HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-030 CC Resolution
I
I
I
RESOLUTION NO. 04.30
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA
EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX PROJECT, THE DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND
AGK GROUP, LLC. FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
TEMECULA EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX, AND RELATED
ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, APPROVING
A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND
APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE
TEMECULA EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX TO BE DEVELOPED
ON APPROXIMATELY 31.1 ACRES OF PROPERTY
SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE INTERSECTION OF DIAZ ROAD
AND DENDY LANE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula ("City") hereby finds and
determines as follows in making findings of fact pursuant to Section 15091 of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the
Council is the lead agency for the Project as the public agency with both general governmental
powers and the principle responsibility for implementing the Project.
b. A Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft
EIR") was issued on June 12, 2004, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other
regulatory agencies. organizations and individuals pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section
15082.
c. Written statements were received by the City in response to the Notice
of Preparation, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in
the Draft EIR.
d. A Draft EIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines section 15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of Project
implementation pursuant to CEQA.
e. Upon completion of the Draft EIR dated November 10, 2003, the City
initiated a 45-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of
Planning and Research, which comment period closed on December 26, 2003.
f. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in a
newspaper of general circulation. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to public agencies,
organizations, and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR in public
libraries in Riverside County and made copies available for review at City offices.
R:/Resos 2004/Resos 04-30
I
I
I
g. During and before the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the
City received written comments, all of which were responded to by the City. Those comments
and the responses are included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to
Comments document ("Final EIR").
h. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided
its responses to all commentators and released the Final Environmental Impact Report on
February 13, 2004.
i. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines prevents the City from
approving or carrying out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any
significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following written
finding(s) for each of those significant effects 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 EIR; or,
(2)
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public Council and not the Council making the finding. Such changes
have been adopted by such other Councilor can and should be adopted by
such other Council; 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 EIR.
j. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if the
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.
k. Exhibit A to this Resolution contains the findings of the Council with
respect to the Project which establish the basis for the approval and certification of the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Project. Exhibit A, "Candidate Facts, Finding, and
Statement of Overriding Considerations Regarding the Environmental Effects From
Implementing the Temecula Educational Complex Project," is hereby incorporated herein by this
reference as though set forth in full.
I. Findings describing the Project, environmental review, and
preparation of the Draft EIR and Final EIR, are set forth in Section 1 of this Resolution and
Sections A, B, and C of Exhibit A.
m. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the Council
finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation and environmental impacts identified
in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but which the Council finds can be mitigated to a less
than significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified
in the Final EIR and Project and set forth herein are described in Section 2 of this Resoluttion
and Section D of Exhibit A.
R:/Resos 2004/Resos 04-30
I
I
I
n. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially
significant but which the Council finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level
despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in Section 3 of this
Resolution and Section E of Exhibit A.
o. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section 4 of this Resolution and Section F of Exhibit A.
p. A discussion of Project benefits identified by Council and City staff and
a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully
mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Section 5 of this Resolution and in
Sections G and H of Exhibit A.
q. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the Council 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.
r. Prior to taking action, the Council and the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Temecula held a joint public hearing concerning the proposed Project on March 16,
2004 at which time, members of the public had an additional opportunity to supplement the
administrative record by testifying before the Council and the Agency concerning the Project.
The Council and Agency have heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the
information and data in the administrative record including the Final EIR, and all oral and written
testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The Final EIR reflects the independent
judgment of the Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the
merits of the Project and related actions. No comments or any additional information submitted
to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring circulation or additional
environmental review of the Final EIR under CEQA, nor do the minor modifications to the Final
EIR require additional public review because no new significant environmental impacts were
identified, no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts would occur.
Section 2. Findings Concerning Impacts Which will have Less than Significant
Impact. The Council hereby finds and declares that based on all of the evidence presented,
including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and
submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, the
environmental impacts associated with the Project which will have a less than significant impact
through the Initial Study are listed in Section D of Exhibit A to this Resolution. The Council
hereby further finds that mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR have been incorporated
into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant environmental impacts
identified in the Project Draft EIR to a less than significant level and that such impacts are listed
in Section D of Exhibit A to this Resolution.
Section 3. Findings Concerning Impacts Which Will Which Cannot be Fully
Mitigated and Statement of Overriding Considerations Concerning These Impacts. The
Council hereby finds and declares that based on all of the evidence presented, including the
Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of
testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, that, despite the
incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR, the impacts listed in Section E of
Exhibit A cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level, and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations is therefore included as part of Section 5 of this Resolution.
R:/Resos 20O4/Resos 04-30
I
I
I
Section 4. Findings Concerning Alternatives. CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a
reasonable range of alternatives to a Project, or to the location of the Project, which: (1) offer
substantial environmental advantages over the Project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time considering the
economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. An EIR must only evaluate
reasonable alternatives to a Project which could feasibly attain most of the Project objectives,
and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In all cases, the consideration of
alternatives is to be judged against a "rule of reason." The lead agency is not required to
choose the "environmentally superior" alternative identified in an EIR if the alternative does not
provide substantial advantages over the proposed Project and (1) through the imposition of
mitigation measures the environmental effects of a Project can be reduced to an acceptable
level, or (2) there are social, economic, technological or other considerations which make the
alternative infeasible. The Council hereby finds and declares that based on all of the evidence
presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings,
and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, that it has
considered the alternatives identified in the Draft EIR as described in Section F of Exhibit A to
this Resolution in the manner required by CEQA.
Section 5. Project Benefits and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the Council must balance the benefits of the
Project against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to recommend
approval of the Project. If the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered "acceptable."
a. The Council hereby finds that the Draft EIR has identified and discussed
significant effects that will occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of the
mitigation measures discussed in the Draft EIR and Project, these effects can be mitigated to a
less than significant level except for the unavoidable significant impacts as discussed in Section
2, 3 and 4 of this Resolution.
b. The Council declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to
eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Project.
c. The Council finds that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended in the
Draft EIR and/or Project could not be incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible
because they would impose restrictions on the Project that would prohibit the realization of
specific economic, social, and other benefits that the Council finds outweigh the unmitigated.
d. The Council declares that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental
effects of the Project to the extent feasible by recommending adopting of the proposed
mitigation measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project, and
having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after
mitigation, the Council has determined that the social, economic, and environmental benefits of
the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential
adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the project benefits and overriding
considerations described in Sections G and H of Exhibit A to this Resolution.
e. The Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through
approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse
environmental impacts of the Project which cannot be mitigated. The Council further finds that
each of the Project benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified
R:/Resos 2004/Resos 04-30
4
I
I
I
in the Draft EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. Each of the benefits listed
above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the Council to override these unavoidable
environmental impacts.
f. The Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating
the Project, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with the
CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines and that the Final EIR
reflects the independent judgment of the Council.
Section 6. Certification of EIR. The Council hereby certifies the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Educational Complex based on the following
findings and conclusions:
a. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Project have
been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified,
will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section 3 of this
Resolution.
b. Other reasonable alternatives to the Project, which could feasibly achieve the
basic objectives of the Project, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project as .
discussed in Section 4 of this Resolution.
c. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived
from the development of the Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Project
or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Project as discussed in
Section 5 of this Resolution.
Section 7. Adoption of Recommendation for the Adoption of a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B. Exhibit B is attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. In the event of any
inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall
control.
Section 8. Location of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the
record of proceedings on which these Findings have been based are located at the City of
Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. The custodian for these
records is the Director of Redevelopment, John Meyer. This information is provided in
compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
Section 9. Effective Date. The Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption.
The Council Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
R:/Resos 20O4/Resos 04-30
5
I
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the Board of Directors of the
Redevelopment Council of the City of Temecula this 16th day of March, 2004.
}~~'~
Michael. N gar, Mayor
,
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify
that Resolution No. 04-30 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of March, 2004, by the following
vote:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS: Naggar, stone, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
I
R:/Resos 20O4/Resos 04-30
I
I
I
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
R:/Resos 20O4/Resos 04-30
EXHIBIT A
I
THE FINDINGS
I
I
I
I
I
CANDIDATE FACTS, FINDING, AND STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM IMPLEMENTING
THE TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX PROJECT
A.
INTRODUCTION
The City of Temecula (City), in approving the Temecula Education Complex Project (TEC or
proposed project), makes the findings described below, based on the facts summarized in this
document, and adopts the statement of overriding considerations presented at the end of the
findings. Hereafter, the following document (Final Temecula Education Complex Environmental
Impact Report, SCH #2003061117) will be referred to as the "FEIR" for the term Final Environ-
mental Impact Report. The total action that may be implemented by approval of the TEC
Project consists of all of the actions outlined in the FEIR and the application materials submitted
to the City of Temecula to date to create a facility to provide post-high school education
programs by several area colleges and universities.
Adoption and implementation of the TEC Project constitutes the "proposed project" that will be
evaluated in this FEIR. To carry out this proposal, the City of Temecula and the project
applicant, the AGK Group, LLC, compiled a Conceptual Site Plan (Figure 2-3 fo the FEIR), the
identifies the type and location of required facilities to meet the educational objective described
above. It is the total program outlined in the Conceptual Site Plan and Project Description (see
Chapter 4 of the FEIR) that constitutes the proposed project evaluated in the FEIR.
B.
PROJECT SUMMARY
PROJECT LOCATION
B.1
Locally, the project site is situated about one mile west of the 1-15 freeway and westerly of and
adjacent to Murrieta Creek near the foot of the easterly slope of the Santa Rosa Mountains.
