Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17-31 PC Resolution PC RESOLUTION NO. 17-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFY THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE TRUAX HOTEL PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 2.46 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF 3RD STREET BETWEEN OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AND MERCEDES STREET (APN 922-043-002, 922-043-004, 922-043-018, 922-043-024, 922-043-003, 922043-015, 922-043-023, 922-043-025, 922-044-017, AND 922-044-020) Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On February 22, 2016, Chris Campbell of Walter R. Allen Architect + Associates filed Planning Application No. PA16-0270, a Development Plan. On January 23, 2017, Gary Thornhill, on behalf of the Truax Group submitted Planning Application No. PA17-0109, for a Specific Plan Amendment. On June 30, 2017, Ross Jackson on behalf of the Truax Group, submitted Planning Application PA17-1020, a Minor Exception. These applications (collectively "Project') were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. Collectively, the Project consists of a relocation of a portion of the existing Hotel Overlay contained within the Old Town Specific Plan to allow for the development of a full service hotel. The Project also includes a Minor Exception to increase the allowable building height for a parking garage that will be constructed across the street from the hotel. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 14000, et seq.), the City is the lead agency for the Project. D. The Project was processed, including but not limited to all public notices, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including CEQA. E. On February 8, 1994, the City Council adopted the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP). In 2010, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council amended the OTSP to adopt a form-based code that established development regulations and standards in the Old Town area. On May 25, 2010, the City Council certified the Program Environmental Impact Report for the OTSP (SCH #2009071049). F. CEQA encourages "tiering" EIRs for a sequence of actions so that later EIRs build on information in previous EIRs (Public Resources Code sections 21068.5 and 21093; CEQA Guidelines section 15152(d)). The Project is located within the OTSP area and, therefore, tiers off of the Program EIR for the OTSP. G. Pursuant to CEQA, City staff determined that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and therefore a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) should be prepared for the Project. H. On January 12, 2017, the City published and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to all agencies and persons that might be affected by the Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2017011029). The NOP was circulated from January 17, 2017 through February 15, 2017 to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issue to be addressed in the SEIR. I. On January 23, 2017, a scoping session was held, at which time City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to determine the extent of issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. J. Thereafter, the City contracted for the independent preparation of a SEIR for the Project, including all necessary technical studies and reports in support of the Draft SEIR. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City analyzed the Project's potential impacts on the environment, potential mitigation, and potential alternatives to the Project. K. Thereafter, City staff filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse, and circulated a Notice of Availability with the Draft SEIR and Appendices to the public and other interested parties, for a 45-day comment period between May 2, 2017 through June 15, 2017. A Notice of Availability was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 2, 2017 through June 15, 2017. The City published a Notice of Availability for the Draft SEIR in the San Diego Union tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; Chamber of Commerce located at 26790 Ynez Court, Ste. A, and the City of Temecula website. L. During the comment period, the City received eight (8) written comments on the Draft SEIR from various agencies, individuals, and organization. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. M. The "Final SEIR" consists of the Draft SEIR and all of its appendices, the comments and responses to comments on the Draft SEIR, an Errata to the SEIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Final SEIR was made available to the public and to all commenting agencies on August 2, 2017, which is at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final SEIR, in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a). N. On August 16, 2017, the Planning Commission, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Final SEIR and the Project, at which time the Planning Commission heard and considered information presented by City staff on the Project and its environmental review. In addition, interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify regarding this matter. O. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the entire record, including the Final SEIR, evidence presented at the hearing, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, and other materials: P. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires that the City, before approving the Project, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the Final SEIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final SEIR; or, 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final SEIR. Q. These required written findings are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 1. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR as no impact or less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Sections IV and V, respectively, of Exhibit A. 2. Environmental impacts, or certain aspects of impacts, identified in the Final SEIR as potentially significant, but that can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation, are described in Exhibit A, Section VI. 3. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR as significant and unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Exhibit A, Section VII. 4. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VIII of Exhibit A. R. Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and is incorporated herein by reference. S. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and is incorporated herein by reference. Section 2. After due consideration of the SEIR and the Project and in its independent judgment, the Planning Commission hereby finds and resolves that: A. All of the above recitals are true and correct, and are hereby incorporated into this section as though set forth in full. B. Agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final SEIR and on the Project. The Project has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. C. The Planning Commission has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final SEIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR, responses to comments incorporated into the Final SEIR, staff reports and presentations, and all oral and written testimony. D. The Final SEIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached herein as Exhibit A, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein. E. The Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Draft SEIR, the responses to comments on the Draft SEIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the SEIR under CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. F. The Planning Commission, in the exercise of its independent judgment, hereby recommends that the City Council certify the Final SEIR for the Project, make appropriate environmental findings, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. The Planning Commission further recommends that the mitigation measures set forth therein be made applicable to the Project. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 16th day of August, 2017. V__ J hn Telesio, Chairperson ATTEST: L atson Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 17-31 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of August, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Guerriero, Telesio, Turley-Trejo, Watts, Youmans NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None Luke Watson Secretary CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE SEIR AND ACTIONS RELATED THERETO RESOLUTION NO. - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE TRUAX HOTEL PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATLEY 2.46 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF 3RD STREET BETWEEN OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AND MERCEDES STREET (APNS 922- 043-002, 922-043-004,922-043-018, 922-043-024, 922-043- 003, 922-043-015, 922-043-023, 922-043-025, 922-044-017, AND 922-044-020) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On February 22, 2016, Chris Campbell of Walter R. Allen Architect + Associates filed Planning Application No. PA16-0270, a Development Plan. On January 23, 2017, Gary Thornhill, on behalf of the Truax Group submitted Planning Application No. PA17-0109, for a Specific Plan Amendment. On June 30, 2017, Ross Jackson, on behalf of the Truax Group, submitted Planning Application PA17-1020, a Minor Exception. These applications (collectively "Project') were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. Collectively, the Project consists of a relocation of a portion of the existing Hotel Overlay contained within the Old Town Specific Plan to allow for the development of a full service hotel. The Project also includes a Minor Exception to increase allowable building height for a parking garage that will be constructed across the street from the hotel. C. The Project was processed, including but not limited to all public notices, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. D. Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Project because it is the public agency with the authority and principal responsibility for reviewing, considering, and potentially approving the Project. E. On February 8, 1994, the City Council adopted the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP). In 2010, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council amended the OTSP to adopt a form-based code that established development regulations and standards in the Old Town area. On May 25, 2010, the City Council certified the Program Environmental Impact Report for the OTSP (SCH #2009071049). F. CEQA encourages "tiering" EIRs for a sequence of actions so that later EIRs build on information in previous EIRs (Public Resources Code sections 21068.5 and 21093; CEQA Guidelines section 15152(d)). The Project is located within the OTSP area and, therefore, tiers off of the Program EIR for the OTSP. G. Pursuant to CEQA, City staff determined that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and therefore a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) should be prepared for the Project. H. On January 12, 2017, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to all agencies and persons that might be interested in or affected by the Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2017011029). The NOP was circulated from January 17, 2017 through Febrary 15, 2017 to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the SEIR for the Project. On January 23, 2017, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft SEIR. I. In response to the NOP, eight written comments were received from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in formulating the analysis in the Draft SEIR. J. Thereafter, the City contracted for the independent preparation of a Draft SEIR for the Project, including all necessary technical studies and reports in support of the Draft SEIR. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City analyzed the Project's potential impacts on the environment, potential mitigation, and potential alternatives to the Project. K. Upon completion of the Draft SEIR in May 2017, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on Thursday, April 27, 2017. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft SEIR in San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. L. The Draft SEIR was circulated for public review from May 2, 2017 through June 15, 2017. Copies of the Draft SEIR were sent to various public agencies, as well as to organizations and individuals requesting copies. In addition, copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; Chamber of Commerce located at 26790 Ynez Court, Ste. A, and the City of Temecula website. M. In response to the Draft SEIR, the City received eight (8) written comments from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Those comments and the Response to Comments, together with the Draft SEIR, the Errata to the SEIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, constitute the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR). N. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, at least 10 days prior to certification, the City prepared and provided the Final SEIR, including responses to comments, to the public and all commenting public agencies. O. On August 16, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly notice public hearing to, consider the Project and the Final SEIR, at which time City staff presented its report and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify regarding this matter. P. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17-- recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR prepared for the Truax Hotel, adopt Findings pursuant to the CEQA, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 17-_, thereby recommending that the City Council take various actions, including adoption of a Specific Plan Amendment, Minor Exception, and Development Plan related to the approval of the Project. Q. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which a SEIR is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the Final SEIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final SEIR; or, 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final SEIR. R. These required written findings are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 1. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR as no impact or less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Sections IV and V, respectively, of Exhibit A. 2. Environmental impacts, or certain aspects of impacts, identified in the Final SEIR as potentially significant, but that can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation, are described in Exhibit A, Section VI. 3. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR as significant and unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Exhibit A, Section VII. 4. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VIII of Exhibit A. S. CEQA Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B, and is herein incorporated by reference as if set forth in full. T. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. U. Prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final SEIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR, responses to comments, staff reports and presentations, technical studies, appendices, plans, and all oral and written testimony presented during the public hearings on the Project. V. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. Section 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California does hereby: A. Declare that the above Procedural Findings are true and correct, and hereby incorporates them herein by this reference as though set forth in full. B. Find that agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final SEIR and on the Project. C. Find and declare that the City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final SEIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft SEIR, responses to comments incorporated into the Final SEIR, staff reports and presentations, and all testimony related to environmental issues regarding the Project. D. Find and determine that the Final SEIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein. E. Find and declare that the Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Draft SEIR, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the SEIR under CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. F. Certify the Final SEIR as being in compliance with CEQA. The City Council further adopts the Findings pursuant to CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A; adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B; and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit C. The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution (including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final SEIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that each of the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit C, by itself, would individually justify proceeding with the Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final SEIR or alleged in the record of proceedings. G. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the Truax Hotel Project each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit B, and directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit B. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of 2017. Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. - was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2017 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk EXHIBIT A Exhibit A FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS I. Introduction. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. ("Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a Project for which an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the Project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the EIR. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula ("Temecula" or "City") hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Truax Hotel Project (the "Project"). These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the Draft Subsequent EIR (SEIR) and the written responses thereto, the Final SEIR, and reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and the City's environmental consultants. II. Project Objectives. As set forth in the SEIR, the objectives of this Project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows: A. Provide an upscale lodging facility that will service both residents and tourists visiting Old Town Temecula; B. Provide additional conference room facilities within Old Town Temecula; and C. Create an aesthetically compatible development and minimize impacts to neighboring properties by designing with high quality architecture and signage. A-1 III. Background. In 2010, the City of Temecula certified the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP) Program EIR ("Program EIR") which evaluated an amendment of the original OTSP. The purpose of the Amendment was to enhance design guidelines and encourage residential development within the Old Town area. The 2010 document served as a Program EIR for the OTSP that established development parameters, provided land use areas, but did not propose or evaluate any specific project development, since the exact development proposals for future projects, such as the proposed Project, were not yet known at the time. The Project proposes to develop a six-story boutique hotel, including 151 guest rooms and a basement, and a six-story, 219-stall parking garage in Old Town Temecula, on the 1.8-acre Project site. The proposed Project site is located within the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP) area and is located in the Downtown Core District (DTC) along Third Street between Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street. A Development Plan Review would be required for development of the Project. The proposed Project would require approval of a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) to the OTSP in order to relocate a portion of the Hotel Overlay (HO) that is currently sited approximately 200 feet southeast of the Project location. The SPA would relocate approximately 61,569 SF of the DTC zoning district at the intersection at First Street and Front Street. The SPA would then shift 61,569 SF of that zone to the proposed hotel site and rezone the area as DTC/HO zoning district. In addition, the proposed Project would require the approval of a Tentative Parcel Map in order to: (1) merge the two existing parcels into one parcel on the north side of Third Street for development of the parking structure and (2) merge the eight existing parcels into one parcel on the south side of Third Street to allow development of the hotel. Effects Determined to Be Less than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Study for the Program EIR and in the SEIR. The City of Temecula issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") and in the course of the environmental review, the Project was found to have no impact in certain impact categories because a Project of this type and scope or in this location would not create such impacts or because of the absence of Project characteristics producing effects of this type. The impact areas discussed below were found to be less than significant or have no environmental impact in the Initial Study for the OTSP Amendment, and therefore were not evaluated in the 2010 OTSP Program EIR or the Draft SEIR for the Project. These impact areas include Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services and Recreation. A summary of the impact discussions from the resource areas below can be found in Chapter 3.0 of the Draft SEIR. A-2 IV. Effects Determined to Be Less than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Study for the Program EIR and in the SEIR. A. