days prior to obtaining a grading permit or prior to
initiating the construction of the Pi•oject to execute a Treatment Agreement (CLTL-5) (underlines
are additions; strikethroughs are deletions).
CultResl: The foll�wing shall be included in the Notes Sectic�n of the Grading Plan: "If at
any time during excavation/construction of fhe site, archaeological!cultural
resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be
evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property
owiler shalt immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all
further excavation or other disturbance of tlie �.ffected area to immediately cease.
The Plalltiing Director at his/her sole discretion may require the property owner
to dep�sit a sum ofi money it decros reasonably necessary to allow the City to
consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualitied specialist to inspect the
site at no cost to the �ity, in order to assess the significance oi� the find, Upon
determining that the discovery is not an archaeologicaU ctiltural resaurce, the
Planning Director shall notify the property owner af such determination and shall
authorize the 1•esu�mption of work. Llpon determining ihat the discovery is an
archaeological/cultural resource, the .Pla�nning Dixector shall notify the property
owner that no further excavltion or development may take place until a
mitigation plan ar• other corrective measures have bcen approved by the Plaruiing
Director.
CultRes2: Z`he dcveloper is required to enter intv a Cultw•ai Resources Treatment
Agreement with the Pechanga Tribe. This Agreement will address the treatment
and disposition of cultural resources and human remains that may be impacted as
a result of the development of the project, as we11 as provisions for tribal
monitors.
CullRes3: If c�.iltural resaurces are discovered cll�ring the project construction (inadvertent
discoveries), all ��ork in the area af the �6nd ehall cease, and � th� �Riverside
C,ountv qualified rp oiect archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe
shall ��� �e�-�—*"° Dr^�°^* �� investigate the find, and make
recommendations as to treatment and mitigation.
(,'ultKes4: E� Riverside County qualified at•chaeological mor�itor will be prescnt and will
have the authority to stop and redirect gradiilg activities, in consultatian with the
Pechanga Tribe and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any
archaeological resources discovered on the property.
Pechnlagra Cultur�zl �Resourc.e,s � Te�meci�lu Bancf nf�li�lscyzo itilission lndians
Pos t Office Box 21 &3 • Temec.u�la, CA 92592
Sacred Is The Duty T�•usted Untv Our Ccrre And With Hanor We Rise To The ��,'eecl
Pechanga Comment Letter to the City of Temecula
Re: Pechan�a Tribe Comments on the MND for the Old Town Gymnasium Project
April 19, 201 1
Page 5
CultResS: Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to monitor a11
�radin�, excavations and groundbreaking activities, including all arehaeologieal
surveys, testing, and studies, ta be compensated by the developer.
CultRes6: T'he landowner agrees t� relinquish ownership af all cultural resources,
including all archaeological artifacts thal are found on the project area, to the
Pechanga Tribe for praper treatment and disposition.
CultRecl7.• A1 sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved.
The Pechanaa Tribe looks forward to working together with the City of Z'emecula in
protecting the invaluable Pechanga cultural resources found in the Project area. Please contact
myself at 951-770-8104 or Deputy General Counsel Michele Fahley at 951-770-6179 if yau have
any issues cancerning the mitigatian language. If you have any c�uestions, please do not hesitate
to contact me. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.
Sincerely.
-%�' . ._ �_.
C --
Anna _NI, Hoover
Cultural Analyst
cc: Pechanga Office of the General Counsel
° _. i , '�,-. �c .;,, .. _ r,i !� , iS< �> , ! iC ,� 1, . � . , ii .
�f , ��ar.. «`� �i�i� ,. ,.�, ... � ,, �'- -
. . - . . � . , . . , �7 . i��. . ,'�:,, .:tr . '' . . "','r., � � . . . r ... .'