The site is located within the northwestern portion of the City and is bounded by Diaz Road on
the east; Dendy Parkway on the south; and the proposed Cherry Street alignment and the
corporate boundary of the City of Temecula to the north.
B.2
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
To accomplish the above project objectives, the applicant has submitted a CUP application, a
Development Plan that provides a conceptual level plan of site development as well as a
Disposition and Development Agreement. Approval by the City of these applications and
entitlements constitute the au1horization to implement the Temecula Education Complex and
the facilities outlined below. If the project changes in the future as individual phases are
implemented, subsequent environmental documentation will be prepared in accordance with
Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The AGK Group in cooperation with the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency (RDA) is
proposing to construct the Temecula Education Complex (TEC) Project. The TEC Project is a
mixed use development focused on educational facilities and supporting uses to be located on
-1-
I
I
I
the 34.73-acre parcel of land owned by the RDA at the location described in the previous
section.
The TEC facilities are being proposed to consolidate college education activities within the City
of Temecula at a single location to serve the surrounding community. Classes being offered by
the University of California Riverside, California State University San Marcos and the Mount
San Jacinto Junior College District will be consolidated at the TEC.
The facilities proposed to be developed at the TEC include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Conference Center: single story structure with 23,000 square feet (sf)
West Education Tower: four or five story classroom structure with 57,600 sf
Core Tower: five-story signature tower
East Education Tower: four or five story classroom structure with 57,600 sf
Amphitheater: an outdoor grass amphitheater with stage
Day Care Facility: 16,000 sf single story day care center with play yard
Retail: 13,500 sf single-story retail center
Retail: 14,500 sf single-story retail center
Mixed Use: -40,000 sf mixed use two-story structure with -20,000 sf of retail on the
bottom floor and an estimated 15 "loft" residential units for rent or sale
Apartments (Creek Walk): 280 apartment units three to four stories in height
Research and Development (R&D) Multi-tenant: 16,000 sf single-story
professionaVoffice complex
Parking Areas: six parking areas encompassing 1,530 parking spaces, including open
parking lots, parking structures, and garages
10.
11.
12.
It is anticipated that the above facilities will be constructed in three phases, but phasing will
actually be dependent upon demand by the colleges and area demand for the facilities. Phase
1 is proposed to include the following: core tower, east education tower, day care center, retail,
retaiVioft, the Apartments and requisite support parking. Phase 2 is proposed to include:
amphitheater, conference center and retail. Phase 3 is proposed to include: the R&D Multi-
tenant and west education tower. Parking facilities will be installed based on demand by the
facilities in each phase and the need for site access and circulation. Landscape and hardscape
components are also shown on Figure 2-3 and will be installed concurrent with the facilities
constructed during each phase. All perimeter landscaping will be installed as part of Phase I.
Areas not being developed during the early phases will be maintained with a grass and/or park-
like groundcover until needed for facility construction. Individual structures are estimated to
require from 3 to 9 months to construct. Once completed several thousand students per day
will received education at the proposed project facilities.
c.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The entire administrative record, including the project applications, the FEIR, public comments
and responses, City Staff reports, and these facts, findings and statement of overriding
considerations, serve as the basis for the City of Temecula's environmental determination. The
City Council's environmental determination is that the FEIR addresses all of the potential
impacts from implementing the proposed as outlined above and defined in detail in Chapter 4 of
the FEIR. The detailed environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the future
development of TEC facilities are presented in Chapter 5 of the FEIR and in the respånses to
comments (under separate cover) which is part of the FEIR. Alternatives to the proposed
-2-
I
I
I
project are discussed in Chapter 6 of the FEIR. Evaluations of growth inducement, cumulative
impacts, and irreversible commitment of resources are provided in Chapter 7, Topical Issues, of
the FEIR. The following findings contain a summary of the facts used in making determinations
for each environmental issues addressed in the FEIR.
4.
1.
Consideration of the EIR: The CEQA environmental review process for the TEC
Project was initiated on June 12, 2003 with the release of the Notice of Preparation
(NOP) for public review and comment. The NOP comment period ended on July 12,
2003 and a total of either comment letters were received from the public. The NOP
identified four issues of focus in a Draft EIR: air quality, transportation/traffic; hazards
and hazardous materials; and cultural resources. After review of the NOP comments,
the scope of the Draft EIR was finalized and no additional issues were added to the
scope of the DEIR.
The TEC Project DEIR was released to the public for review and comment on November
10, 2003. The mandatory 45-day review period closed on December 26, 2003. A total
of six comment letters, including the State Clearinghouse comment closure letter, were
received on the DEIR.
The Final Environmental Impact Report, FEIR, dated February 13, 2004, was
transmitted to all parties, including public agencies, that commented on the DEIR to
fulfill the requirements of Section 21092.5 of the CEQA statute. The FEIR and all
supporting material has been made available to the Temecula City Council and a
summary of the FEIR and its findings presented directly to the Council for consideration
in making its decision to certify the FEIR and approve the TEC Project.
The Temecula City Council makes the following certifications pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15090. The City Council finds and
certifies that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. The City Council
certifies that all voting members have reviewed and considered the FEIR prior to
approving the TEC Project implementation. In addition, all voting City Council members
have reviewed and considered the additional information presented at or prior to the
public hearing on March 16, 2004. The City Council further finds and certifies that the
FEIR reflects the independent judgement and analysis of the City, the Council and its
Staff and the FEIR is adequate for this proposed project.
2.
Full Disclosure: The Temecula City Council finds and certifies that the FEIR
constitutes a complete, accurate, adequate and good faith effort at full disclosure under
CEQA.
3.
Location of Record Proceedings: The documents and other materials which
constitute the record of proceeding upon which this decision is based are in the custody
of the City of Temecula located at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code §21081.6(a)(2).
City of Temecula as Lead Agency Under CEQA: The City of Temecula is the "lead
agency" as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15050. In compliance with its authority
and responsibility for overseeing land use decisions and redevelopment projects within
its incorporated area, The City has prepared the Draft and Final EIRs for the TEC
-3-
I
I
I
Project, prepared these facts, findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations in
accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and the Public Resources Code, and will carry
out all other duties and responsibilities required of a lead agency under the Public
Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines.
D.
FINDINGS
Presented below are the environmental findings made by the City of Temecula after its review
of the documents referenced above; and consideration of written and oral comments on the
proposed project at a public hearing, including all other information provided during the
decision-making process. These findings provide a summary of the information contained in
the FEIR, related technical documents, and the public hearing record that have been
referenced by the Temecula City Council in making its decision to approve the TEC Project for
immediate implementation as the first step in achieving fulfillment of this several phased
education complex.
The FEIR prepared for the TEC Project addresses the consequences of implementing
construction of all three phases of the Project and operation of educational, residential,
commercial and professional office uses on this approximate 31 acre site in the northwestern
portion of the City of Temecula. This FEIR, and supporting Initial Study, evaluated 15 major
environmental issues categories for potential significant adverse impacts. The major
environmental issue categories presented in the FEIR, are: air quality; transportation/traffic,
hazards and hazardous materials; and cultural resources. The issues found in the Initial Study
to have no potential for significant adverse impact included: land use and planning; population
and housing; geology and soils; hydrology and water quality; biological resources; mineral
resources; noise; public services; utilities and service systems; aesthetics; and recreation.
When all impact categories are included, the FEIR reached a total of 30 findings on
environmental issues. Short and long-term impacts and project-specific and cumulative
impacts were evaluated for implementation of the proposed project. Some of the issue
categories contained several subissues which are summarized below. Of these 15 major
environmental categories, the City Council concurs with the findings in the FEIR, that the issues
and subissues discussed below are either not significant without mitigation or they can be
mitigated below a significant impact threshold. Further, for those issues which cannot be
mitigated below a level of significance, the City finds that overriding considerations exist which
make those impacts acceptable.
Those environmental issue categories identified in the FEIR and Initial Study as having no
potential for significant adverse impact, with or without mitigation, are described below in
Section E. The discussion in Section E summarizes the facts and findings contained in the
FEIR and Initial Study for the nonsignificant issues, including those for which mitigation has
been identified to reduce impacts below a significant level.
Unavoidable (unmitigable) significant adverse impacts of the project are described in Section F
of this document. This is followed by an analysis and comparison of the alternatives to the
proposed project which are described in Section G of this document. Project benefits are
described in Section H. The balancing of benefits and impacts and the statement of overriding
considerations for this project are described and evaluated in Section I of this document.
-4-
I
I
I
Several additional mitigation measures were identified for modification and implementation in
the Responses to Comments of the FEIR. These changes were made in response to
comments received regarding cultural resources. The changes have been incorporated into the
FEIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). All of these changes in
mitigation measures remain within the scope of the performance standards outlined in the
DEIR, as indicated in the responses to comments to Comment Letter #6. Mitigation measures
referenced in this document are also contained in the MMRP which is attached to the FEIR.
The mitigation measures that were incorporated in the MMRP identify mitigation measures
which are the responsibility of City of Temecula. Monitoring of certain cultural resource
measures will be shared with the Pechanga Bands of LuiseC'o Indians (hereinafter, .Pechanga
Tribe"). The monitoring program ensures that the measures identified in the FEIR are
implemented in accordance with mitigation discussions in the FEIR.
E.
NONSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FEIR
The following issues were identified in the FEIR as having no potential to cause significant
impact or were capable of having impacts reduced below a significant level by implementing the
identified mitigation measures. Many of these issues were determined to fall below a level of
significant impact in the Initial Study prepared for this project. The Initial Study is incorporated
as part of the FEIR as Subchapter 9.1. In the following presentation, each resource issue is
identified; it is followed by a summary description of the potential significant adverse
environmental effect and a short discussion of the findings and facts in the administrative
record, as defined above.