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 1. The Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. The Project Site does not contain any Forest Land, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. 2. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. The Project Site does not contain any land subject to a Williamson Act contract. 3. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The Project Site does not contain any type of land zoned for forest land or timberland. 4. The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The Project site does not contain any type of forest land. 5. The Project would not involve any changes in the existing environment which, 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. 6. The Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to agriculture or forestry resources. B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any candidate, sensitive, or special status species, riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or federally protected wetlands. The Project site is located in a developed, urban area and would not impact these biological resources. 2. The Project would not have interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident, migratory fish or wildlife species, wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The Project site is located in a developed, urban area and would not impact these biological resources. 3. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protection biological resources, such as the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance. A-3 4. The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan, such as the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. C. MINERAL RESOURCES 1. The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. The area is not considered to contain mineral resources of significant economic value and the Project would not result in cumulative impacts related to mineral resources. D. POPULATION AND HOUSING 1. The Project would not induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. 2. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Project would be developed on non- operational commercial uses and vacant land. E. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. The Project would not result in impacts associated with the need for additional public services from fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and other public facilities. Development of the OTSP area was anticipated in the Final EIR that was prepared for the City General Plan. Therefore, the need for public services was previously analyzed and determined, and no additional facilities would be required as a result of the Project. F. RECREATION 1. The Project does not include or require construction of parks or recreational facilities and would not increase the use of existing parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur. V. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the SEIR. The SEIR found that the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation on a number of environmental topic areas listed below. A less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of A-4 the following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the Final SEIR. A. AESTHETICS 1. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, scenic resources, or a State Scenic Highway. The proposed six-story hotel and parking garage could potentially obstruct views of the foothills and ridgelines east of the Project, but the Project site has not been identified as a designated viewshed, nor is it located in the sightline of a nearby viewshed. Furthermore, the Project site is not visible from any State Scenic Highways, and no State Scenic Highways are visible from the Project site. 2. The Project would not substantially degrade the exiting visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The hotel development would be consistent with the Old Town Specific Plan design guidelines, architectural character, and surrounding land uses. The Project would likely enhance the visual character of the area because of the high-quality architecture with visually appealing elements, such as improved landscaping and new buildings. 3. The Project, in conjunction with other cumulative projects, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to aesthetic impacts. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. B. AIR QUALITY 1. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. The employment growth associated with the proposed hotel would be within the anticipated growth accounted for in the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) growth assumptions for the City, and therefore the Project would be consistent with the regional Air Quality Management Plan. 2. The Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. As a hotel development, it does not include any uses identified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as being associated with odors and any potential sources of odors during construction would be temporary and intermittent in nature. C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. The Project area is located outside of any Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture Zone. A-5 2. The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including landslides and liquefaction. The Project site is located on a relatively level area that has a low likelihood of being susceptible to landslides or liquefaction. 3. The Project would not have soils incapable of inadequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems. The Project development would deliver wastewater to the wastewater treatment plant in Temecula and would not have use for any septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems. 4. The Project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in Temecula and nearby areas of Riverside County, would not contribute to cumulative geologic and soils impacts. D. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. The Project would not create significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction and operation of the Project would comply with all required applicable regulations, such as the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Plan of Riverside County, related to hazardous material handling, storage and removal. 2. The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing school. There are no schools located within a quarter mile of the proposed Project site. The closest school to the site is the Vail Elementary School located approximately 0.75 miles to the northeast. 3. The Project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 4. The Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within an airport land use plan, two miles of a public airport, or the vicinity of a private airstrip. 5. The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Construction of the Project would comply with all emergency vehicle access requirements. Operation of the Project would not impede emergency access routes or result in permanent road closures. A-6 6. The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The Project is located in an urbanized section of Temecula and would be required to adhere to all fire suppression requirements and fire safety measures in accordance with the most recent Uniform Fire Code. 7. The Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. The Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) would have sufficient water supplies to accommodate the proposed Project as projected in its 2030 water demand forecast. The Project site is currently developed and largely covered in impermeable surfaces. After completion of construction, the Project site would continue to be largely covered by impermeable surfaces and thus would have no substantive change to the amount of groundwater recharge that occurs at the site. 2. The Project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site such that it would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off the site. Construction of the Project would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit and to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would protect against substantial erosion or siltation on and off the Project site. The impermeable surfaces could result in changes in flows and drainages, but runoff from the Project site would be treated by implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as the proposed biotreatment facilities. 3. The Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map, nor structures which would impede or redirect any flood flows. The Project area and structural development is not within the 100-year flood zone of Murrieta Creek. 4. The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The Project site is located in the dam inundation areas for Lake Skinner, Vail Lake, and Diamond Valley Lake. However, compliance with applicable plans and programs, A-7 such as the City's Dam Inundation Evacuation Plan, would reduce risks associated with flooding and dam failure to less than significant. 5. The Project would not expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by a seiche or tsunami because the Project area is not located immediately near a coast or large body of water. The Project area is located over 20 miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is a large enough distance to avoid tsunami impacts and has no body of water in close proximity to the Project site. The site is relatively level and would not be subject to mudflow. 6. The Project's incremental contribution to hydrology and water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. F. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. The Project development would not physically divide an established community. There are residential apartments located approximately 70 feet southwest of the Project boundary, but the development of the Project would not divide this existing community. There are no other residential communities in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. 2. The Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation or adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project would be consistent with all applicable policies from the SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and the City's OTSP. 3. The Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The proposed Project is located within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Natural Community Conservation Plan (WRC MSHCP); however, the Project site is located in a developed, urban area, and is not located within a criteria area identified by the WRC MSHCP. A Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy or Joint Powers Review is not required for the Project. 4. The Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact on land use and planning. G. NOISE 1. The Project would not result in exposure of people within an airport land use plan, two miles of a public airport, or the vicinity of a private airstrip to excessive noise levels. There are no airports or A-8 airstrips located within two miles of the Project area. The closest airport to the plan area is the Billy Joe Airport located approximately five miles east. H. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1. The Project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management 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 designated roads or highways. The Project would not conflict with the City of Temecula policies, including, but not limited to travel demand measures, or other standards established by the CMP for designated roads or highways for the Existing (2016) Plus Project and Opening Year (2018) Plus Project study scenarios. 2. The Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. The Project area is not within the French Valley Airport or Billy Joe Airport influence areas. 3. The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) or result in inadequate emergency vehicle access. The final grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans will demonstrate that design standards related to traffic and emergency access are met. 4. The Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. None of the Project's public right of way improvements would impede existing bicycle facilities (i.e., the Class III facility on Old Town Front Street) or transit facilities. I. UTITILIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 1. The Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2. The Project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. 3. The Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, and does not need new expanded entitlements. A-9 4. The Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. The Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility would have sufficient capacity to process the additional average wastewater flow that would be generated by the Project. 5. The Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs and would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The existing capacity of the EI Sobrante Sanitary Landfill would be sufficient to accommodate solid waste generation by the Project during construction and at full build-out. 6. The Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts related to utilities and service systems. VI. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level. The SEIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, and Transportation and Circulation. Measures have been identified that would mitigate all of the impacts in this section to a less than significant level. The City Council finds that mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR would reduce the Project's impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of the unmitigable impacts discussed in Section VII. The City Council adopts all of the feasible mitigation measures for the Project described in the Final SEIR as conditions of approval of the Project and incorporates those into the Project, as discussed more fully in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. A. AESTHETICS 1. Light and Glare Impact AES-4: The Project would create a new source of light and glare throughout the Project area. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to light and glare. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's potential light and glare impacts remain less than significant. A-10 Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1: The Project applicant would be required to implement the lighting reduction mitigation proposed in the OTSP Program EIR. The following light and glare standards shall be applied to the proposed Project: • The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures shall contain "sharp cut-off' fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass lenses and internal and external shielding. • The applicant shall ensure that all fixtures shall be parallel with the finished grade of the Project site; no fixtures shall be tilted above a 90-degree angle. • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for open, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. • The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural massing, and off-site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. • The applicant shall submit a lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall include design features (such as those mentioned above) to minimize impacts of light and glare on the surrounding area. • The City shall complete a post-installation inspection to ensure that the site is not excessively illuminated (such that lighting is not creating excessive glare, unreasonably competing for the public's attention or creating any roadway safety hazard) and that lighting sources are properly shielded. • In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory, all lighting plans shall be reviewed by the City to assure utilization of low pressure sodium vapor lamps; step-down lighting techniques; shielding to prevent upward and outward illumination; and compliance with the County Ordinance No. 655. • The proposed Project shall prohibit the use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces. The exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non-mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre-cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces. A-11 b. Facts in Support of Findings Currently, the Project Site includes onsite sources of light or glare from existing commercial buildings and street lights. However, these existing buildings would be demolished as part of the proposed Project and on-site existing light sources would be removed. During construction of the Project, there is the possibility of limited, temporary nighttime construction lighting for security. Once operational, the Project's hotel and parking garage uses would introduce new sources of light and glare from lighting for the buildings and streets, as well as from cars traveling through the Project site. The proposed Project is located approximately 20 miles from the Palomar Observatory, which is in Zone B (45-mile Radius Lighting Impact Zone) according to the Palomar Observatory Light Pollution Ordinance (Riverside County's Light Pollution Ordinance No. 655). The Project would be required to comply with Ordinance No. 655, which lessens "sky glow" from nighttime light sources by requiring a variety of measures. These measures, which are included as part of Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1, include the preparation of an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to reduce the effects of light pollution from nighttime light sources. Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 imposes lighting design and placement requirements that would further reduce "sky glow" and the spilling of light from on-site light sources. With the imposition of MM-AES-1, impacts of the proposed Project related to light and glare would be less than significant. B. AIR QUALITY 1. Construction —Violate an Air Quality Standard Impact AIR-4: The Project's construction emissions could exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds for NO,,, and therefore could would violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. a. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to violation of air quality standard. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's potential air quality impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-1: All off-road construction equipment with a horsepower (HP) greater than 50 shall be required to have USEPA certified Tier 4 interim engines or engines that are certified to meet or exceed the emission ratings for USEPA Tier 4 engines. A copy of each unit's certified tier specification or model year specification shall be available upon request at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. b. Facts in Support of Findings A-12 Construction of the Project would produce maximum daily air pollutant emissions during the grading and excavation phase of construction. The maximum daily construction emissions generated by the Project's worst-case construction scenario (i.e. days with the most construction equipment operating) would produce approximately 105.56 pounds per day of NOx. SCAQMD's daily significance threshold for NOx is 100 pounds per day. Therefore, construction emissions would have a potentially significant regional air quality impact regarding NOx emissions and would require mitigation. Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-1 would require the use of EPA Rated Tier 4 (or equivalent) engines on construction equipment. The use of Tier 4 (or equivalent) engines is applied to all equipment greater than 50 horsepower in each phase in order to be reduced to below a significant level. With implementation of this mitigation measures, maximum daily emissions of NOx would be 50.39 pounds per day, which is below the significance threshold of 100 pounds per day. Therefore, impacts related to violation of an air quality standard are reduced to less than significant with mitigation. 2. Cumulative Net Increase of Any Nonattainment Pollutant Impact AIR-3: The Project's construction emissions could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment pollutant. a. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to the net increase of any nonattainment pollutant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's potential air quality impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-1. b. Facts in Support of Findings According to the SCAQMD, if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the proposed Project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As discussed above, the Project's emissions during construction would exceed SCAQMD's regional threshold of significance for NOx. Therefore, when considered in addition to other projects in the cumulative scenario, the Project's incremental contribution of NOx emissions to impacts on air quality would be cumulatively considerable. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM- AIR-1, the Project's NOx emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold and cumulative air quality impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. A-13 3. Construction — Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations Impact AIR-3: The Project's construction emissions could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. a. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's potential air quality impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-1 Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-2: During earthmoving and construction phases, use water trucks to spray unpaved roads and exposed soils on the Project site at least four times per day to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site. In addition, require all vehicles and off-road equipment to limit maximum speed on unpaved roads within the Project site to 15 miles per hour. b. Facts in Support of Findings Residential apartment units located immediately adjacent to the southwest of the Project site, approximately 65 feet (25 meters) from the Project boundary, are the nearest sensitive receptors, which means that construction emissions were compared to the 1.9-acre site localized significance thresholds (LST) (listed in Table 3.2-5 of the Draft SEIR) for a receptor distance of 82 feet (25 meters) from the site boundary. Based on SCAQMD guidance (specifically, the Fact Sheet for Applying CaIEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds (Fact Sheet), found under the heading Appendix C- Mass Rate LST Look-up Table under the guidance page located at (http://www.agmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized- significance-thresholds), the determination of significance based on 1.8 acres of disturbance per day was interpolated for this analysis. For PM10, the LST is 6.4 pounds per day; for PM2.5, the LST is 3.8 pounds per day. During grading and excavation phases of construction, emissions would exceed LSTs for PM10 (10.4 pounds per day) and PM2.5 (7.0 pounds per day). Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-1 requires all construction equipment to have EPA Rated Tier 4 (or equivalent) engines during each phase. Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-2 requires the Project site's unpaved roads used for any vehicular travel to be watered at least four times per eight hour workday to reduce fugitive dust emissions to below a significant level. With implementation of these mitigation measures, maximum daily emissions of PM10 would be 5.6 pounds and maximum daily emissions of PM2.5 would be 3.1, which are both below the LSTs for nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, A-14 impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants are reduced to less than significant with mitigation. C. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Historical and Archaeological Resources Impact CUL-1: The results of archival research, geoarchaeological review, Tribal correspondence, and field survey suggest the Project area is sensitive for cultural resources. Although the lack of identified subsurface archaeological materials greatly reduces the likelihood of encountering buried archaeological resources as a result of Project implementation, it does not preclude this possibility entirely. The possibility exists of encountering buried archaeological resources that may be considered historical resources or unique archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to historical and archaeological resources. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's potential historical and archaeological resources impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archeology (U.S. Department of Interior 2012) and as approved by the City of Temecula, to provide archeological expertise in carrying out all mitigation measures related to archeological resources (Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and -3). Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2: Prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, the qualified archaeologist shall designate an archaeological monitor to observe ground-disturbing activities, including but not limited to brush clearance and grubbing, grading, trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing and access roads, in consultation with the Pechanga monitor. If ground-disturbing activities occur simultaneously in two or more areas located more than 500 feet apart, additional archaeological monitors may be required. The archaeological monitor shall keep daily logs. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring activities, which shall be submitted to the City, Pechanga Tribe, and to the EIC at the University California, Riverside. A-15 Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3: At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity, the Project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop and enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement (Agreement). The Agreement will address the treatment of known cultural resources; appropriate treatment and procedure for inadvertent discoveries; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; Project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The Pechanga Tribal monitor shall monitor all ground-disturbing activities including, but not limited to, brush clearance and grubbing, grading. trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing, as specified in the Agreement, and in consultation with the Project archeologist. If ground- disturbing activities occur simultaneously in two or more locations, additional Native American monitors may be required. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-4: If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the Project Applicant, the Project qualified Archaeologist, and the Pechanga Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. Pursuant to PRC Section 21083.2(b), avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources. If the Project Applicant and the Pechanga Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The Planning Director will make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and will take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the Planning Director will be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City of Temecula City Council. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-5: The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items. Burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are recovered as a result of Project implementation to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition as outlined in the Agreement (Mitigation Measure CUL-3). Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-6: All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the Project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. A-16 b. Facts in Support of Findings There are no current, known archeological or built environment resources in the Project Site that are listed in or eligible for listing in the California Register or local register, or that may be considered unique archaeological resources. As such, there would be no impact to known historical or unique archaeological resources. Nonetheless, archival research indicates the Project Site lies within an area that is highly sensitive for cultural resources. The lack of identified subsurface archaeological materials within or immediately adjacent to the Project site greatly reduces the likelihood of encountering buried archaeological resources, but it does not preclude this possibility entirely. As such, there exists the possibility of encountering buried archaeological resources that may be considered historical resources or unique archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA. Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-6 require specific measures to ensure that any such resources would be identified and any impacts to the resources would be avoided. Therefore, these mitigation measures would ensure that impacts would be reduced to less than significant. 2. Paleontological Resources Impact CUL-2: The Project could not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to paleontological resources. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's potential paleontological resources impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-7: In the event paleontological resources are discovered during Project implementation, the Project Applicant will notify the City's Planning Director and a qualified paleontologist, defined as one meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1995). The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or fossil bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the Project on the qualities that make the A-17 resource important. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. b. Facts in Support of Findings The Project vicinity is underlain by older Quarternary alluvium and the Pauba Formation. Previous resource assessments indicate a wide range of vertebrate fauna from the Rancholabrean North American Land Mammal Age have been recovered from older Quarternary alluvium in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Furthermore, the Pauba formation is known to contain vertebrate fossils of late Irvingtonian and early Rancholabrean ages. As such, the older Quaternary alluvium and the Pauba Formation have a high paleontological sensitivity and there exists the possibility that proposed Project implementation may impact paleontological resource or unique geological feature. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-7 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant. 3. Human Remains Impact CUL-3: Because the Project would involve ground-disturbing activities, it is possible that such actions could unearth, expose, or disturb previously unknown human remains interred outside of a formal cemetery. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to human remains. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's potential human remain disturbance impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-8: If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the NAHC must be contacted within 24 hours. The NAHC must then immediately identify the MLD upon receiving notification of the discovery. The MLD shall then make recommendations within 48 hours and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in PRC Section 5097.98 and the Agreement described in Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3. b. Facts in Support of Findings No known human remains exist within the proposed Project vicinity. However, since the proposed Project would involve ground-disturbing activities, it is possible that such actions could unearth, expose, or disturb previously unknown human remains. A-18 Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-8 would ensure that impacts are less than significant. 4. Tribal Cultural Resources Impact CUL-4: Project implementation may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in PRC 21074. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to tribal cultural resources. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's potential tribal cultural resources impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-3, MM-CUL-4, MM-CUL-S, and MM-CUL- 6 b. Facts in Support of Findings While no tribal cultural resources were identified within the Project site, at least four resources were identified by the Pechanga Tribe within the immediate vicinity. Given the sensitivity of the broader area for archaeological, ethno-historic, and tribal cultural resources, the Pechanga Tribe considers the entire area to be highly sensitive for tribal cultural resources. Project activities, particularly ground-disturbing activities, have the potential to uncover previously unidentified resources that could be identified as tribal cultural resources. In light of this sensitivity, the Pechanga tribe has requested Native American monitoring of all ground disturbing activities associated with the Project. This request has been incorporated into the mitigation measures presented in this section. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-3 through MM-CUL-6 would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resource to less than significant. D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. Seismic Groundshaking Impact GEO-1 b: The Project development could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from strong seismic groundshaking, including the risk of loss, injury or death. a. Findings The Project site is located in a seismically active region with active fault segments of the Elsinore fault zone located approximately 2,000 feet from the Project boundary. The Elsinore Fault Zone is one of the faults considered capable of producing significant groundshaking. If not designed appropriately, the proposed Project's structures could be A-19 damaged from significant groundshaking in a 6.7 or greater magnitude earthquake on the Elsinore or one of the other regional active faults. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to groundshaking to less than significant. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-GEO-1: Prior to issuance of a building permit, a final design level geotechnical report shall be prepared by a California registered geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the City in accordance with City, California Building Code (CBC) and engineering standards. The final report shall be based on the recommendations contained within the Preliminary Geotechnical report prepared for the Project site and include measures to incorporate seismic design measures that meets CBC requirements. The report shall address all geotechnical hazards including seismic design, liquefaction, soil stability, and any other geotechnical hazard identified at the site. b. Facts in Support of Findings The Project would be constructed in accordance with applicable City ordinances and policies and consistent with the most recent version of the CBC, which requires structural design that can accommodate ground accelerations expected from known active faults. In addition, the design-level geotechnical investigations would be prepared by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Geologist and recommendations would include final design parameters for any retaining walls, foundations, foundation slabs, and surrounding related improvements (cut slopes, utilities, roadways, parking lots and sidewalks). These recommendations, based on those contained within the preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared for the site would be necessary to reduce potential impacts associated with groundshaking. Therefore, with implementation of the seismic design requirements into construction specification as required by Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the impacts associated with the effects associated with groundshaking would be reduced to less than significant levels. 2. Construction Impacts to Soil Erosion Impact GEO-2: Construction of the Project could result in soil erosion of the loss of topsoil on the Project Site. a. Findings Construction of the Project has a potential to result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil on the Project Site because construction would involve significant earthwork activities, including grading and stockpiling of soils. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to soil erosion to less than significant. Specifically, the A-20 following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1: As a condition of approval, the proposed Project shall be required to implement the Project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the final Project designs implement specific water quality features to meet the City's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. The WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 (from OTSP Program EIR): Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for individual Projects, the Project developer shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with California to comply with the requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit (Municipal Code, Chapter Chapter 8.24). This would include the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating construction BMPs for control of erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff. b. Facts in Support of Findings These mitigation measures require the implementation of construction BMPs, which would be detailed in the SWPPP as required by the Construction General Permit from the NPDES program, as further discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section, and the preparation of a WQMP, as required by the City Stormwater Ordinance. Although these measures are intended to prevent sedimentation from entering runoff from the site, they generally prevent soil erosion and loss of topsoil occurring at a construction site. Therefore, with adherence to these mitigation measures, potential construction-related erosion would be reduced to less than significant. 1. Unstable or Expansive Soils Impact GEO-3 and GEO-4: The Project could result in subsidence, liquefaction, lateral spreading, expansion or collapse as a result of being located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the proposed Project. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to unstable or expansive soils to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-GEO-1 A-21 b. Facts in Support of Findings The Project would be required to adhere to City building code requirements, which include the preparation of a design-level geotechnical investigation by a state licensed geotechnical engineer and included as part of Mitigation Measure MM-GEO-1. The final required geotechnical report for the Project would determine the susceptibility of the subject site to settlement and prescribe appropriate engineering techniques for reducing its effects based on site specific data of subsurface soils. The preliminary geotechnical report prepared for the Project provides a basis of conditions that are expected to occur but a final geotechnical report with specific design criteria would be required to obtain a building permit. The final geotechnical report would determine appropriate foundation requirements, footing size, fill placement, grading, and then any structural engineering specific to the proposed elements of the Project. Therefore, implementation of standard geotechnical engineering practices, which includes a geotechnical investigation containing recommendations that are specific to the Project design, and adherence to City and CBC building code requirements would result in less than significant impacts from unstable soils and other adverse soil properties. E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. Construction — Upset or Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials. Impact HAZ-2: The Project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to hazardous materials. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's potential hazardous material impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1: As a condition of approval for a grading permit, the use of construction BMPs shall be implemented as part of construction to minimize the potential negative effects of accidental release of hazardous materials to groundwater and soils. These shall include the following: • Follow manufacturer's recommendations on use, storage and disposal of chemical products used in construction; • Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel gas tanks; A-22 • During routine maintenance of construction equipment, properly contain and remove grease and oils; and • Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and local and state regulations. All the BMPs shall be in accordance with the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) BMP Handbook for construction and included in contract specifications. b. Facts in Support of Findings The onsite storage and/or use of large quantities of materials capable of impacting soil and groundwater are not typically required for a Project of this proposed size and type. However, construction activities would require the use of certain hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents, and glues. The inadvertent release of large quantities of these materials into the environment could adversely impact soil, surface waters, or groundwater quality. As such, Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1 requires the implementation of best management practices to minimize the potential negative effects of accidental release of hazardous materials to groundwater and soils. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. Construction —Water Quality or Waste Discharge Impact HYDA and HYD-6: Construction activities associated with the Project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to water quality and waste discharge. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1: As a condition of approval, the proposed Project shall be required to implement the Project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the final Project designs implement specific water quality features to meet the City's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit and Stormwater Ordinance A-23 requirements. The WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. b. Facts in Support of Findings During construction, potential impacts on water quality are related to sediments, turbidity, and certain pollutants that might be associated with sediments (e.g., phosphorus and legacy pesticides). Construction-related activities that are primarily responsible for sediment releases are related to exposure of soils to rainfall/runoff and wind and include removal of vegetation, grading, and excavation. Other pollutants that are of concern during construction include waste materials, chemicals, concrete, and petroleum products used in building construction or the maintenance of heavy equipment. The Project construction would require disturbance of more than one acre, and thus would be required to obtain coverage under the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit (as also required by Mitigation Measure MM-3.5-1), which is contained within the OTSP Program EIR and applies to this Project). The Construction General Permit requires the development to prepare and implement a SWPPP, which would identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water discharges during construction and describe the implementation and maintenance various BMPs to reduce or eliminate the potential for sediment or pollutants to come into contact with stormwater runoff during construction. With the application of the these regulations, construction-related impacts to water quality from the Project would be less than significant. Operation of the new development at the Project site would be required to comply with the development planning requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction and prepare a Project-specific WQMP as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance, per Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1. These regulations include implementation of non- structural, structural, and source control and treatment control BMPs during the planning process prior to Project approval for development projects. The SDRWQCB MS4 permit and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance require that the Project- specific WQMP shall include a drainage hydrologic/hydraulic analysis that details the site's anticipated runoff calculations. With implementation of these requirements, the Project would not result in adverse impacts to water quality. 2. Drainage Pattern Alteration and Stormwater Facilities Impact HYD-4 and HYD-5: The Project could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site such that increases in runoff result in flooding on or offsite or exceed the capacity of existing or planned infrastructure. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to A-24 drainage patterns. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The final study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 100- year storm event) from the development of this site and upstream of the site, and shall identify all existing or proposed drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property; the final study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. If the receiving facilities are determined to be under capacity, then other improvements to existing or proposed drainage facilities shall be incorporated into the final design in accordance with Public Works requirements. b. Facts in Support of Findings Runoff generated on and off the site during construction would have the potential to exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The proposed drainage pattern would generally be the same during Project construction when compared with the pre-Project condition. As a result, runoff conditions would not substantially change during construction activities. However, construction BMPs would be in place during storm events as required by the Construction General Permit, which would reduce the potential for stormwater to come into contact with pollutants and integrate it into surface water, to the maximum extent practicable. BMPs have proven effective at substantially reducing or eliminating runoff during construction. As a result, construction activities would not result in runoff that would exceed the capacity of the adjacent existing drainage system capacity or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts to existing stormwater drainage facilities during construction would be less than significant. A conceptual drainage plan and WQMP has already been prepared for the site to address how the Project would comply with drainage control requirements. The analyses determined drainage management areas for the Project, calculations for Low Impact Development (LID) BMP facilities, potential pollutants of concern, and a preliminary design. As part of Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-2, a final drainage study would be prepared by an engineer that would verify the capacity of the existing receiving drainage facilities in accordance with City of Temecula requirements. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-2 and adherence to the requirements found in the MS4 permit would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff would occur and that the existing capacity of storm water drainage systems would not be exceeded. A-25 G. NOISE 1. Operations — Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Impact NOI-3: Operation of the proposed Project could result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above existing levels. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to permanent increase in noise levels. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4: • Building equipment (e.g., HVAC units) shall be located away from nearby residences, on building rooftops, and properly shielded by either the rooftop parapet or within an enclosure that effectively blocks the line of sight of the source from the nearest receptors. The resultant HVAC noise level shall not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest receptors. • In order to avoid noise-sensitive hours, commercial and retail shall prohibit loading and unloading activities between the nighttime hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. • To further address the nuisance impact of loading dock/truck delivery noise, all loading areas for commercial and retail uses shall be located at the rear or sides of buildings within the commercial and mixed-use districts, where noise can be directed away from residential uses within the mixed use areas of the Project. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-S: If necessary to comply with the interior noise requirements of the City of Temecula and achieve an acceptable interior noise level, noise reduction in the form of sound-rated assemblies (i.e., windows, exterior doors, and walls) shall be incorporated into Project building design, based upon recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer. Final recommendations for sound-rated assemblies will depend on the specific building designs and layout of buildings on the site and shall be determined during the design phase. b. Facts in Support of Findings As part of the proposed Project, new mechanical equipment, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units (HVAC), would be installed on the hotel building. Such rooftop HVAC units typically generate noise levels of approximately 55 dB at a A-26 reference distance of 100 feet from the operating units during maximum heating or air conditioning operations. The noise level of the HVAC, if on the edge of the building nearest the sensitive receptors, could exceed the City of Temecula's 65 dBA noise standard. Delivery trucks are expected to be used during on-site commercial operations. An idling truck at 50 feet was found to produce noise levels of 72 dBA Leq, and a passing truck at 50 feet was found to produce noise levels of 68 dBA Leq. Cal-OSHA also requires backup beepers to be at least 5 dBA above ambient noise levels. Because the truck delivery access point would be the furthest point of the Project site away from sensitive receptors (approximately 500 feet), the truck deliveries are not anticipated to impact nearby residences. The Project-specific traffic analysis revealed that traffic impacts for the proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Therefore, noise impacts related to operational traffic are expected to be less than significant. The OTSP Program EIR determined that residences in the Project area would be subject to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires an interior noise standard of DNL 45 dBA in any habitable room. Although the proposed Project is a hotel project, it is also subject to Title 24 Building Codes. Therefore, hotel rooms located along affected roads exceeding 65 dBA would require sound-rated assemblies at the exterior facades of project buildings. The OTSP Program EIR also included Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-4 and MM-NOI-5 to reduce indoor noise exposure to within City of Temecula and State standards. Compliance with the mitigation measures contained in the OTSP Program EIR, and herein incorporated by reference would reduce operational noise impacts to less than significant levels. H. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 1. Cumulative Intersection Level of Service Impact Cumulative CIR-1: The proposed Project would result in significant impacts at the following intersections under Cumulative Conditions: • Rancho California Road / Old Town Front Street (AM and PM peak hours) a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to traffic under existing (2016) conditions. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's potential impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-CUM-CIR-1. The Project applicant shall contribute fair-share funding (2%) towards the optimization of the AM peak hour traffic signal coordination timing plan. Since Rancho California Road A-27 operates an Adaptive Traffic Signal System, the entire corridor will require optimization. b. Facts in Support of Findings The City of Temecula's significance criteria states that a traffic impact is considered significant if the addition of Project traffic causes the intersection LOS to decrease to worse than LOS D during peak hours. For intersections currently operating at LOS E or F, a project impact will be considered significant if the project causes the delay at a signalized intersection to increase by more than 2 seconds or adds more than 20 peak hour trips to the critical movement of an unsignalized intersection. All of the study intersections would operate acceptably at LOS D or better with and without the proposed Project, with the exception of the following location, which would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour: • Rancho California Road / Old Town Front Street (AM and PM peak hours) The intersection at Rancho California Road and Old Town Front Street currently operates at LOS E (AM) and F (PM); the proposed Project's contribution to LOS E conditions during the AM peak hour in combination with cumulative projects, is considered a significant impact because the intersection delay would increase by more than two seconds. Therefore, a significant cumulative impact would occur at the Rancho California Road and Old Town Front Street intersection. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-CUM-CIR-1 would require the Project applicant to contribute fair-share funding towards optimization of the AM peak hour traffic signal coordination timing plan. This would reduce delay time at the intersection and would reduce this cumulative impact to less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation. VII. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation. In the environmental areas of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and Noise and Vibration, there are instances where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below: A. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 1. Generation of GHG Emissions Impacts Impact GHG-1: The Project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Impact GHG-2: The Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. A-28 a. Findings The OTSP Program EIR determined that implementation of the full build-out of the OTSP Amendment would result in the generation of GHG emissions from construction and operations that would exceed SCAQMD's GHG screening threshold, and therefore would be considered a potentially significant impact. The GHG analysis contained in the OTSP Program EIR was incorporated in Chapter 3.0, Summary of Findings from the OTSP Program EIR, of the Project Draft SEIR. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce the impacts related to GHG emissions. The below mitigation measures from the OTSP Program EIR are required in order to reduce GHG emissions impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 (from the OTSP Program EIR): The applicant shall require implementation of all feasible energy efficiency and GHG reduction measures, including but not limited to the following measures. Energy Efficiency • Design buildings to be energy efficient. • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an integral part of lighting systems in buildings. • Install light colored "cool" roofs, cool pavements. • Provide information on energy management services for large energy users. • Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control systems. • Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor lighting. Water Conservation and Efficiency • Create water-efficient landscapes. • Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls. • Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances. • Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated surfaces) and control runoff. A-29 • Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles. • Implement low-impact development practices that maintain the existing hydrologic character of the site to manage storm water and protect the environment. (Retaining storm water runoff on-site can drastically reduce the need for energy-intensive imported water at the site.) • Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and location. The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above, plus other innovative measures that are appropriate to the specific project. • Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives. Solid Waste Measures • Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard). • Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in public areas. Land Use Measures • Include mixed-use, infill, and higher density in development projects to support the reduction of vehicle trips, promote alternatives to individual vehicle travel, and promote efficient delivery of services and goods. Transportation and Motor Vehicles • Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles. • Use low or zero-emission vehicles, including construction vehicles. b. Facts in Support of Findings The OTSP Program EIR determined that implementation of the full build-out of the OTSP Amendment would result in approximately 12,004 metric tons (MT) of CO2e per year from construction and approximately 192,657 MT CO2e per year from operations, which was considered a potentially significant impact. The OTSP Program EIR included a list of GHG reduction measures, incorporated above as Mitigation Measure 3.3-1, from the State of California Attorney General's office that could be applied to a diverse range of projects in order to reduce GHG emissions. A-30 However, since the project would result in GHG emissions that would exceed the major source threshold (25,000 MT CO2e per year) and the SCAQMD GHG screening threshold (3,000 MT CO2e per year), the OTSP Amendment would potentially conflict with the state's ability to meet the AB 32 goals. Even with implementation of all measures that are feasible from Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 listed above, build-out of the OTSP Amendment was considered to be a major source of greenhouse gases and would exceed the SCAQMD GHG screening threshold. Consequently, the increase in greenhouse gases from implementation of the OTSP places the project in conflict with the goal of the state to reduce up to 169 million metric tons CO2e/year. The OTSP Program EIR determined impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant. Implementation of the proposed Project would not introduce any new land uses that were not already accounted for in the certified OTSP Program EIR. The Project would involve an amendment to the OTSP that would relocate a portion of the Hotel Overlay zone to the Project site and would not change the overall intensity or distribution of uses in the Specific Plan area. The GHG emissions resulting from the construction and operation of the Project are cumulative in nature. Therefore, Project-specific emissions are accounted for in the OTSP Program EIR and there would be no additional emissions as a result the Project. Since the OTSP Program EIR determined that impacts from GHG emissions would be considered significant and unavoidable, the proposed Project would also have significant and unavoidable impacts related to GHG emissions. B. NOISE AND VIBRATION 1. Construction Noise Impacts Impact NOI-1: The Project would result in the exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. Impact NOI-2: The Project would exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels Impact NOI-4: The Project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the project. a. Findings During construction, the proposed Project has a potential to temporarily generate noise levels that may result in (1) exposure of persons to or generation of noise or ground- borne vibration levels in excess of applicable local standards and (2) a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce the impacts related to construction noise and vibration. The below mitigation A-31 measures are required in order to reduce construction noise and vibration impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1: • The applicant shall ensure, as specified in City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-25, that no construction may occur within one-quarter (1/4) of a mile of any occupied residence during the following hours: 0 6:30 PM to 6:30 AM, Monday through Friday. o Before 7:00 AM or after 6:30 PM, Saturday. o At any time on Sunday or any nationally recognized holiday. • The applicant shall ensure that all construction equipment will have properly operating mufflers. • The applicant shall ensure that all construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. • The applicant shall ensure that signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include permitted construction days and hours, and a contact number for the job site. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-2: The construction contractor will conduct crack surveys before construction activities that could cause architectural damage to nearby structures. The survey will include any historic buildings or buildings in poor condition within 15 feet of construction. The surveys will be done by photographs, video tape, or visual inventory, and will include inside as well as outside locations. All existing cracks in walls, floors, and driveways should be documented with sufficient detail for comparison after construction to determine whether actual vibration damage occurred. A post-construction survey should be conducted to document the condition of the surrounding buildings after the construction is complete. The construction contractor would be liable for construction vibration damage to adjacent structures. Mitigation Measure N0I-3: Implement Temporary Noise Barriers. Implement the field-erected temporary noise barriers including but not limited to sound blankets on existing fences and walls or the use of freestanding portable sound walls, to block the line-of-site between construction equipment and noise-sensitive receptors during Project implementation. Noise barriers should be a minimum of 8-feet-tall and continuous between the source of noise and adjacent or nearby noise- sensitive receptors. Noise barriers are most effective when placed directly adjacent to either the noise source or receptor. Place sound barriers around stationary sources and near windows, where feasible. A-32 Barrier construction may include, but not necessarily be limited to, using appropriately thick wooden panel walls (at least 1/2 inch thick), as shown in Figure 3.8-1, which are tall enough to block the line-of-sight between the dominant construction noise source(s) and the noise-sensitive receptor. Such barriers can reduce construction noise by 5 to 15 dBA at nearby noise-sensitive receptor locations, depending on barrier height and length, and the distance between the barrier and the noise-producing equipment or activity. Alternately, field-erected noise curtain assemblies could be installed around specific equipment sites or zones of anticipated mobile or stationary activity, resembling the sample shown in Figure 3.8-2. These techniques are most effective and practical when the construction activity noise source is stationary (e.g., auger or drill operation) and the specific source locations of noise emission are near the ground and can be placed as close to the equipment/activity-facing side of the noise barrier as possible. Barrier layout and other implementation details would vary by construction site. b. Facts in Support of Findings Construction of the proposed Project would require the use of heavy equipment during the grading and excavation activities at the Project site, installation of new utilities, paving, and building fabrication for the proposed residential buildings. Development activities would also involve the use of smaller power tools, generators, and other sources of noise. During each stage of development, there would be a different mix of equipment, which means that construction activity noise levels at and near the Project Site would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of the various pieces of construction equipment. Under Municipal Code Section 9.20.040, the exterior noise standard for single-family residential use receptors is 65 dBA Ldn/CNEL. However, Section 9.20.070 (Exceptions) allows for construction-related exceptions from these noise standards if approved by the City Manager. The request for construction-related exceptions must be submitted in writing at least three working days in advance of the scheduled and permitted construction activity, and be accompanied with the appropriate inspection fee(s). Further, construction activities are prohibited between the hours of 6:30 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Monday through Friday, and are allowed on Saturday only between 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. Construction activities are prohibited on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays. Existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project site consist of the residential apartment buildings located 65 feet southwest of the Project boundary. Because the nearest sensitive receptor is close to the Project site, construction activity would generate noise levels, which would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels at the nearby receptors. Therefore, the impact would be significant, as indicated in the OTSP Program EIR. A-33 To address significant construction noise impacts of a substantial increase in ambient noise levels, the proposed Project would be required to comply with noise Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2, which were identified in the OTSP Program EIR. To further reduce construction noise levels at residences, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI- 3 would include the implementation of temporary noise barriers at construction activities. The barrier material is assumed to be solid and dense enough to demonstrate acoustical transmission loss that is at least 10 dBA greater than the estimated noise reduction effect. These suggested barrier types do not represent the only ways to achieve the indicated noise reduction in dBA; they represent examples of how such noise attenuation might be attained by an implemented measure under the right conditions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1 would reduce construction noise levels at the nearby receptors, thereby, reducing the increase in ambient noise levels due to Project construction. However, mitigation measure NOI-1 may not be feasible to physically implement at the construction activities to achieve blocking line-of-sight between the construction noise sources and the nearby sensitive receptors. For example, temporary barriers may not feasibly be tall and or wide enough to block line- of-sight, and/or and the placement of temporary barriers could endanger construction crew members and equipment. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant and unavoidable with regard to resulting in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. The OTSP Program EIR determined that use of a large bulldozer for Project construction generates vibration levels of up to 0.089 PPV or 87 RMS at a distance of 25 feet. Implementation of mitigations measures would reduce vibration impacts. A large bulldozer would reduce to 80 RMS at 45 feet and increase to 0.2 PPV at 15 feet from operation. The OTSP Program EIR determined that this impact would be less than significant with implementation of OTSP Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI- 2. However, even with the implementation of these mitigation measures, construction of the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable temporary vibration impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors. Due to the proximity of the nearest residences to the Project site, it is anticipated that even with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the OTSP Program EIR, and additional measures proposed (i.e, noise barriers), construction of the proposed Project would potentially result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors during construction. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce construction noise impacts to sensitive receptors. VIII. Project Alternatives. The SEIR considered and analyzed three alternatives to the Proposed Project: Alternative 1—No Project Alternative (No Development); Alternative 2— Reduced Hotel with no Specific Plan Amendment Alternative; and Alternative 3— Commercial and Residential Use Alternative. A-34 The three alternatives that were analyzed in the SEIR are discussed below, including the basis for rejecting each alternative. In addition, comparison of the alternatives is available in Table 5-2 of the SEIR. Each alternative's environmental impacts are considered and analyzed, along with an analysis of whether it achieves any of the Project Objectives as shown below. • Provide an upscale lodging facility that will service both residents and tourists visiting Old Town Temecula; • Provide additional conference room facilities within Old Town Temecula; and • Create an aesthetically compatible development and minimize impacts to neighboring properties by designing with high quality architecture and signage. A. ALTERNATIVE 1—NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE (NO DEVELOPMENT) 1. Summary of Alternative Alternative 1 evaluates the environmental impacts if the Project site were to remain in its current state for the foreseeable future. The Project site is comprised of approximately 1.8 acres of predominantly developed land in Old Town Temecula. The Project site is currently developed with approximately 22,424 square feet (SF) of several vacant buildings. An undeveloped parcel approximately 17,500 SF is located across Third Street where the proposed parking garage would be constructed. Under this alternative, the Project site would remain vacant and the proposed hotel and parking garage would not be built. The site would continue to contain the existing structures on the hotel site and vacant land on the garage site. Unimproved areas along Third Street would not be landscaped or improved in any way. 2. Reason for Resecting Alternative Alternative 1 is the "No Build" alternative in which no development would occur on the Project Site. The Site would remain vacant, undeveloped land. Because no development or change would occur on the Project Site, no impacts would occur. As such, the proposed Project's impacts would generally be reduced under this Alternative. For aesthetics impacts, the existing Project site under Alternative 1 would not feature any additional sources of light and glare. No impacts to scenic vistas or resources would occur under this alternative. Under the proposed Project, the site would be developed with an aesthetic character in accordance with the design guidelines specified in the Old Town Specific Plan and visual quality of the site would be enhanced. Under Alternative 1, the existing site would remain vacant which degrades the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings due to its current lack of unkempt appearance. A-35 Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would result in more negative aesthetic impacts than the proposed Project. Air quality impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed Project because Alternative 1 would result in no construction-related emissions (from construction activities, vehicles, and equipment), and no operational emissions (associated with increased traffic). With no construction and no additional traffic volumes or operational emissions, air emissions in the vicinity would remain unchanged. No impact to air quality would occur as a result of this alternative, so impacts would be reduced as compared to the proposed Project. No potential impacts to cultural resources would occur under Alternative 1 because no grading activities would occur that could unearth cultural resources or disturb paleontological resources. Under this alternative, there would be no changes to the site and thus no impact to cultural resources would occur, eliminating any potential Project impacts. Potential impacts to geology and soils, such soil erosion during construction, would not occur under Alternative 1. The Project site would not be developed. However, geology and soils effects under the proposed Project are not anticipated to be significant, so these differences would be negligible. Construction-related hazardous materials would not be brought to the site, nor would hazardous materials be used during operation of the proposed Project, such as landscaping sprays or household cleaning products. Therefore, this alternative would result in fewer impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials than the proposed Project. No increase of impervious surfaces and no change to the natural drainage patterns of the Project site would occur under Alternative 1. No improvements would be required for water quality treatment. Overall, this alternative would result in fewer effects related to hydrology and water quality than the proposed Project. Under Alternative 1, no change would occur to the existing conditions at the Project site. This alternative would involve no amendment or rezoning associated with the Specific Plan. Because no change to the existing land use or land use plans and policies related to the Project site would occur, this alternative would have no direct impact on land use at the site or in the vicinity. Alternative 1 would not result in any change to existing ambient noise levels and would introduce no new source of noise. Because the site would remain with the existing non- operational uses under this alternative, traffic-related noise attributable to the Project would not occur. This alternative would result in no impact related to noise at or in the vicinity of the Project site. The significant and unavoidable temporary construction noise impact would be completely avoided. Impacts would be reduced and the proposed Project construction-phase impacts would not occur. A-36 Under Alternative 1, no additional traffic would be generated by uses on the Project site, which is vacant or out of business, resulting in no impacts related to traffic and circulation. Thus, Alternative 1 would result in fewer impacts when compared to the proposed Project. Under Alternative 1, the Project site would not be developed and no increase demand for water, wastewater, or solid waste services would occur. No new water service or sewer line connections would be developed under Alternative 1. Thus, under Alternative 1, impacts to utilities and service systems would not occur. Overall, Alternative 1 would reduce environmental impacts compared to the proposed Project. However, Alternative 1 does not satisfy any of the three Project Objectives. Because Alternative 1 would result in no development of the Project Site, it would not provide an upscale lodging facility or conference room facilities that will service both residents and tourists visiting Old Town Temecula. Whereas the proposed Project satisfies each Project Object, Alternative 1 fulfills none of the Objectives. Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 1 would not meet any of the Project Objectives. The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would be an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 1, and by itself, independent of any other reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 1. B. ALTERNATIVE 2—GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE 1. Summary of Alternative Under this alternative, the Project site would be developed with a smaller, three-story hotel, which would include 90 rooms, and would be in accordance with the current Specific Plan land use designation for the Project site, which is Downtown Core (DTC). This alternative would still develop the parking garage. This alternative would not include the Specific Plan Amendment to relocate a portion of the Hotel Overlay (HO) onto the proposed Project site. The hotel would be developed on the existing DTC zoning district, where permitted uses include, but are not limited to hotels, art galleries, museums, restaurants, entertainment oriented uses, small scale boutique retailers such as gift, specialty food, and antique shops and similar retail uses, offices and service oriented uses. Hotels under three stories in the DTC zoning district are not subject to the Supplemental Standards and Special Use Standards in Section IV.G of the Old Town Specific Plan. 2. Reason for Rejecting Alternative Environmental impacts in the Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hydrology and Water Resources correlate primarily with the footprint of site development because they relate to the location of a Project and the development of vacant land. A similar area would be disturbed under either Alternative 2 and the proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have the same impact in these areas when compared to the proposed Project. A-37 Under Alternative 2, the site would be developed with a three-story hotel. Impacts to scenic vistas and scenic resources would be similar to the proposed Project since development of the hotel in either scenario would partially block views of the western viewshed from certain viewpoints. In addition, the hotel developed under Alternative 2 would also be required to comply with the DTC design guidelines and standards because these guidelines and standards apply to all buildings within the DTC or DTC/HO zoning districts. Therefore, the Alternative 2 hotel would be designed with architectural elements that are consistent with the Old Town Specific Plan and would be fitting with the visual character of its surroundings. Thus, implementation of Alternative 2 would result in similar aesthetic impacts compared to the proposed Project. Under Alternative 2, construction of the smaller hotel would result in a shorter construction schedule, fewer ground-disturbing activities and less construction equipment on site. Construction-related emissions from Alternative 2 would have fewer air quality impacts than the proposed Project. Operation of the smaller hotel would result in less energy usage by the building, fewer vehicle trips generated and reduced area source emissions produced on site, in comparison to the proposed Project. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would have fewer air quality impacts than the proposed Project. Under Alternative 2, a similar area would be disturbed as the proposed Project, and thus, ground disturbing impacts to below ground cultural resources would be similar. The reduced building height under Alternative 2 would not impact cultural resources. However, the development envelope of Alternative 2 would be smaller, thus potential impacts to nearby potential historic structures would be reduced. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would have fewer cultural resources impacts than the proposed Project. Under Alternative 2, the smaller hotel with a reduced building height would be developed with the same California Building Code guidelines and standards as the proposed Project, resulting in the same structural-related and geologic-hazard impacts as the proposed Project. Under Alternative 2, construction and operation of the smaller hotel would result in fewer amounts of hazardous materials that would be used, transported, stored and disposed in comparison to the proposed Project. However, the hotel developed under Alternative 2 would similarly be required to comply with all relevant permits and plans that address and limit the potential release of hazardous materials during construction and operation of the proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in similar, but slightly reduced, hazard-related impacts as the proposed Project. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would increase impervious surfaces on the Project site. The smaller hotel under Alternative 2 would likewise be required to adopt a water quality management plan and best management practices to ensure that construction and operation of the hotel do not result in significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. The Project under Alternative 2 would require the same drainage A-38 modifications as the proposed Project. Alternative 2 would result in similar effects on hydrology and water quality as the proposed Project. Under Alternative 2, the smaller hotel would be developed on the current Specific Plan land use designation DTC zoning district and no OTSP amendment would be required, resulting in no land use impacts. According to the Specific Plan guidelines, a hotel under four stories is permitted in the DTC zoning district. The smaller hotel would be required to comply with the land use and urban development standards specified for the DTC and DTC/HO zoning districts, similar to the proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in similar land use impacts as the proposed Project. Like the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would increase ambient noise levels and would introduce a new source of noise at the Project site. Construction-related traffic would increase for both the proposed Project and Alternative 2. Traffic-related noise would also increase as a result of both this alternative and the proposed Project. Alternative 2 would generate less daily trips than the proposed Project. However, Alternative 2 would also have a significant and unavoidable temporary construction noise impact on the nearby sensitive receptors to the Project site. Under Alternative 2, the three-story hotel would have approximately 90 rooms, resulting in a total of approximately 735 daily trips, which is 499 daily trips less than the proposed Project's estimated 1,234 daily trips. Therefore, Alternative 2 would decrease the amount of vehicles in the surrounding circulation system and result in fewer impacts related to traffic and circulation compared to the proposed Project. The proposed Project would result in an increase in the demand for water, wastewater services, and solid waste disposal. Under Alternative 2, the Project site would be developed with a smaller hotel use and which would also increase the demand for water, wastewater, or solid waste services over existing conditions. However, because the hotel would be reduced in size and accommodate fewer guests under Alternative 2, there would be less water consumed and less wastewater generated than the proposed Project. Thus, implementation of Alternative 2 would result in fewer impacts related to utilities and service systems compared to the proposed Project. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in similar or reduced impacts in all environmental resource areas as compared to the proposed Project. Thus, Alternative 2 would overall result in lesser environment impacts. Alternative 2 would partially accomplish the objectives set forth by the Project. It would provide an upscale lodging facility, additional conference room facilities, and be aesthetically compatible within Old Town Temecula. However, Alternative 2 would provide only 90 lodging rooms, as compared to the 151 lodging rooms in the proposed Project. Because Alternative 2 would provide 61 fewer lodging rooms, it would not service the anticipated demand for lodging facilities for residents and tourists in the Old Town area and would not fulfill the DTC/HO designation's purpose of allowing a greater number of rooms to serve lodging needs. Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 2 would not fully meet any of the Project Objectives. A-39 The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would be an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 2, and by itself, independent of any other reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 2. C. ALTERNATIVE 3—REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 1. Summary of Alternative Under this alternative, a mixed-use commercial retail and residential development would be developed on the Project site, currently designated as DTC zoning district according to the Specific Plan. This alternative would not involve the development of a hotel and would not provide conference facilities and banquet rooms, as is provided by the proposed Project. The Project would not require a Specific Plan Amendment for rezoning. The Old Town Specific Plan Land Use and Urban Development standards permit the use of commercial retail and residential uses in the DTC zoning district. However, only attached and non-ground floor residential uses permitted in the DTC area along Old Town Front Street and Main Street. Alternative 3 would develop approximately 61,000 square feet of commercial uses and approximately 123,000 square feet of residential uses, consisting of 120 residential units. 2. Reason for Reiecting Alternative Under Alternative 3, the site would be developed with a mixed-use commercial and residential development with a four-story, 50 feet maximum height. Impacts to scenic vistas and scenic resources would be similar to the proposed Project, since development of the mixed-use building would also partially block views of the western viewshed from certain viewpoints. In addition, the development under Alternative 3 would also be required to comply with the DTC design guidelines and standards because these guidelines and standards apply to all buildings within the DTC or DTC/HO zoning districts. Therefore, the Alternative 3 development would be designed with architectural elements that are consistent with the Old Town Specific Plan guidelines and would be fitting with the visual character of its surroundings. Thus, implementation of Alternative 3 would result in similar aesthetic impacts compared to the proposed Project. Under Alternative 3, there would be a similar amount of construction-related emissions to the proposed Project due to comparable ground-disturbing activities, amount of construction equipment, and size of building footprint. Therefore, construction-related emissions from Alternative 3 would have similar air quality impacts than the proposed Project. Operation of the mixed-use commercial and residential development, however, would result in higher intensity energy usage by the building, greater vehicle trips generated and increased area source emissions produced on site in comparison to the proposed Project due to the permanent residency within the residential units. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 3 would have greater air quality impacts from operational emissions than the proposed Project. A-40 Under Alternative 3, a similar area would be disturbed as the proposed Project, and thus, impacts to below surface cultural resources would be similar. The development envelope of Alternative 3 would also be similar, thus potential impacts to nearby potential historic structures would be reduced. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 3 would have similar cultural resources impacts than the proposed Project. Under Alternative 3, the mixed-use development would also be developed with the same California Building Code guidelines and standards as the proposed Project, resulting in the same structural-related and geologic-hazard impacts as the proposed Project. Under Alternative 3, construction and operation of a mixed-use Project would result in similar amounts of hazardous materials that would be used, transported, stored and disposed in comparison to the proposed Project. In addition, the development under Alternative 3 would similarly be required to comply with all relevant permits and plans that address and limit the potential release of hazardous materials during construction and operation of the proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in similar hazard-related impacts as the proposed Project. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would also increase impervious surfaces on the Project site. The mixed-use development under Alternative 3 would likewise be required to adopt a water quality management plan and best management practices to ensure that the construction and operation of the development does not result in significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. Alternative 3 would result in similar effects on hydrology and water quality as the proposed Project. Under Alternative 3, the site would be developed with a mixed-use development and would be developed on the current Specific Plan land use designation DTC zoning district. According to the Specific Plan guidelines, commercial and residential uses under four stories are permitted in the DTC zoning district. The development would be required to comply with the land use and development standards specified for the DTC and DTC/HO zoning districts, similar to the proposed Project. Additionally, development of Alternative 3 would not require a Specific Plan Amendment. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in reduced land use impacts as the proposed Project. Like the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would increase ambient noise levels and would introduce a new source of noise at the Project site. Construction-related traffic would increase in the Project area for both the proposed Project and Alternative 3. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would also have a significant and unavoidable temporary construction noise impact. Similarly, traffic-related noise would also increase as a result of this alternative; however, traffic would increase more with Alternative 3 than the proposed Project. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in greater noise impacts than the proposed Project. The proposed Project would result in an increase in traffic congestion at nearby intersections and would generate 1,234 daily trips. With Alternative 3, the amount of trips generated from the commercial and residential uses would be increased to 3,427 A-41 daily trips, resulting in greater impacts to traffic and circulation than the proposed Project. The proposed Project would result in an increase in the demand for water, wastewater services, and solid waste disposal compared to the existing non-operational uses at the site. The proposed Project would also result in approximately 3.8 million gallons per year (MGY) of water consumed and produce approximately 82.7 tons of waste per year. Under Alternative 3, the Project site would be developed with mixed use, commercial and residential uses, which would also increase the demand for water, wastewater, or solid waste services over existing conditions. Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in approximately 20.1 MGY of water consumed and produce approximately 119.9 tons of solid waste per year. Thus, implementation of Alternative 3 would result in greater impacts related to utilities and service systems compared to the proposed Project. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in similar or reduced impacts to aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology and land use in comparison to the Project. However, Alternative 3 would result in increased impacts to air quality, noise, traffic and circulation, and utilities in comparison to the Project. Thus, Alternative 3 would result in greater environment impacts and it is considered not the environmentally superior alternative. In addition, Alternative 3 would not accomplish all of the Project Objectives. Although Alternative 3 would develop an aesthetically compatible mixed-use development in Old Town Temecula, it would not provide an upscale lodging facility or additional conference room facilities in Old Town Temecula. Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 3 would not fully achieve the benefits of the Project Objectives and does not avoid the Project's significant environmental impacts. The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would be an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 3, and by itself, independent of any other reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 3. A-42 EXHIBIT B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Aesthetics Old Town Specific Plan Program EIR Mitigation Measures Measure 3.1-3a:The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures shall Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of contain"sharp cut-off'fixtures,and shall be fitted with flat glass lenses and Construction Temecula Temecula Building Permit internal and external shielding. Building Official and field or other verification and Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Measure 3.1-3b:The applicant shall ensure that all fixtures shall be Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of parallel with the finished grade of the project site;no fixtures shall be tilted Construction Temecula Temecula Building Permit above a 90-degree angle. Building Official and field or other verification and Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Measure 3.1-3c:The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of be grouped into control zones to allow for open,closing,and night Construction Temecula Temecula Building Permit light/security lighting schemes.All control groups shall be controlled by an Building Official and field automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock,photocell,and low voltage or other verification and relays. Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Measure 3.1-3d:The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of site shall take advantage of landscaping,on-site architectural massing,and Temecula Temecula Building Permit off-site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. Building Official and field or other verification and Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Measure 3.1-3e:The applicant shall submit a lighting plan and photometric Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of plan to be reviewed by the City of Temecula.The lighting plan shall include Temecula Temecula Building Permit design features(such as those mentioned above)to minimize impacts of Building Official and field light and glare on the surrounding area. or other verification and Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Measure 3.1-3f:The City shall complete a post-installation inspection to Post-Construction City of City of Issuance of ensure that the site is not excessively illuminated(such that lighting is not Temecula Temecula Building Permit creating excessive glare,unreasonably competing for the public's attention Building Official and field or creating any roadway safety hazard)and that lighting sources are or other verification and properly shielded. Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Truax Hotel Project ESA/160579 MMRP August 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Measure 3.1-3g: In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mount Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of Palomar Observatory,all lighting plans shall be reviewed by the City to Temecula Temecula Building Permit assure utilization of low pressure sodium vapor lamps;step-down lighting Building Official and field techniques;shielding to prevent upward and outward illumination;and or other verification and compliance with the County Ordinance No.655. Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Measure 3.1-3h:The proposed Specific Plan amendment shall prohibit the Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces.The Construction/ Temecula Temecula Temecula exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as Post-Construction Building Official project approval high performance tinted non-mirrored glass,painted metal panels and pre- or other and field cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces. Designee verification and sign-off by City of Temecula Project-specific Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1:The project applicant would be required Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of to implement the lighting reduction mitigation proposed in the OTSP Construction/ Temecula Temecula Temecula Program EIR.The following light and glare standards shall be applied to Post-Construction Building Official project approval the proposed project: or other and field • The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures shall contain"sharp Designee verification and cut-off'fixtures,and shall be fitted with flat glass lenses and internal sign-off by City and external shielding. of Temecula • The applicant shall ensure that all fixtures shall be parallel with the finished grade of the project site;no fixtures shall be tilted above a 90-degree angle. • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for open,closing,and night light/security lighting schemes.All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock,photocell,and low voltage relays. • The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping,on-site architectural massing,and off-site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. • The applicant shall submit a lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed by the City of Temecula.The lighting plan shall include design features(such as those mentioned above)to minimize impacts of light and glare on the surrounding area. • The City shall complete a post-installation inspection to ensure that the site is not excessively illuminated(such that lighting is not creating excessive glare,unreasonably competing for thepublic's Truax Hotel Project 2 ESA/160579 MMRP August 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks attention or creating any roadway safety hazard)and that lighting sources are properly shielded. • In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory,all lighting plans shall be reviewed by the City to assure utilization of low pressure sodium vapor lamps;step-down lighting techniques;shielding to prevent upward and outward illumination; and compliance with the County Ordinance No.655. • The proposed project shall prohibit the use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces.The exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non-mirrored glass,painted metal panels and pre- cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces. Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Program EIR Mitigation Measures Measure 3.2-2a:The applicant shall ensure that a fugitive dust control Construction City of City of Issuance of program is implemented pursuant to the provision of SCAQMD Rule 403. Temecula Temecula Grading Permit Building Official and field or other verification and Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Measure 3.2-2b: Prior to grading and construction,the applicant shall be Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of responsible for compliance with the following: Temecula Temecula Grading Permit • During clearing,grading,earth moving,or excavation,maintain Building Official and field equipment engines in proper tune. or other verification and Designee sign-off by City • After clearing,grading,earth moving,or excavation: of Temecula • Wet the area down,sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings,as necessary,to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind. • Spread soil binders. • Implement street sweeping as necessary. • During construction: • Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site. • Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. Truax Hotel Project 3 ESA/160579 MMRP August 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks • Use low sulfur fuel(0.05 percent by weight)for construction equipment. • Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. Measure 3.2-2c: Prior to grading and construction,the applicant shall be Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of responsible for compliance with the following. Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit • Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize Building Official and field daily emissions. or other verification and Designee sign-off by City • Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil of Temecula during and after the end of work periods. • Treat unattended construction areas with water(disturbed lands which have been,or are expected to be,unused for four or more consecutive days). • Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites. • Install vehicle wheel-washers before the roadway entrance at construction sites. • Wash off trucks leaving the site. • Require all trucks hauling dirt,sand,soil,or other loose substances and building materials to be covered,or to maintain a minimum freeboard of two feet between the top of the load and the top of the truck bed sides. • Use vegetative stabilization,whenever possible,to control soil erosion from stormwater,especially on super pads. • Require enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage piles of sand,dirt,or other aggregate materials. • Control off-road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads,consistent with City standards. • Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators. Measure 3.2-2d:Prior to grading and construction,the applicant shall be Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of responsible for the paving of all access aprons to the project site and the Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit maintenance of the paving. Building Official and field or other verification and Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Truax Hotel Project 4 ESA/160579 MMRP August 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Measure 3.2-2e: Prior to issuance of grading permits,the applicant shall Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of be responsible for assuring that construction vehicles are equipped with Temecula Temecula Grading Permit proper emission control equipment to substantially reduce emissions. Building Official and field or other verification and Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Measure 3.2-2f: Prior to issuance of grading permits,the applicant shall be Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction- Temecula Temecula Grading Permit related traffic congestion into the project grading permit.Measures,subject Building Official and field to the approval and verification by the Public Works Department,shall or other verification and include,as appropriate: Designee sign-off by City • Provision of rideshare incentives. of Temecula • Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel. • Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference. • Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. • Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary. Measure 3.2-2g: Prior to the building/construction operations,applicant Construction City of City of Issuance of and individual contractors shall commit in writing to the following: Temecula Temecula Grading Permit • Scheduling receipt of construction materials outside of the peak travel Building Official and field period hours(i.e.,7:30—8:30 AM and 4:00—6:00 PM); or other verification and Designee sign-off by City • Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity; of Temecula and • Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods. Where Feasible: Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of Measure 3.2-3a:Construct on-site or off-site bus turnouts, passenger Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit benches,and shelters. Building Official and field or other verification and Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Measure 3.2-3b: Provide shuttles to major rail transit centers of multi- Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of modal stations. Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit Building Official and field or other verification and Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Truax Hotel Project 5 ESA/160579 MMRP August 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Measure 3.2-3c: Contribute to regional transit systems(e.g.,right-of-way, Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of capital improvements,etc.). Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit Building Official and field or other verification and Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Measure 3.2-3d: Synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of development. Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit Building Official and field or other verification and Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Measure 3.2-3e:Set up resident worker training programs to improve Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of job/housing balance. Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit Building Official and field or other verification and Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Project-specific Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-1:All off-road construction equipment with a Pre-Construction! City of City of Issuance of horsepower(HP)greater than 50 shall be required to have USEPA certified Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit Tier 4 interim engines or engines that are certified to meet or exceed the Building Official and field emission ratings for USEPA Tier 4 engines.A copy of each unit's certified or other verification and tier specification or model year specification shall be available upon Designee sign-off by City request at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-2: During earthmoving and construction Construction City of City of Issuance of phases,use water trucks to spray unpaved roads and exposed soils on the Temecula Temecula Grading Permit project site at least four times per day to keep all areas where vehicles Building Official and field move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site.In or other verification and addition,require all vehicles and off-road equipment to limit maximum Designee sign-off by City speed on unpaved roads within the project site to 15 miles per hour. of Temecula Truax Hotel Project 6 ESA/160579 MMRP August 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Program EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 a:Consistent with the City of Temecula's Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS-26 and OS-39,the Temecula Temecula Grading Permit Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which requires that all qualified and field areas slated for development or other ground-disturbing activities shall be Archaeologist verification and subject to a Phase I survey(including records search and archaeological sign-off by City survey)for archaeological resources on a project-specific basis prior to the of Temecula City's approval of project plans.The survey shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with local Native American groups.If potentially significant archaeological resources are encountered during the survey,the City shall require that the resources are evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the National Register or California Register,and that recommendations are made for treatment of these resources if found to be significant,in consultation with the appropriate Native American groups. Any identified resources shall be avoided if feasible.Ground-disturbing activity in areas determined to be sensitive for cultural resources shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b:Consistent with the City of Temecula's Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS-26 and OS-39,the Temecula Temecula Grading Permit Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which states that qualified and field during construction,should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural Archaeologist verification and resources be discovered,all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and sign-off by City a qualified archaeologist will be contacted to assess the significance of the of Temecula find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant,the City and the archaeologist will determine, in consultation with local Native American groups,appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation.All significant cultural materials recovered will be,as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist and in consultation with local Native American groups, subject to scientific analysis,professional museum curation,and documentation according to current professional standards. Mitigation Measure 3.4-2a:Consistent with the City of Temecula's Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS-2,the Specific Temecula Temecula Grading Permit Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which states that all areas qualified and field slated for development or other ground-disturbing activities in the Specific Archaeologist verification and Plan Area which contain structures 50 years old or older be surveyed and sign-off by City evaluated for their potential historic significance prior to the City's approval of Temecula of project plans.The survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural History. If potentially significant resources are encountered Truax Hotel Project 7 ESA/160579 MMRP August 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks during the survey,demolition or substantial alteration of such resources identified shall be avoided.If avoidance of identified historic resources is deemed infeasible,the City shall prepare a treatment plan to include,but not limited to,photo-documentation and public interpretation of the resource. Mitigation Measure 3.4-4a:Consistent with State law,CEQA Guidelines, Construction City of City of Issuance of and the City of Temecula's General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Temecula Temecula Grading Permit Procedure OS-26 and OS-39,the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a qualified and field new policy which states that if human skeletal remains are uncovered Archaeologist verification and during project construction,work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and sign-off by City the Riverside County coroner will be contacted to evaluate the remains, of Temecula following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American,he or she will contact the Native American Heritage Commission,in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision(c),and Public Resources Code 5097.98(as amended by AB 2641).The NAHC will then identify the person(s)thought to be the Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American,who will then help determine what course of action should be taken in dealing with the remains. Per Public Resources Code 5097.98,the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity,according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices,where the Native American human remains are located,is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred,as prescribed in this section(PRC 5097.98),with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations,if applicable,taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. Mitigation Measure 3.4-5a:The Specific Plan Amendment shall include a Construction City of City of Issuance of new policy which states that in the event that paleontological resources are Temecula Temecula Grading Permit discovered,the project proponent will notify a qualified paleontologist.The qualified and field paleontologist will document the discovery as needed,evaluate the Paleontologist verification and potential resource,and assess the significance of the find under the criteria sign-off by City set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or fossil bearing of Temecula deposits are discovered during construction,excavations within 50 feet of the find will be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist(in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards(Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1995)).The paleontologist will notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find.If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible,the paleontologist will prepare an excavation plan for mitigating Truax Hotel Project 8 ESA/160579 MMRP August 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. Project-specific Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity,the applicant shall retain Temecula Temecula Grading Permit a qualified archaeologist,defined as an archeologist meeting the Secretary qualified and field of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archeology(U.S. Archaeologist verification and Department of Interior 2012)and as approved by the City of Temecula,to sign-off by City provide archeological expertise in carrying out all mitigation measures of Temecula related to archeological resources(Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and-3). Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2: Prior to the start of ground-disturbing Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of activities,the qualified archaeologist shall designate an archaeological Temecula Temecula Grading Permit; monitor to observe ground-disturbing activities,including but not limited to qualified verification by brush clearance and grubbing,grading,trenching,excavation,and the Archaeologist City of construction of fencing and access roads,in consultation with the and Pechanga Temecula in Pechanga monitor.If ground-disturbing activities occur simultaneously in tribal consultation two or more areas located more than 500 feet apart,additional representatives with Pechanga archaeological monitors may be required.The archaeological monitor shall Tribe keep daily logs.After monitoring has been completed,the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring activities,which shall be submitted to the City,Pechanga Tribe, and to the EIC at the University California, Riverside. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3:At least 30 days prior to issuance of a Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of grading permit and prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity,the Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit; project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of qualified verification by grading,excavation and the monitoring program,and to coordinate with the Archaeologist City of Tribe to develop and enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment and and Pechanga Temecula in Monitoring Agreement(Agreement).The Agreement will address the tribal consultation treatment of known cultural resources;appropriate treatment and representatives with Pechanga procedure for inadvertent discoveries;the designation,responsibilities,and Tribe participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading,excavation and ground disturbing activities;project grading and development scheduling;terms of compensation for the monitors;and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources,sacred sites,and human remains discovered on the site. The Pechanga Tribal monitor shall monitor all ground-disturbing activities including,but not limited to,brush clearance and grubbing,grading, trenching,excavation,and the construction of fencing,as specified in the Agreement,and in consultation with the project archeologist. If ground- disturbing activities occur simultaneously in two or more locations, Truax Hotel Project 9 ESA/160579 MMRP August 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks additional Native American monitors may be required. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-4: If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface Construction City of City of Verification by cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities,the Temecula Temecula City of project Applicant,the project qualified Archaeologist,and the Pechanga qualified Temecula in Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and Archaeologist consultation confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. Pursuant to PRC and Pechanga with Pechanga Section 21083.2(b),avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for tribal Tribe archaeological resources. If the project Applicant and the Pechanga Tribe representatives cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources,these issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision.The Planning Director will make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and will take into account the religious beliefs,customs,and practices of the Pechanga Tribe.Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law,the decision of the Planning Director will be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City of Temecula City Council. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-S:The landowner shall relinquish ownership Construction City of City of Verification by of all cultural resources,including sacred items, burial goods and all Temecula Temecula City of archaeological artifacts that are recovered as a result of project qualified Temecula in implementation to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition Archaeologist consultation as outlined in the Agreement(Mitigation Measure CUL-3). and Pechanga with Pechanga tribal Tribe representatives Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-6:All sacred sites,should they be Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of encountered within the project area,shall be avoided and preserved as the Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula preferred mitigation,if feasible. qualified Project Archaeologist Approval Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-7: In the event paleontological resources Construction City of City of Issuance of are discovered during project implementation,the project Applicant will Temecula Temecula Grading Permit, notify the City's Planning Director and a qualified paleontologist,defined as qualified review of plans, one meeting the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards(Society of Paleontologist field verification Vertebrate Paleontology, 1995).The paleontologist shall document the and City and sign-off by discovery as needed,evaluate the potential resource,and assess the Planning City of significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Director Temecula Section 15064.5. If fossil or fossil bearing deposits are discovered during construction,excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist.The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible,the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for Truax Hotel Project 10 ESA/160579 MMRP August 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important.The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-8: If human remains are encountered, Construction City of City of Verification by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further Temecula Temecula City of disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the qualified Temecula necessary findings as to origin. Further,pursuant to PRC Section Archaeologist 5097.98(b),remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the NAHC must be contacted within 24 hours.The NAHC must then immediately identify the Most Likely Descendant(MLD)upon receiving notification of the discovery.The MLD shall then make recommendations within 48 hours and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in PRC Section 5097.98 and the Agreement described in Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3. Geology,Soils and Seismicity Old Town Specific Plan Program EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of permit for individual projects,the project developer shall file a NOI with Construction Temecula Temecula Grading or California to comply with the requirements of the NPDES General Building Official Building Permit, Construction Permit(Municipal Code,Chapter 8.24).This would include or other review of plans, the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating construction BMPs for control of Designee field verification erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff. and sign-off by City of Temecula Project-specific Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure MM-GEO-1:Prior to issuance of a building permit,a Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of final design level geotechnical report shall be prepared by a California Construction Temecula Temecula Building Permit registered geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to Building Official and field the City in accordance with City,CBC and engineering standards.The final or other verification and report shall be based on the recommendations contained within the Designee sign-off by City Preliminary Geotechnical report prepared for the project site and include of Temecula measures to incorporate seismic design measures that meets CBC requirements.The report shall address all geotechnical hazards including seismic design,liquefaction,soil stability,and any other geotechnical hazard identified at the site. Truax Hotel Project 11 ESA/160579 MMRP August 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Greenhouse Gas Emissions Old Town Specific Plan Program EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 3.3-1:The applicant shall require implementation of Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of all feasible energy efficiency and GHG reduction measures,including but Construction Temecula Temecula Building Permit not limited to the following measures.(Feasibility of measure will be Building Official and field determined through consultation with the City and applicant.) or other verification and Energy Efficiency Designee sign-off by City • Design buildings to be energy efficient. of Temecula • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems.Use daylight as an integral part of lighting systems in buildings. • Install light colored"cool'roofs,cool pavements. • Provide information on energy management services for large energy users. • Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems,appliances and equipment,and control systems. • Install light emitting diodes(LEDs)for traffic,street and other outdoor lighting. Water Conservation and Efficiency • Create water-efficient landscapes. • Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices,such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls. • Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances. • Restrict watering methods(e.g.,prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated surfaces)and control runoff. • Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles. • Implement low-impact development practices that maintain the existing hydrologic character of the site to manage storm water and protect the environment.