The Temecula City Council hereby finds that all mitigation measures identified in the FEIR will
be implemented to mitigate certain impacts of this project and will be incorporated into or will be
required of the project to avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant environmental
impacts to a less than significant level of impact. Public Resources Code Section 21081 states
that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact
report has been completed which identifies one or more significant effects, unless the public
agency makes one, or more, of the following findings:
a.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the
completed environmental impact report;
b.
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should
be adopted by such other agency; and/or
c.
Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
The City Council hereby finds, pursuant to Public Resources Section 21081, that the following
issues are nonsignificant adverse impacts because they have no potential to cause a significant
adverse impact or because mitigation measures will be implemented, as outlined below, to
reduce a potential significant impact to a less than significant level of impact. The City Council
further finds that no additional mitigation measures or project changes are required to reduce
-5-
I
I
I
the potential impacts discussed in this section to a less than significant level of impact. These
issues and the measures adopted to mitigate them to a level of insignificance are as follows.
Issues Determined to be Nonsianificant in the Initial Studv
1.
Land Use
a.
Physically divide an established community:
Facts:
The project site is located in the northwest corner of the City of Temecula
surrounded by graded pads, Murrieta Creek floodplain, the Rancho California
wastewater treatment plans (WWTP) and light industrial development (to the
south). The project area is designated for Public Institutional uses.
The development of this site would result in an isolated education facility/campus in
an industrial area and would not divide an established community.
Findina:
b.
Conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies or regulations:
Facts:
The Temecula Education Complex represents the type of use envisioned for the
Public Institutional (PI) land use designation. Specifically, this facility will contain
college education classrooms, cultural facilities (amphitheater) and support
facilities, such as libraries. The only other permit required for the project site is the
mandated construction stormwater NPDES permit which is filed with the State
Water Resources Control Board. Mitigation is provided to control stormwater
pollution during both construction and occupancy to an acceptable, (consistent with
Regional Board discharge requirement) nonsignificant level of impact. In addition,
the developer will be required to modify the FEMA FIRM map by removing the
project site from the 100-year flood hazard zone.
Findina:
Therefore, no potential for significant conflict with any environmental plan or
regulation is forecast to occur if the proposed project is implemented on the project
site with mitigation identified in the geology and hydrology sections of this
document.
c.
Conflicts with applicable habitat conservation plans:
Facts:
The project site consists of undeveloped property that is bounded by a mix of light
industrial, graded development pad, floodplain and open space uses. Only one
habitat conservation plan encompasses the project site, and it is the adopted
mitigation plan for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (SKR). The project developer is
required to pay the requisite $500 per acre fee for developing the 31.1 acre site
($15,500) as further discussed in the biology section of this document.
Findina:
With payment of the mandatory fee for the SKR habitat conservation plan, no
significant conflict with the one applicable habitat conservation plan can occur.
2.
Population and Housing
-6-
I
I
I
a.
Facts:
Findina:
b.
Facts:
Findina:
c.
Facts:
Findina:
3.
Induce substantIal populatIon growth In the ares:
The City General Plan designated this approximate 31-acre site for Public and
Institutional Facility uses. The site is already served by all utilities and services and
road access, so no indirect growth inducement is forecast to result from
implementing this proposed project. As proposed, the Temecula Education
Complex is designed to meet the existing demand for college level education from
several institutions of higher learning and would include classroom and educational
support facilities, retail commercial, office/professional and multi-family residential
uses. These uses will be developed and operated in direct support of the
educational complex.
The same reasoning applies to the proposed 295 residential units (apartment and
loft units). These units will be mostly associated with operation of the educational
facilities. The proposed 295 units constitute 0.5% of the maximum number of total
units and 1.6% of the maximum number of multi-family units in the City of
Temecula. The addition of up to 295 additional multi-family units within the City of
Temecula falls well within the range of the 27,353-51,555 total residential units and
of the 11,579-18,764 multi-family residential units forecast in the City's General
Plan on Table 2-2. The range of multi-family units listed above reflects the range of
densities (7-20 dwelling units per acre) permitted within the multi-family residential
land use designations within the City.
The addition of 295 residential units represents such a small increment of units that
the impact is not considered significantly growth inducing. Further, at an occupancy
rate of 2.83 persons per unit, the total population that may occupy this project at full
occupancy (295 x 2.83 = 834.8) is about 835 persons. This value is consistent with
the statistical range of population forecast on Table 4-2A of the General Plan, which
at full build-out of the City is forecast to range from 78,671 to 145,650 persons.
Thus, the project will not induce population growth that exceeds the range
envisioned in the General Plan. As a result, no significant population or housing
impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
Displace a substantial number of existing houses:
The project site is presently unoccupied by any housing.
The proposed project has no potential to displace any existing housing.
Displace substantial numbers of people:
The project site is presently unoccupied by people.
The proposed project has no potential to displace any existing population.
Geology and Solis
a.l) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from fault
rupture:
-7-
I
I
I
Facts:
The project site is located in a portion of the Elsinore Trough, which is itself located
within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. This trough is a sedimentary
basin that is located between the active Wildomar fault and the older Willard fault.
A detailed description of the City's geology and soils is contained in Chapter 4.1 of
the City's General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GPEIR).
According to the GPEIR, the City of Temecula is in Groundshaking Zone II which
will experience moderate to intense groundshaking in the event of a major regional
earthquake. The project site is located 2,400 feet southwest of the Wildomar Fault
(outside of its Alquist-Priolo zone) and about 2,200 feet northeast of the Willard
fault. The Murrieta Creek fault (shown as the Willard Fault Zone on Figure 7-1 of
the General Plan) is considered active and it is within an Alquist-Priolo zone. The
zone occupies the western-most portion of the project site, as shown on Figure 7-1
of the City's General Plan. Geology Mitigation Measure No.5 is identified in
Section 4.1.3 of the GPEIR and it is deemed adequate to reduce most potential
groundshaking impacts to a level of nonsignificance. This measure is mandated for
implementation as part of the City's General Plan and requires adequate setbacks
from any active fault trace.
Findina:
Based on the conditional mitigation required in the General Plan, the proposed
project will not expose people or structures to fault rupture hazards.
a.iI) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from ground
shaking:
Facts:
According to the GPEIR, the City of Temecula is in Groundshaking Zone II which
will experience moderate to intense groundshaking in the event of a major regional
earthquake. Geology Mitigation Measure No.5 is identified in Section 4.1.3 of the
GPEIR and it is deemed adequate to reduce most potential groundshaking impacts
to a level of nonsignificance. Because this site will be used for public gatherings,
additional mitigation measures are proposed to ensure that the proposed project will
not expose people or structures to significant ground shaking hazards that could
include the loss, injury or death of people.
The following mitigation measure shall be implemented to control the onsite ground
shaking hazards to a level of nonsignificant impact:
3.a-1 A comprahenslve geotechnical Investigation shall ba raqulred prior to engllHHlring and
design development of structuras Identified under Risk Class I & II, e.g., pUblic
facilities and rasldenœs, as Idantlfled balow:
Risk Clsss I & II, Structuras Critically Needed aftør Dlsastør. Structuras that arB critically
needed aftør a dlssstør Include Important utility centørs, firs støtlons, police
stations, emergency communication facilities, hospItals, and critical
transportation elementa such as bridges and overpasses and smaller dams.
Acceptable Damage: Minor non..tructural; facilIty should remaIn operational
and safe, or ba suItable for quIck restoration of service.
Resist minor IIBrthquakes without damage;
Resist modsratø earthquakes without structural damage, but with some non-
structural damage; or
s.
b.
-8-
I
I
I
c.
Resist maJor IUIrthquakes, of the Intensity or Sflverlty of the strongest exper-
Ienced In California, without collapse, but with some structul'lll. as _II
as non-structuI'II1 damage.
Findina: Because this site will be used for public gatherings, additional mitigation measures will
be implemented to ensure that the proposed project will not expose people or structures to
significant ground shaking hazards that could include the loss, injury or death of people.
a./II) Expose paople or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from seismic
related ground failure, Including liquefaction:
Facts:
Findina:
A review of the City's Subsidence/Liquefaction Hazards in the General Plan (Figure
7-2) indicates that the project site is located within a zone of potential subsidence or
liquefaction. The proposed project has a very high probability of being exposed to
liquefaction hazards. Mitigation 3a will ensure that adequate foundation support will
be provided to protect structures from liquefaction hazards that may affect the
project site.
Because this site will be used for public gatherings, additional mitigation measures
will be implemented to ensure that the proposed project will not expose people or
structures to significant liquefaction hazards that could include the loss, injury or
death of people.
a.lv) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from landslide
hazards:
Facts:
Findina:
b.
Facts:
Because the majority of the project site is located on the relatively flat (less than 2%
slope) valley floor, no landslides were observed on the property proposed for devel-
opment.
The lack of observed landslides in the western portion of the project site and the low
vertical relief of the site would indicate a low potential for being exposed to
significant landslide hazards on this project site.
Result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil:
Development of the project site will increase the site's exposure to potentially signi-
ficant erosion hazards and downstream sedimentation. Specific requirements have
been established under the state-wide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permitting program that requires every construction project larger
than one acre to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
during construction and during long-term occupancy. Best Management Practices
(BMPs) are identified in the SWPPP to control erosion on a site and any
sedimentation generated by disturbing the site for development. Structural
measures include managing runoff through detention basins, filtering stormwater to
remove certain pollutants, use of drainage management material, such as fiber
mats or straw bales, and isolating flows from sources of pollution. The following
mitigation measures shall be implemented for construction and occupancy erosion
control.
-9-
I
I
I
developer shall file a Notice of Intent to obtaIn coveraga under the State
constructIon program purauant to NPDES, prepare a SWPPP for the BIte, and
Imptement BMPa Identified In the Santa Margarita Watershed Dralnllfle Area
Management Plan (DAMP). The performance standard that ahall be met la to
mInImize erosIon on the BIte and re/aa.. no more than 'O" auspendfld
aedllllflnt from the projact BIte when compared to pre..nt condItIons. In
addItion, during constructIon urban pollutanta, grea.., oil, etc. shall be
reduced by 80" of concentrations In stormwater dIscharges from the sIte
without BMPs. The ..me stendard shall be uNd for permanent stormwater
dIscharges from the pro/act alte during occupancy.
3.b-2 Developer shall submit a gredlng and erosIon control plan to the Depattment of Public
Works for approval. ThIs plan shall Incorporate the meaaurea Included In the
SWPPP thet Is desIgned to achIeve the performance standard outlined In
measure 3.b.1 above.
3.b-1 The
Over the long-term, landscape and hardscape features can control generation of
degraded stormwater. Aside from requiring additional time, energy and material to
install and maintain such stormwater pollution management features/equipment, the
implementation of BMPs for this project are not forecast to cause significant
adverse impacts on their own.
c.
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that Is unstable, or that would become
unstable:
Facts:
As noted under issue 3.a, the project site has a potential for significant instability
related to subsidence and liquefaction.
Findinas: Mitigation has been identified above to address this issue. With implementation of
the mitigation outlined above the potential for instability is reduced to a less than
significant level.
d.
Be located on expansive soli, as defined In Table 1801-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property:
Facts:
Based on a review of the 'Western Riverside Area California Soil Survey", the site is
underlain by the Monserate-Arlington-Exeter Soil Association, consisting primarily of
Chino silt loam and Grangeville fine sandy loam soils, which have a minimal
potential to be expansive or create hazards related to expansive soils.
Findinas: The soil occurring at this location is not expansive as defined in Table 1801-B of the
Uniform Building Code, so no adverse impact due to expansive soils can occur.
e.
Have soil Incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems:
Facts:
The project site will be served by a sewer collection system.
Findinas: There is no potential for the site to have adverse impacts related to use of
subsurface wastewater disposal systems.
4.
Hydrology and Water Quality
-10-
I
I
I
a.
VIolate any water qualIty standards or waste dIscharge requIrements:
Facts:
The proposed project consists of a mixture of classrooms, retail commercial
facilities, professional office facilities, residential facilities and supporting
landscaped and hardscaped exterior areas, including parking structures. The uses
proposed for this site do not generate wastewater, other than domestic, which
would require treatment or waste discharge requirements. Stormwater runoff from
the site must be controlled as outlined under mitigation measure 3b. Domestic
wastewater will be delivered to the regional treatment plant for treatment under
waste discharge requirements established by the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board. As noted above, during construction and occupancy,
implementation of BMPs as outlined in Supplement A of the Santa Margarita
Watershed DAMP will be implemented which will control non-point sources of
stormwater pollution to a level of nonsignificance. See mitigation measure 3b.
Findinas: With implementation of the referenced measures, no water quality standards are
forecast to be violated by implementing the proposed project.
b.
SubstantIally deplete groundwater supplies or create a net deficit In the aquIfer:
Facts:
The project site is located on the valley floor outside of the normal Murrieta Creek
floodplain. The eastern portion of the site is located within the 100-year flood
boundary, but outside of the floodway as defined on Figure 7-3 of the General Plan.
On rare occasions the site may have served as a recharge area, but recent use of
the site has caused substantial compaction of the property soils, which would
minimize the site's value as a current recharge location. The proposed project does
not include any extraction of groundwater, so no adverse direct impact can result
from implementing the proposed project. The GPEIR addresses water demand
from development in the City of Temecula, including the proposed project site for
Public and Institutional Facility uses.
Findina:
Therefore, the project has no potential to adversely interfere with groundwater
recharge. The GPEIR concludes that cumulative water demand within the City can
be met by the City's two purveyors (Rancho California Water District and Eastern
Municipal Water District) without having a significant adverse impact on the environ-
ment, including depletion of the area's groundwater supplies. This conclusion is
further verified by the adopted Rancho California Water District Urban Water
Master Plan. Therefore, the proposed project will not contribute to a significant
cumulative, indirect adverse impact on the area groundwater aquifers.
c.
SubstantIally alter the exIsting draInage pattern of the site or ares that could cause
erosion or siltation on. or off-site:
Facts:
The project site presently drains to the adjacent roadways south and east of the
project site (Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway). From there, surface runoff is
collected in the local storm drainage system and delivered to Murrieta Creek, which
is located across (east) Diaz Road from the project site (see Figures 2 and 3),
which is the regional flood control system for the western portion of the Temecula
-11-
I
I
I'
Findina:
d.
Facts:
Findina:
6.
Facts:
Findina:
f.
Facts:
Valley. The regional drainage system includes Murrieta Creek and ultimately the
Santa Margarita River. The existing drainage pattern will be retained after project
development. However, the property elevation will be raised by about two feet
adjacent to Diaz Road to a level one-foot above the 100-year flood hazard elevation
to protect the site from the 1 OO-year flood.
The proposed project will not change the existing drainage pattern of the project
site, nor will it affect drainage to or from adjacent properties. Erosion and siltation
issues are addressed in previous discussions, and erosion and siltation will be
controlled by mitigation measure 3b.
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area that could cause
flooding on. or off-site:
As previously described, the project will not alter the existing site or area drainage
system. It will increase runoff as a result of increasing the impervious surface on
the project site. However, the City imposes standard mitigation to detain
incremental surface runoff on the property to ensure that the stormwater runoff
volume from the developed site is not increased from development.
With implementation of the City's mandatory mitigation measure (detention of
stormwater flows in excess of existing site runoff), no adverse impacts due to
increased discharge of stormwater from the site are forecast to affect downstream
properties.
Create or contribute runoff water which could exceed the capacity of existing or
planned drainage systems or generate substantial addition polluted runoff:
As previously described, the project will not alter the existing site or area drainage
system. It will increase runoff as a result of increasing the impervious surface on
the project site. However, the City imposes standard mitigation to detain
incremental surface runoff on the property to ensure that the stormwater runoff
volume from the developed site is not increased from development.
With implementation of the City's mandatory mitigation measure (detention of
stormwater flows in excess of existing site runoff), no adverse impacts due to
increased discharge of stormwater from the site are forecast to affect downstream
properties. Implementation of mitigation measure 3b will control the potential for
the project site and activities to generate substantial pollution that could degrade
water quality.
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality:
The uses proposed for this site do not generate wastewater, other than domestic,
which would require treatment or waste discharge requirements. Stormwater runoff
from the site must be controlled as outlined under mitigation measure 3b. Domestic
wastewater will be delivered to the regional treatment plant for treatment under
waste discharge requirements established by the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board. As noted above, during construction and occupancy,
-12-
I
I
I
implementation of BMPs as outlined in Supplement A of the Santa Margarita
Watershed DAMP will be implemented which will control non-point sources of
stormwater pollution to a level of nonsignificance. See mitigation measure 3b.
Findinas: With implementation of the referenced measures, no substantial degradation of
water quality is forecast to occur by implementing the proposed project.
g.
Place housIng withIn a 100-year flood hazard area:
Facts:
The project site is located on the valley floor, and the eastern portion of the site is
located in the vicinity of the identified 100-year flood hazard area for Murrieta
Creek. The potential for exposure to significant flood hazards will require mitigation
to prevent residents and structures from being exposed to significant flood hazards.
4.g-1 That port/on of the BIte within the 100-year «ood hazard area shall iHI elevated by
approximately two fHt, or at least one foot above the 10tJ-fIood elavatlon on
the property. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FIRM map
shall iHI ravlHd to reflect the removal of the project alte from the hazard mapa
after the alte elevation la modl«ed by project grading.
Findina:
With the change in the project required by this mitigation measures, the proposed
project will not result in placing housing or structures within the 100-year flood
hazard area.
h.
Place structures within the 100-year flood hazard area that would Impede or
redirect flood flows:
Facts:
The project site is located on the valley floor and the elevation of the project site
places it far enough above the 1 OO-year flood hazard area to eliminate a potential to
impede or redirect flood flows..
Findinas: The project does not have any significant potential to impede or redirect flood flows.
The Murrieta Creek channel will continue to carry the 100-year flood flows from the
project site and upstream area without significant impact downstream. Also, see
preceding discussion.
i.
Expose people or structures to significant risk from flooding related to failure of a
dam or levee:
Facts:
The eastern portion of the project site is shown on Figure 7-4 of the Temecula
General Plan to be within an area exposed to inundation from a dam failure at Lake
Skinner, which is located in the upper portion of the Santa Gertrudis Creek, a
tributary of Murrieta Creek. The project site is also exposed to the dam inundation
area from failure of the Diamond Valley Lake dams, which would flow down Warm
Springs Creek to Murrieta Creek and the project site.
Findina:
The potential for this hazard to affect the site is considered low enough that the City
does not require setbacks from the shallow flows that would reach this site from the
dams which are more than ten miles from the project site. The City has
implemented a multi-hazard functional plan pursuant to the California Emergency
-13-
I
I
I
Services Act. The proposed project does not contain any critical or essential
facilities; therefore, no mitigation is required for this site.