(Retaining storm water runoff on-site can drastically reduce the need for energy-intensive imported water at the site.) • Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and location.The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above,plus other innovative measures that are appropriate to the specific project. • Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives. Truax Hotel Project 12 ESA/160579 MMRP August 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Solid Waste Measures • Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste(including,but not limited to,soil,vegetation,concrete,lumber,metal,and cardboard). • Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in public areas. Land Use Measures • Include mixed-use,infill,and higher density in development projects to support the reduction of vehicle trips,promote alternatives to individual vehicle travel,and promote efficient delivery of services and goods. Transportation and Motor Vehicles • Limit idling time for commercial vehicles,including delivery and construction vehicles. • Use low or zero-emission vehicles, including construction vehicles. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Project-specific Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1:As a condition of approval for a grading Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of permit,the use of construction best management practices(BMPs)shall be Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit implemented as part of construction to minimize the potential negative Building Official and field effects of accidental release of hazardous materials to groundwater and or other verification and soils.These shall include the following: Designee sign-off by City • Follow manufacturer's recommendations on use,storage and disposal of Temecula of chemical products used in construction; • Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel gas tanks; • During routine maintenance of construction equipment, properly contain and remove grease and oils;and • Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and local and state regulations. All the BMPs shall be in accordance with the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association(CASQA)BMP Handbook for construction and included in contract specifications. Truax Hotel Project 13 ESA/160579 MMRP August 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Hydrology and Water Quality Old Town Specific Plan Program EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 3.5-1:Prior to the issuance of a grading or building Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of permit for individual projects,the project developer shall file a NOI with Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit California to comply with the requirements of the NPDES General Building Official and field Construction Permit(Municipal Code,Chapter 8.24).This would include or other verification and the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating construction BMPs for control of Designee sign-off by City erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff. of Temecula Project-specific Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1:As a condition of approval,the proposed Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of project shall be required to implement the project-specific Water Quality Construction/ Temecula Temecula Building or Management Plan(WQMP),as required by the City of Temecula Post-Construction Building Official Grading Permit, Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff or other review of plans, Management Plan,which will ensure that the final project designs Designee field verification implement specific water quality features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and sign-off by and Stormwater Ordinance requirements.The WQMP shall be reviewed City of and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or Temecula grading permit. Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-2:Prior to issuance of a grading permit,a Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and Construction/ Temecula Temecula Grading Permit, submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance Post-Construction Engineer or review of plans, with City,Riverside County and engineering standards.The final study other Designee field verification shall identify storm water runoff quantities(to mitigate the 100-year storm and sign-off by event)from the development of this site and upstream of the site,and shall City of identify all existing or proposed drainage facilities intended to discharge Temecula this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property;the final study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities.If the receiving facilities are determined to be under capacity,then other improvements to existing or proposed drainage facilities shall be incorporated into the final design in accordance with Public Works requirements. Truax Hotel Project 14 ESA/160579 MMRP August 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Noise Old Town Specific Plan Program EIR Mitigation Measures Measure 3.7-1 a:The applicant shall ensure,as specified in City of Construction City of City of Issuance of Temecula Ordinance No.94-25,that no construction may occur within one- Temecula Temecula Grading Permit quarter(1/4)of a mile of any occupied residence during the following Building Official and field hours: or other verification and Designee sign-off by City • 6:30 PM to 6:30 AM,Monday through Friday. of Temecula • Before 7:00 AM or after 6:30 PM,Saturday. • At any time on Sunday or any nationally recognized holiday. Measure 3.7-1 b:The applicant shall ensure that all construction equipment Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of will have properly operating mufflers. Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit Building Official and field or other verification and Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Measure 3.7-1c:The applicant shall ensure that all construction staging Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit Building Official and field or other verification and Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Measure 3.7-1 d:The applicant shall ensure that signs shall be posted at Construction City of City of Issuance of the construction sites that include permitted construction days and hours, Temecula Temecula Grading Permit and a contact number for the job site. Building Official and field or other verification and Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Measure 3.7-2a:The construction contractor will conduct crack surveys Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of before construction activities that could cause architectural damage to Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit nearby structures.The survey will include any historic buildings or buildings Building Official and field in poor condition within 15 feet of construction.The surveys will be done by or other verification and photographs,video tape,or visual inventory,and will include inside as well Designee sign-off by City as outside locations.All existing cracks in walls,floors,and driveways of Temecula should be documented with sufficient detail for comparison after construction to determine whether actual vibration damage occurred.A post-construction survey should be conducted to document the condition of the surrounding buildings after the construction is complete.The construction contractor would be liable for construction vibration damage to Truax Hotel Project 15 ESA/160579 MMRP August 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks adjacent structures. Measure 3.7-3a:Building equipment(e.g., HVAC units)shall be located Construction City of City of Issuance of away from nearby residences,on building rooftops,and properly shielded Temecula Temecula Grading Permit by either the rooftop parapet or within an enclosure that effectively blocks Building Official and field the line of sight of the source from the nearest receptors.The resultant or other verification and HVAC noise level shall not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest receptors. Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Measure 3.7-3b: In order to avoid noise-sensitive hours,commercial and Post-Construction City of City of Issuance of retail shall prohibit loading and unloading activities between the nighttime Temecula Temecula Grading Permit hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Building Official and field or other verification and Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Measure 3.7-3c:To further address the nuisance impact of loading Post-Construction City of City of Issuance of dock/truck delivery noise,all loading areas for commercial and retail uses Temecula Temecula Grading Permit shall be located at the rear or sides of buildings within the commercial and Building Official and field mixed-use districts,where noise can be directed away from residential or other verification and uses within the mixed use areas of the project. Designee sign-off by City of Temecula Measure 3.7-4: If necessary to comply with the interior noise requirements Pre- City of City of Issuance of of the City of Temecula and achieve an acceptable interior noise level, Construction/Post Temecula Temecula Grading Permit noise reduction in the form of sound-rated assemblies(i.e.,windows, -Construction Building Official and field exterior doors,and walls)shall be incorporated into project building design, or other verification and based upon recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer. Final Designee sign-off by City recommendations for sound-rated assemblies will depend on the specific of Temecula building designs and layout of buildings on the site and shall be determined during the design phase. Project-specific Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1:The applicant shall ensure: Construction City of City of Issuance of • As specified in City of Temecula Ordinance No.94-25,that no Temecula Temecula Grading Permit construction may occur within one-quarter(1/4)of a mile of any Building Official and field occupied residence during the following hours: or other verification and through Friday. Designee sign off by City - 6:30 PM to 6:30 AM,Monday g y of Temecula - Before 7:00 AM or after 6:30 PM,Saturday. - At any time on Sunday or any nationally recognized holiday. • That all construction equipment will have properly operating mufflers. • That all construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from Truax Hotel Project 16 ESA/160579 MMRP August 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks occupied dwellings. That signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include permitted construction days and hours,and a contact number for the job site. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-2:The construction contractor will conduct Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of crack surveys before construction activities that could cause architectural Construction/ Temecula Temecula Grading Permit damage to nearby structures.The survey will include any historic buildings Post-Construction Building and field or buildings in poor condition within 15 feet of construction.The surveys will Official, verification and be done by photographs,video tape,or visual inventory,and will include construction sign-off by City inside as well as outside locations.All existing cracks in walls,floors,and contractor,or of Temecula driveways should be documented with sufficient detail for comparison after other Designee construction to determine whether actual vibration damage occurred.A post-construction survey should be conducted to document the condition of the surrounding buildings after the construction is complete.The construction contractor would be liable for construction vibration damage to adjacent structures. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3: Implement Temporary Noise Barriers. Construction City of City of Issuance of Implement the field-erected temporary noise barriers including but not Temecula Temecula Grading Permit limited to sound blankets on existing fences and walls or the use of Building Official and field freestanding portable sound walls,to block the line-of-site between or other verification and construction equipment and noise-sensitive receptors during project Designee sign-off by City implementation.Noise barriers should be a minimum of 8-feet-tall and of Temecula continuous between the source of noise and adjacent or nearby noise- sensitive receptors. Noise barriers are most effective when placed directly adjacent to either the noise source or receptor.Place sound barriers around stationary sources and near windows,where feasible. Barrier construction may include,but not necessarily limited to,using appropriately thick wooden panel walls(at least%inch thick),as shown in Figure 3.8-1,which are tall enough to block the line-of-sight between the dominant construction noise source(s)and the noise-sensitive receptor. Such barriers can reduce construction noise by 5 to 15 dBA at nearby noise-sensitive receptor locations,depending on barrier height and length, and the distance between the barrier and the noise-producing equipment or activity.Alternately,field-erected noise curtain assemblies could be installed around specific equipment sites or zones of anticipated mobile or stationary activity,resembling the sample shown in Figure 3.8-2.These techniques are most effective and practical when the construction activity noise source is stationary(e.g.,auger or drill operation)and the specific source locations of noise emission are near the ground and can be placed as close to the equipment/activity-facing side of the noise barrier as possible.Barrier layout and other implementation details would vary by construction site. Truax Hotel Project 17 ESA/160579 MMRP August 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4: Post-Construction City of City of Issuance of • Building equipment(e.g.,HVAC units)shall be located away from Temecula Temecula Building Permit nearby residences,on building rooftops,and properly shielded by Building Official and field either the rooftop parapet or within an enclosure that effectively blocks or other verification and the line of sight of the source from the nearest receptors.The resultant Designee sign-off by City HVAC noise level shall not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest receptors. of Temecula • In order to avoid noise-sensitive hours,commercial and retail shall prohibit loading and unloading activities between the nighttime hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. • To further address the nuisance impact of loading dock/truck delivery noise,all loading areas for commercial and retail uses shall be located at the rear or sides of buildings within the commercial and mixed-use districts,where noise can be directed away from residential uses within the mixed use areas of the project. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-5: If necessary to comply with the interior Post-Construction City of City of Issuance of noise requirements of the City of Temecula and achieve an acceptable Temecula Temecula Building Permit interior noise level,noise reduction in the form of sound-rated assemblies Building Official and field (i.e.,windows,exterior doors,and walls)shall be incorporated into project or other verification and building design,based upon recommendations of a qualified acoustical Designee sign-off by City engineer. Final recommendations for sound-rated assemblies will depend of Temecula on the specific building designs and layout of buildings on the site and shall be determined during the design phase. Traffic and Circulation Old Town Specific Plan Program EIR Mitigation Measures Measure 3.9-1:The project applicant shall incorporate the following Construction City of City of Issuance of features into the design of the Specific Plan area: Temecula Temecula Building Permit At the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road Building Official and field provide a northbound through/right-turn lane combination with a right-turn /Public Works verification and overlap. Department or sign-off by City Provide subsequent Traffic Impact Analyses,as development occurs,to other Designee of Temecula determine thresholds for implementation of Roundabouts at the intersections of Old Town Front Street and First Street/Santiago Road/Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street. Provide pedestrian facilities from Old Town Front Street which connect the east and west neighborhood cores with the Old Town Core District. Truax Hotel Project 18 ESA/160579 MMRP August 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Measure 3.9-2:The project applicant shall incorporate the following Construction City of City of Issuance of features into the design of the Specific Plan area: Temecula Temecula Building Permit At the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road Building Official and field provide a westbound right-turn overlap. /Public Works verification and Department or sign-off by City Provide subsequent Traffic Impact Analyses,as development occurs,to other Designee of Temecula determine thresholds for implementation of Roundabouts at the intersections of Old Town Front Street and First Street/Santiago Road/Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street. Provide pedestrian facilities from Old Town Front Street which connect the east and west neighborhood cores with the Old Town Core District. Project-specific Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure MM-CUM CIR-1:The project applicant shall Construction/ City of City of Issuance of contribute fair-share funding(2%)towards the optimization of the AM peak Post-Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit hour traffic signal coordination timing plan.Since Rancho California Road Engineer or and Issuance of operates an Adaptive Traffic Signal System,the entire corridor will require other Designee a Certificate of optimization. Occupancy Utilities Old Town Specific Plan Program EIR Mitigation Measures Measure 3.8-4:Prior to construction in any undeveloped areas,EMWD Pre-Construction EMWD EMWD Issuance of shall review the plans for consistency with design criteria.Once approved Engineer or Grading Permit by the EMWD engineer,the applicant shall pay the required connection fee other Designee and verification to EMWD prior to construction of the sewer line. and sign-off by City of Temecula Measure 3.8-5:Prior to construction,the project applicant and/or each Pre-Construction EMWD EMWD Issuance of subsequent project applicant will pay its fair share in mitigation fees to Engineer or Grading Permit EMWD to upgrade the First Street and the Pujol Street sewer lines. other Designee and verification and sign-off by City of Temecula Measure 3.8-6:All proposed development plans shall designate adequate Pre-Construction EMWD EMWD Issuance of and convenient space on the property to be used for collecting all Engineer or Grading Permit recyclable materials generated on the premises. other Designee and verification and sign-off by City of Temecula Truax Hotel Project 19 ESA/160579 MMRP August 2017 EXHIBIT C STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval of the Truax Hotel Development(the "Project"). CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental effects when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this Project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they generally have similar impacts, or they do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. The City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts in the areas of Noise and Vibration and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In making this finding, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the Project independently warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project. Each of the following benefits, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. A. Hotels were identified as a desirable use for Old Town during the Old Town Specific Plan visioning process (Land Use/Economic Policy 9 —Old Town Specific Plan). As a result, the Old Town Specific Plan provided for the Downtown Core/Hotel Overlay district with the intent to encourage the development of a full service hotel with conference facilities, restaurant and other guest services. The Project is a full service hotel with conference facilities, restaurant, valet parking, gym, and pool. B. The Project is anticipated to stimulate continued development growth within Old Town. Land Use/Economics Objective 5 of the Old Town Specific Plan seeks to establish Old Town as a "24 hour' destination. The overnight guests are anticipated to contribute to the overall Old Town economy during their stay by shopping in local stores and eating at local restaurants. C. Temecula Valley visitor volume has consistently increased, which has increased demand for additional hotel rooms within Temecula. The Project will help satisfy this growing demand by creating 151 new hotel rooms as part of a full-service hotel.