J.
Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow:
Facts:
There are no nearby water bodies that could cause inundation due to seiche,
tsunami or mudflows. Please refer to the discussion in 4.1 above which addresses
the potential for surface water damage due to potential dam inundation.
Findina:
No impact is forecast and no mitigation is required.
5.
AIr Quality
a.
Conflict with or obstruct Implementation of the applicable air quality plan:
Facts:
The proposed project incorporates 280 new residential units which has been
evaluated (See Section 2, Population and Housing) as being consistent with City's
General Plan which has been integrated into SCAG's Regional Comprehensive
Plan and Guide (RCPG) and the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
The analysis in the population section of this document indicates that the total
number of residential units permitted within the City will not be increased in the
aggregate due to development at lower than maximum densities within the City.
Findinas: Development of the project site will not conflict with any applicable air quality plan,
such as the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan and the most recent Regional
Comprehensive Plan and Guide.
e.
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people:
Facts:
None of the activities at the project site have a potential to generate significant
odors or create substantial odor concentrations that could harm sensitive receptors.
The project site is located near two wastewater treatment plants which can
generate odors during upset events. The Rancho California WWTP is located
immediately north of the project site and the Eastern Municipal WWTP is located
about 1/4 mile to the south of the project site.
Findinas: Since negative odor generation is a random event and not continuous, no
significant adverse odor impacts are forecast to impact the future uses on the
project site.
6.
Transportation (Traffic
c.
Change air traffic patterns such that a substantial safety risk Is created:
Facts:
The project site is not located near any airport.
Findinas: Therefore, the proposed project has no potential to adversely impact any air traffic
patterns.
-14-
I
I
I
d.
Substantially Increase hazards due to project design features or Incompatible
uses:
Facts:
Based on a review of the proposed project circulation system improvements
described in the project description, no roadway hazards will be created by
implementing the proposed project.
Findinas: Therefore, the proposed project cannot substantially increase traffic hazards.
e.
Result In Inadequate emergency access:
Facts:
Emergency access to the project site will be facilitated with the proposed extension
of the Diaz Road paved road section to the City of Temecula/Murrieta boundary and
the construction of the two adjacent roadways, Cherry and Dendy.
Findinas: Since the roadways will be installed prior to occupying the project facilities, no
potential exists to adversely impact emergency access to the project area.
f.
Result In Inadequate parking capacity:
Facts:
Adequate onsite parking will be provided through a combination of parking
structure(s) and parking lots, as required. A total of approximately 1,530 parking
spaces and garages will be provided to meet the City's Development Code parking
requirements.
Findinas: Therefore, the proposed project will not result in inadequate perking capacity.
g.
Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative
transportation:
Facts:
The project will be conditioned to provide alternative transportation facilities, bike
and mass transit facilities, consistent with the road improvements serving the
project site. Also, please refer to the discussion in Chapter 2 which responds to the
RTA comment letter on the Notice of Preparation.
Findinas: No conflict or adverse impact to adopted alternative transportation policies, plans or
programs is forecast to occur from implementing the proposed project.
7.
Biological Resources
a.
Have a substantial direct and Indirect adverse effect on any sensitive species
Identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Fish and Game:
~
The general biological survey conducted by Tom Dodson & Associates indicates
that the project site is a completely unvegetated, heavily disturbed parcel of land. A
single, large eucalyptus tree is located on the parcel according to the report
accompanying site photographs.
-15-
I
I
I
Findinas:
No suitable habitat for any state or federally listed Threatened or Endangered
species was found on the project site. No threatened or endangered species,
including no Quino checkerspot butterflies (QCB), no Stephen's kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys stephens/) and no California gnatcatchers (CAGN) were identified on
the property. The project site is located within the Riverside County HCP for the
Stephen's kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephens/) and the project will be required to
contribute $500 per acre to the HCP fund to address general impacts from
urbanization in southwestern Riverside County. No significant biological resource
impacts are forecast to occur.
b-c. Significantly effect Identified riparian or other sensitive natural plant communities
or adversely effect federaiiy protected wetlands:
Facts:
According to the jurisdictional delineation conducted by Tom Dodson & Associates,
no riparian or wetland resources occur on the project site.
Findinas: Therefore, development of the proposed project can not adversely impact such
resources.
d.
Substantially Interfere with movement of fish or wildlife species, a migratory
wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site:
Facts:
The project site is generally located north of industrial warehousing development,
south of the wastewater treatment plant, west of Murrieta Creek and east of the
Santa Rosa Plateau. Immediate surrounding land uses are disturbed, annual
grasslands to the east, west and north and industrial development to the south.
The site has extremely limited habitat value as it is currently heavily impacted by off-
road vehicle and rodeo recreational uses.
Findinas: As such, this site's development has very low potential to adversely impact wildlife
movement.
e. Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources:
Facts:
There is a single eucalyptus tree with a diameter at breast height greater than six
inches on the site. Since this tree is a non-native and not locally significant, the
developer is not required to obtain such a permit and no mitigation is required.
Findinas
f.
The only local policy or ordinance that might apply to biological resources on this
site is the local tree ordinance, and because the only tree is non-native, the
ordinance does not apply.
Conflict with provisions of an adopted conservation plan:
Facts:
The project would comply with the SKR Habitat Conservation Plan by paying
mitigation fees. At the writing of this initial study, the Riverside County
Transportation and Lend Management Agency (TLMA) has completed a Draft
Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The
draft plan shows a proposed constrained wildlife linkage adjacent to the subject
project site along Murrieta Creek. The plan identifies proposed constrained
-16-
I
I
I
linkages as a constricted linkage where options are limited because of existing
patterns of land use. Murrieta Creek is not depicted on the map of the linkages, but
its location and potential to serve as a linkage are consistent with identifying the
Creek area as a linkage. The City of Temecula is in the process of developing a
trail system along the Murrieta Creek in conjunction with the City of Murrieta that
further supports establishing the creek easement as a linkage.
Findinos: Development of the proposed project does not conflict with the provisions of any
habitat conservation plan. The project as proposed would also not conflict with the
establishment of a habitat linkage along Murrieta Creek.
8.
Mineral Resources
a.
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource:
Facts:
There are no mineral resource designations nor any known mineral resources on
this project site. The General Plan, page 5-20, indicates that the area within the
City's boundaries, including the project site, have been assigned a zoning
classification of MRZ-3 by the State Geologist ("Mineral Land Classification of the
Temescal Valley Area, Riverside County, California, Special Report 165"). The
MRZ-3 classification is a designation indicating that sedimentary deposits occur in
the area but these areas do not contain sand and gravel deposits of significant
economic value based on the available data.
Findinos: Based on the available data, no mineral resources occur on the project site and the
project will not affect the availability of any known mineral resource.
b.
Result in the loss of availability of a locally Important mineral resources recovery
site:
Facts:
Development of the site has no potential to lose access to known and available
mineral resources since none are known to occur on the project site, nor is access
required across the site to such resources.
Findinos: Based on the available data, no mineral resources of local importance occur on the
project site and the project will not affect the. availability of any known local mineral
resources.
9.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a.
Create significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine
transportation, use, or disposai of hazardous materials:
Facts:
The proposed project will consist of education, retail, office and residential uses that
do not involve any potential for routine transport or use of hazardous materials or
routine generation of hazardous wastes.
Findinos: Therefore, the proposed project cannot create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through its implementation.
-17-
I
I
I
b.
Create a significant hszsrd to the public or environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions through release of hszsrdous materials
to the environment:
Facts:
Adjacent industrial uses include light industrial warehouses and the Rancho
California WWTP. and based on the type of uses on adjacent properties, little or no
potential exists for accidental releases to the environment. The project will result in
a less than significant impact due to risk of explosion, or the release of any
hazardous substances in the event of accident or upset conditions on the project
site. Further, during construction a potential exists to either discover contaminated
soil or to accidentally release contaminated soil. Specific, mitigation measures have
been identified to address these random accidental exposures or releases.
5.4-1 The developer shall retain en on-csll Industrlel hygiene firm that will respond
Immed/ataly to any discovery of soli contamlnaUon during gredlng to
determine the nature of the contamlnaUon. Before proceeding with sits
development, any discovered contamlnaUon shall be treated or removed from
the area with residual soil concentrations being reduced to the regulatory
thresholds In place at the Ume of construcUon. The contamlrllltMI mJltarial
shall be managed In a mannar that dON not expotltl employ..s or other
humJIns to significant health hllZJ//rds and shall be either lr8atMI or removed
from the site so that It no longer poses any hllZJ//rd.
5.4-2 If an accldBntal spill OCCUI'8 during construcUon, the developer shall halt construcUon In
the area of contamlnsUon; limit the area of contemlnaUon to tha mJlxlmum
extent feasible; collect all contaminated soil at the site to either beckground
levels of contemlnaUon or to the appropriate regulatory standJIrd of allowed
contemlnatlon; Ir8nsport the material to a licensed treatment or disposal
fecillty.
Findinas:
Since no significant quantities of hazardous materials will be used or hazardous
wastes generated on the site, no potential exists for significant impacts to the
environment from upset or accidental release conditions from long-term onsite
operations. During construction the implementation of the mitigation measures
outlined above will be sufficient to ensure that hazards from discovery or release of
contaminants can prevent exposure of the environment or people to significant
health risk.
c.
Emit hszsrdous emission or handle hazardous materials or substances within 1/4
mile of a proposed school:
Facts:
The proposed project will result in the location of a health risk sensitive use in an
area that stores and uses chemicals which can create a health risk hazard under
accidental release conditions. The potential for a significant accidental release to
the environment is considered low because the facilities have been designed and
are managed to minimize such releases and potential fire hazards. However, the
risk of exposure is an unavoidable adverse impact that must be mitigated by
measure 5.4-3 (above) to ensure that evacuation from the site can proceed quickly
enough to be protective of human health. This measure reads:
-18-
I
I
I
5.4.;l Prior to occupancy /he developer 8hall 8ubmlt 8n ev8cuetlon plen for the rem«:ule
EduClltlon Complex (TEC) to /he CIty FIre Department for review end epprove/.
Th/8 e""cuetlon pIon 8halllnclude provIsIons for relocstlng the occupante of
/he o/re to e ute 10000tion at an epproprlete dl8tence from en eccldentlll
rele8... The perfortnllnce 8tendard to be echleved by /he TEC ewcuetlon pion
will be to Include 0 response time for Inltltltlng relocstlon withIn two mlnuteo
followIng notice to /he occupante to evecuste end e meen8 of Infonnlng the
occupante (8uch es en Blann oystem). Ona/te managa,. ahell be available to
dIrect occupants away from the accldentsl release In accordance with the
avacuatlon plan.
Findinas: With implementation of the mitigation measure 5.4-3, the potential exposure to
hazards will be reduced to a less than significant level of impact.
d.
Located on a site which Is Included on a list of hazardous materials sites, and
would create a significant hazard to the public or envIronment:
Facts:
The project site is not identified as a contaminated site under Government Code
Section 65962.5.
Findinas: With no contaminated site, the proposed project can not create a significant hazard
to the public or environment.
e.
For a project located within an airport land use plan would the project result In a
safety hazard for people residing or workIng In the project area:
Facts:
Findina:
The project site is not near any airport or private air strip.
Therefore, it has no potential to adversely impact airport operations or be impacted
by such operations.
f.
For a project located near a private airstrip within an airport land use plan would
the project result In a sefety hazard for people resIding or workIng In the project
area:
Facts:
The project site is not near any airport or private air strip.
Findinas: Therefore, it has no potential to adversely impact airstrip operations or be impacted
by such operations.
g.
Impair Implementation of or physIcally Interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan:
Facts:
The site is located at the end of an existing road at the City's northern boundary.
New roads will provide adequate emergency access to the site and no specific City
emergency response plan or evacuation plan affects the project area.
Findinas: The project site has no potential to modify or adversely affect an adopted
emergency response plan or evacuation plan.
-19-
I
I
I
h.
Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, from wildland fire
hBZBrds:
Facts:
The project site does not contain any wildland fire hazard onsite based on a lack of
any vegetation to create a fuel load. In addition, due to the surrounding urban
development this fire hazard is not considered significant.
Findinas: Based on the lack of fuel load, the project will not expose people or structures to
significant wildland fire hazards.
10.
Noise
a.
Expose people to severe noise levels In excess of standards:
Facts:
A 65 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) has been adopted as the
maximum exterior noise level acceptable for type of uses in the project area.
Background noise levels in this area are expected to be below the 55 dBA CNEL
level because little or no traffic occurs in the project area and no stationary sources
of noise presently occur in the immediate project area.
In the short-term, construction activities will be the only source of noise at the
project site. Routine construction activities are loud, rising to 90 dBA over short
periods, but by implementing standard mitigation during construction (outlined
below), construction noise impacts can be controlled so they do not present a
significant or severe noise impact. If piles must be installed as part of foundations
for the taller structures proposed on the project site, then severe noise will be
generated that could adversely impact construction employees and nearby
industrial uses. Mitigation for this severe noise shall include the following:
10.a-1 All severe noise generation (noise sources above 90 dBA) ahall be restricted to daylight
hours between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m when Urere are occupied dwelling units wlUrln
1/4 mile of site construction.
10.a-2 All occupied properties within 800 feet of the project site (Uris represents Ure point
where 30 dBA of noise attenuation will occur) shall be notified of Ure severe
noise generating activity (such as pile driving) and e noise complalntlresponse
program established. If complaints are received, noise bafflers shall be
Installed between Ure noise source and the receptor to reduce noise to an
level.
10.a-3 If pile driving or comparable nolselvlbration activities will occur during construction,
businesses within 1/4 mile will be notified of Uris activity prior to Inltisting such
construction activity.
Once the project site is occupied, the activities will include new traffic, educational
activities, an outdoor amphitheater, residential, retail and office uses. None of
these activities, except possibly the use of the outdoor amphitheater for concerts,
consists of activities that could generate severe noise levels that would impact
existing or future residential uses. In the event that outdoor concerts are held at the
amphitheater, the noise levels shall be controlled and mitigated in the following
manner.
-20-
I
I
I
10.a-4 No/aa lava/a during concerta ahall be controllad such that lira /JØ/III/at 88IIa/tlve no/aa
receptor fa not expoaad to continuous no/aa levels of 65 dBA during a concert
and translant no/aa levels at !he receptor shall not exCiHld 80 dBA, which with
an assumad 20 dB altønuatlon In a al1VctulI/ will not exCiHld the 60 dBA
exterior thl88hold eslabllahød by the CIty for aan8ltlve uaas.
Findinas: With implementation of the above measures, the potential for exposing sensitive
uses, such as future residential uses on the campus, to severe noise levels will be
controlled to a less than significant level of impact.
b.
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels:
Facts:
If pile driving activities are required to support structures, a potential exists to
expose employees of adjacent businesses to excessive ground borne vibration
and/or ground borne noise levels. Pile driving activities do not cause significant
groundborne vibration or noise levels, but mitigation is required to prevent such
vibration or noise from causing harm to persons. The following measure will be
implemented:
10.a-3 If pile driving or comparable nolselvlbratlon actIvities will occur during construction,
bua/n8888a within 1/4 mila will be notlf/ad of this activity prior to Inll/atlng such
consl1Vcl/on acl/vlty.
Findinas: With implementation of the above measure the potential for exposing people to
significant groundborne vibration or noise will be controlled to a less than significant
level of impact.
c.
Substantial permanent Increase In ambient noise levels In the project vicinity
above ambient levels:
Facts:
Once the project site is occupied, the activities will include new traffic, educational
activities, an outdoor amphitheater, residential, retail and office uses. None of
these activities, except possibly the use of the outdoor amphitheater for concerts,
consists of activities that could generate severe noise levels that would impact
existing or future residential uses. In the event that outdoor concerts are held at the
amphitheater, the noise levels shall be controlled and mitigated in the following
manner.
10.a-4 Noise levels during concerta shall be controllad such lIrat lire neall/st aaMll/ve no/aa
II/ceptor la not exposed to conl/nuoua no/aa levels of 65 dBA during. concert
and traM/ent no/aa levels at !he receptor shall not exCiHld 80 dBA, which wllIr
an assumad 20 dB altønual/on In a sl1Vctull/ will not exCiHld the 60 dBA
exterior thll/shold eslabllshed by the City for sensll/ve uaas.
Findinas: With implementation of the above measure the potential for permanent significant
noise effects from project implementation can be controlled to a less than significant
level.
d.
Substantial temporary or periodic Increase In ambient noise levels above ambient
noise levels:
-21-
I
I
I
Facts:
During construction, noise levels will be associated with construction equipment and
activity during grading and construction of individual structures. The greatest
potential for conflict between noise sensitive uses and construction activities will
occur after the residential uses are constructed on the project site and new building
construction activity is initiated. The following mitigation measures (including
measures 10.a-1 and 10.a-2) will be implemented during construction to reduce
potentially significant noise impacts to a level of nonsignificence.
10.11-1 Construction shell be limited to the hours of 7 s.m. to 7 p.m. on Mondsy through Friday,
end betwsen 9 s.m. to 6 p.m. on Ssturdsy, end shsll be prohibited on Sundsva
end federsl holldsys, except In emergencies, for phases that follow
construction and occupation of the onsllB resldantlsl unlIB.
10.11-2 Utilize construction methods or equipment that will provide tha lowest level of noise
Impac~ I.e., use newer equipment that will genersIB lower noise levels.
10.b-3 All construction vehicles and fixed or mobile equipment shall be equipped with properly
operstlng and ma/nIBlned mufflers or sound attenuation devices, as speclfled
In regulations st the time of construction.
10.b-4 Schedule the construction such that the abso/ulB minimum number of equipment would
be operstlngat the seme time.
Current background noise levels are relatively low due to the lack of overall human
activity at this site, except, of course, during off-road vehicle and rodeo events. The
low level of traffic projected for this area (ultimate trip generation is 10,435 trips by
year 2010) and the type of activities (educational, residential, commercial, and
office uses) do not consist of activities that could cause significant noise levels.
However, the level of noise associated with the occupancy of the site will increase
and periodically, amphitheater uses may cause higher levels of noise. The
sensitive uses of the site, educational and residential, could periodically be exposed
to significant background noise levels, including transient noise associated with
music concerts. To protect these onsite sensitive uses from unacceptable levels of
noise, the following mitigation shall be implemented.
10.b-6 The residential and educational buildings shall be constructed with addltlonsl noise
attenuation features, Including more Insulation, better sound attenuation walls
and double paned windows or equivalent. The educational and building
design shall Include Bufflc/ent noise attenuation featurea to reduce nol.e
levels within occupiable rooms to Ie.. than the 60 dBA noise threshold.
Findinas: With implementation of the above measures, no significant adverse temporary or
periodic noise impacts will result from implementing the proposed project.
e.
Would the project expose people to excessive noise levels from airport operations:
Facts:
The project site is not located near an airport.
Findinas: Therefore, it has no potential to be exposed to significant airport operation noise
impacts.
f.
Would the project expose people to excessive noise levels from private airstrip
operations:
-22-
I
I
I
Facts:
The project site is not located near a private airstrip.
Findinas: Therefore, it has no potential to be exposed to significant airstrip operation noise
impacts.
11.
Public Services
a.
Would the proposal have an effect upon or result In the need for new or altered fire
protection servIces:
Facts:
Development currently extends to the southern boundary of the -31.1-acre project
site. All utilities and services are already available at the project site. The
development of the proposed land uses, consisting of educational, residential,
commercial, office and recreational activities, will result in a small incremental
increase for public services, including fire protection services. Based on a review of
the GPEIR, the City's fire protection impacts from developing the proposed project
can be mitigated to below a significant level by implementing mitigation identified in
that document. These measures include: Fire Service, Measures 1 and 2. In
addition the payment of Development Impact Fees will further reduce the impacts to
the above listed services to a level of nonsignificant impact.
Findinas: With implementation of these measures, the proposed project can be implemented
without causing or contributing to a significant cumulative fire protection services
impact.
b.
Would the proposal have an effect upon or result In the need for new or altered law
enforcement services:
Facts:
Development currently extends to the southern boundary of the -31.1-acre project
site. All utilities and services are already available at the project site. The
development of the proposed land uses, consisting of educational, residential,
commercial, office and recreational activities, will result in a small incremental
increase for public services, including law enforcement services. Based on a review
of the GPEIR, the City's law enforcement service impacts from developing the
proposed project can be mitigated to below a significant level by implementing
mitigation identified in that document. These measures include: Police Service,
Measures 1-4. In addition the payment of Development Impact Fees will further
reduce the impacts to the above listed services to a level of nonsignificant impact.
Findinas: With implementation of these measures, the proposed project can be implemented
without causing or contributing to a significant cumulative law enforcement services
impact.
c.
Would the proposal have an effect upon or result In the need for new or altered
school capacIty:
Facts:
Development currently extends to the southern boundary of the -31.1-acre project
site. All utilities and services are already available at the project site. The
-23-
I
I
I
development of the proposed land uses, consisting of educational, residential,
commercial, office and recreational activities, will result in a limited incremental
demand for school capacity (280 multi-family units). Based on a review of the
GPEIR, the City's impacts on schools from build out of the City can be mitigated to
below a significant level by implementing mitigation identified in that document.
These measures include: Education, Measures 1-6. In addition the payment of
mandatory school impact fees will further reduce the impacts to the above listed
services to a level of nonsignificant impact.
Findinas: With implementation of these measures, the proposed project can be implemented
without causing or contributing to a significant cumulative school capacity impact.
d.
Would the proposel have an effect upon or result In the need for new or altered
park and recreation services:
Facts:
Development currently extends to the southern boundary of the -31.1-acre project
site. All utilities and services are already available at the project site. The
development of the proposed land uses, consisting of educational, residential,
commercial, office and recreational activities, will result in a small incremental
increase for public services, including park and recreation services. Based on a
review of the GPEIR, the City's park and recreation service impacts from
developing the proposed project can be mitigated to below a significant level by
implementing mitigation identified in that document. These measures include: Park
and Recreation Service Measures 1-8. In addition the payment of Development
Impact Fees will further reduce the impacts to the above listed services to a level of
nonsignificant impact.
Findinas: With implementation of these measures, the proposed project can be implemented
without causing or contributing to a significant demand for park and recreation
impact.
e.
Would the proposal have an effect upon or result In the need for new or altered
public facilities not already addressed:
Facts:
No impact on any other public facilities or services was identified from project imple-
mentation.
Findinas: With no other public facilities or services impacted, no adverse impact can occur.
12.
Utilities and Service Systems
a.
Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements:
Facts:
The proposed project will generate and deliver wastewater to the regional
wastewater reclamation facility (RWRF) in Temecula Valley. The facility is operated
by Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and it is located just south of the
project site. The facility currently has a secondary treatment capacity of 8 million
gallons per day (mgd) and a tertiary treatment capacity of 10 mgd. The residential
wastewater generation is estimated to be 250 gallons per day per unit (Equivalent
-24-
I
I
1
Findinas:
b.
Facts:
Findinas:
c.
Facts:
Dwelling Unit, EDU) for a total generation of 73,750 gpd. The commercial,
industrial and educational uses will generate about 10 EDU of wastewater flow per
acre. Assuming 30 acres of this type of use, this is equivalent to 300 EDU, or
75,000 gpd. Total estimated volume of wastewater from this proposed project is
148,750 gpd. The EVWD RWRF is designed to be expanded incrementally up to
between 49 and 54 gpd of treatment capacity per day. Expansions are funded by
connection fees and expansions are planned and installed with sufficient capacity to
ensure no deficit of treatment capacity will occur.
Since the facility has adequate capacity at the present and since the project will
have to pay standard connection fees, no potential for significant impact to the
RWRF is forecast to result from project implementation. Therefore, the proposed
project is not forecast to cause a violation of wastewater treatment requirements,
either directly or indirectly.
Require construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, which could result In significant Impacts:
According to the GPEIR, adequate capacity exists within the Rancho California
Water District (RCWD) water supply system to provide water supply capacity for the
build-out development within its service area of the City of Temecula. The RCWD
delivers water to customers from existing groundwater wells, imported water
supplies and recycled water (for non-potable purposes). The District's 1997 "Water
Facilities Master Plan Update" indicates that additional water supply sources are
being implemented to meet the future forecast water demand within its service area
of 114,000 acre-feet per year. In a recent evaluation of ability to supply water to
other commercial projects (Redhawk Town Center Subsequent EIR), RCWD
indicated that it could meet near and mid-term water demands as required under
recent state legislation for growth within its service area. The proposed project is
forecast to create a demand for 177,000 gpd for residential uses (600 gpdlunit) and
based on a water duty of about 2,500 gpd per acre for the approximate 30 acres of
commercial, educational and office uses (Table 4-4 of the Plan Update), the
remainder of the site will use about 75,000 gpd. Total water consumption is
estimated to be up to 252,000 gpd.
Based on the data available, the proposed project will not cause a significant
adverse impact on the water supply system, including any need to expand the
existing water treatment, storage and delivery system. Other than mandated
requirements for low water consuming fixtures in buildings and a landscape design
that minimizes water consumption, there are no mitigation measures that need to
be implemented to minimize site development consumption of water in the future.
Require construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities which could cause significant environmental effects:
The site already drains to the existing regional stormwater system which is across
the street.
-25-
I
I
1
Findinas: The connection of this site to the local collection and regional stormwater system
will not cause the need to expand this facility based on detention of storm runoff so
future volume of flow from the site does not exceed the current maximum flows.
d.
Have sufficient water supplies available from existing sources or require
acqulslton of expanded entitlements:
Facts:
The volume of water required to serve the project site is identified under issue 12.b
above. Adequate water supplies have been identified by the RCWD to meet the
City of Temecula's current and immediate future demands, including the proposed
project. This finding is based on data contained in the District's 1997 "Water
Facilities Master Plan Update"
Findinas: Therefore, the proposed proejct will not require new or expanded water
entitlements.
e.
Result In a determination by a wastewater treatment provider that Insufficient
capacity exists at the wastewater reclamation facility:
Facts:
Adequate wastewater treatment capacity has been identified by the EMWD
Reclaimed Water Master Plan for the City of Temecula's current and immediate
future demands, including the proposed project.
Findina:
Therefore, the proposed project will not exceed EMWD's treatment capacity and
require expansion of the existing plant.
f.
Be served by a landfill system with adequate capacity:
Facts:
According to the General Plan and the County Solid Waste Management Plan
adequate landfill disposal capacity exists within the regional landfills to meet current
and future demands. This is further verified by the County's solid waste
management plan. Solid waste mitigation measures identified in the GPEIR
(Measures 2 and 3) must be implemented by all projects in the City to meet the
City's source reduction requirements.
Adequate capacity exists within' the County's solid waste management system to
meet the requirements of the proposed project.
Findina:
g.
Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations regarding solid
waste:
Facts:
By participating in the City's source reduction and recycling element, the proposed
project will comply with all statutes and regulations for management of solid waste.
The proposed project does not pose any significant or unique management require-
ments.
Findina:
The project will fully comply with all statutes and regulations regarding solid waste.
13. Aesthetics and Visual Resources
-26-
I
I
1
a.
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista:
Facts:
The site is located on the valley floor with the backdrop of the Santa Rosa Plateau
on the background. All proposed facilities will be installed on the valley floor and no
grading, ground disturbance or facilities will extend onto the face of the Plateau's
front ridge. The City reviewed the proposed facilities looking at the background
setting. The maximum height will be 50+ feet and due to the background front
slope of the Santa Rosa Mountains, the new structures will not be skylined against
the background sky. In addition, several structures already exist on the lower
slopes of the front slope that are 50 to 100 feet above the alluvial terrace where the
TEC facilities will be installed.
Findinos:
Given the already disturbed visual setting with light industrial structures at a height
greater than the proposed facilities, the City concluded that the TEC facilities will
not cause a substantial change in the visual setting. As a result, no scenic vistas
will be adversely impacted at the project location from developing the proposed
project based on the lack of intrusion into a scenic vista.
b.
Substantially damage scenic resources:
Facts:
The project site has no major scenic resources. The site has one eucalyptus tree,
and no rock outcroppings or historic buildings. The project site is not located on a
scenic highway. In fact, historic use of this site for off road vehicle and rodeo
activities has denuded most of the site and created a chopped up visual setting.
Findinos: Because the project must meet City design requirements, including those outlined
in the Community Design Element of the General Plan, no adverse damage to any
existing scenic resources will result from the project's implementation.
c.
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and Its
surroundings:
Facts:
As noted in the previous discussions, the project site is highly disturbed and
contains a relatively damaged scenic quality in its present condition. The proposed
project must be constructed to conform with the City's community design guidelines
as referenced above. located adjacent to existing multi-family apartment units.
Mitigation is outlined below to ensure that City-wide design guidelines are
implemented.
13.c-1
The design of the campus structURIB end open spsess shsll confonn with the
Clty-w/de design guidelines and requirements.
Findinos: Based on the requirement to meet these design guidelines, the proposed project
has no potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and
surroundings.
d.
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day
or night views of the area:
-27-
I
I
I
Facts:
The proposed project will contain substantial safety night lighting sources consistent
with its use for class rooms during the evening, as well as daytime, hours. Like all
projects within the area, this project must meet Ordinance 675 requirements of no
conflict with the continued use of the Palomar Observatory. Due to the site's
location, there is no potential for light or glare to adversely impact any light sensitive
areas (residences), nor is there a potential to create light or glare impacts that
would adversely impact a major roadway or highway.
Findinas: Therefore, the project has no potential to create significant light and glare impacts
onsite or impacting the surrounding area and uses.
14.
Cultural Resources
a.
Cause a substantial adverse change In the significance of a historical resource:
Facts:
A detailed cultural resources study was conducted at the project site and no
historical resources were identified as occurring on the project site.
Findinas: Therefore, the proposed project has no potential to cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of any historical resource.
b.
Cause a substantial adverse change In the significance of an archaeological
resource:
Facts:
The project site is considered to be within a portion of a known archaeological site.
CA-RIV-237 is one of a few Contact or Late Prehistoric Period, LuiseC.o habitation
or village sites which may not have been completely destroyed. Implementation of
this project may contribute to the cumulative destruction and alteration of such sites.
CA-RIV-237 has, however, undergone substantial adverse change by previous
development and this project site occupies a relatively small portion of the known
original site. Extensive mitigation, including additional measures identified in com-
ments from the Pechanga Tribe, require additional management actions to be
implemented prior to ground disturbance, incluiding hand excavation, monitoring of
grading, artifact analysis, and documentation of findings has been provided. These
measures include:
5.5-1 The City shall require the prolect developer to retain an archaeolOSllcal consultllnt and
trIbal monitors to prepare snd Implement a plan for an IntensIve detll recovery
operation by hand excavation, artifact analysis and report preparation such
that potential Information can be IIIIIIlvaged prior to the stllrt of site grading.
5.5-2 The City shall require the developer to Implement a mitigation plan for cultural
resources. The scope and extent of the mitigation plan shall be determined by
consultlltlon between City staff, Pechanga Bend of LulseC-o Mlllllll/on Indians
representatives, and the archaeologIcal consultent for the prolect.
5.5~ The City shall require that site grading be monitored by s qualified archaeologist. Tribal
monitors deslgnsted by the Pechenga Bend of LulseC-o Mission Indians shall
also monitor site grading If required by the tribe. The monitors shell have the
authority to halt end re/OCl/te construction activities If subsurfaces resources
are encountered. Pechsnga Tribal monitors will ba allowed to monitor all
archeeolOSllcsl surveys, testa and studies. The resulte of the surveys, teste
-28-
I
I
I
and/or studhls will be uUlizBd to de"ne whllt aress may require avoldllnce on
the 8Ite and the specifics of how any recovered ert/ft cte shllil be manefled with
the Tribe, as mutuallysflreed upon by the City and lte technical steff.
5.5-4 Prior to INuance of a flredlnfl permit, the proJect developer shllil enter Into sn Aflree-
ment with the Pechsnfla Bend of Lul8eC-o Indians thet sdd_a the treatment
and disposition of all cultural resources and human remains thet may be
Impacted N a result of this development
5.5-5 The City and site developer afl1'88 to relinquish ownership of all cultursl resources,
Includlnfl all archllolOfllcal anlfacte thet ere found on the project site, to the
Pechllnfla Bend of Lu/aaOo Indiana for proper trestment end dlsposlUon.
5.5-6 The Pechllnfle Tribe will be allowed to conduct a Phsae I survey of the project area In
cooperaUon with the City's qualified archlUlOlOfIlst for the proJect 8Ite. Prior to
conducUnfl the survey, the specific Individuals from the Tribe and City will be
IdenUfled and a Phsael survey methodoloflY will be mutually afll'Hd upon. "
deemed necessary by the Pechanfla TrIbe, the City and lte technical staff,
funher Phsae II surveys will be completed prior to INuance of any flradlnfl
permit. Any Phaaell survey scUvlUes will be conducted beaad on a mutually
aflreed upon survey methodolOflY and It will be funded by the slta developer.
Findinas:
Implementation of these mitigation measures is considered adequate by the City to
mitigate both the individual and cumulative potential loss of information at the
project site to a less than significant level.
c.
Directly or Indirectly destroy a unIque paleontologIcal resources or site or unIque
geologic feature.
Facts:
No unique geologic features occur in this area of the City. Figure 55 of the Draft
EIR for the City's General Plan indicates that the potential for buried paleontological
resources on the western portion of the project site is high. Due to the potential for
such resources to occur on the property, the following mitigation measure will be
implemented:
14.c-1 DurinflexcavaUon and hill-alde cutting act/vmes, a qualmed palBontolOfllcal monitor will
be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect gradlnfl acUvlUes to
evaluate the significance of any pa/eontolOfl/cal resources exposed durlnfl the
flradlng activity within the alignment. If ps/eontolOfllcal resources are
encountered, adequata funding will be provided to collect, curata and reporl
on theae resources to the ensure the values Inherent In the resources are ade-
quataly characterized and preserved.
Findinas: With implementation of this mitigation measure, no significant loss of paleon-
tological resources can occur.
d.
DIsturb human remains, Including those Interred outside of formal cemeteries:
Facts:
As a potential village site, the EIR concluded that a potential does exist to disturb
human remains during grading of the project site. Such disturbance would be
considered a significant impact of the project unless mitigated.
Mitigation measure 5.5-4 above identifies specific measures for addressing the
discovery of human remains on the project site. In addition, current law requires the
Findina:
-29-
I
I
I
County Coroner to be notified of the discovery of such remains and this requirement
will be fulfilled by the project developer. Implementation of these measures,
including specific agreements between the Tribe and developer, are deemed
sufficient to reduce potential discovery of human remains to a less than significant
level of impact.
15.
Recreation
a.
Would the project Increase the use of exIstIng neIghborhood and regIonal parks In
a manner that could cause deterIoratIon of such facIlItIes:
Facts:
There are presently no recreation facilities on the project site, although recreation
events (rodeo and motorcycle/tractor activities) are occasionally staged on the
property. Onsite recreation amenities will be provided as part of the residential
component of the project. The proposed project also includes an amphitheater as
part of the project that may be used for recreational purposes. Due to the proposed
residential uses, a demand for recreational facilities will be generated by the
proposed project. Payment of the recreation component of Development Impact
Fee is required for each residential project. These fees will be paid by the proposed
project, minus any credits for other onsite recreational facilities.
Findinas:
Based on the inclusion of the outdoor amphitheater feature as part of the proposed
project and payment of fees, the project impact on City recreational facilities is not
forecast to increase significantly. Further, based on the size of the residential com-
ponent of the proposed project (280 units), the cumulative demand for recreational
facilities in the City is not forecast to increase substantially from implementing the
proposed project.
b.
Does the project Include recreatIonal facilitIes whIch mIght have an adverse
physIcal effect on the environment.
Facts:
The only recreational facility being proposed at this time is the ou1door
amphitheater. Impacts from its construction and utilization of the amphitheater are
examined as part of the overall project. Construction impacts may cause noise and
air emissions that require mitigation and over the long-term operations may result
in noise impacts that also will require mitigation. Mitigation has been identified
under air quality and noise to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Findinas: With implementation of noise and air quality mitigation measures, the impact from
constructing and operating the amphitheater onsite can be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Based upon the findings presented in the FEIR, the above described environmental issues have
been determined by the City to be: (1) adequately addressed in the FEIR; and (2) impacted to a
degree deemed by the City to be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation
measures. identified above and summarized in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program. No substantial evidence was subsequently presented to or identified by the City
which further modified or otherwise altered the City's less-than-significant impact determination
for each of these environmental issues. These changes or alterations have been required in, or
-30-
I
I
I
incorporated into the project, and they mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects
thereof as identified in the FEIR. These changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of the City of Temecula and such changes have been adopted the City. The City
Council further finds that no additional mitigation measures or project changes are required to
reduce the potential impacts discussed above to a less than significant level.
This concludes the summary of environmental Impacts that were Identified In the FEIR
and the Initial Study as nonsignificant Impacts with mitigation related to Implementation
of the proposed project.
F.
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
The Temecula City Council finds that despite the incorporation of extensive changes and altera-
tions into the proposed project, approving and implementing the Temecula Education Complex
Project will allow two impacts to remain unavoidably significant because these impacts cannot
be mitigated to a nonsignificant level. These unavoidable significant adverse environmental
impacts are air quality and transportation/traffic. For the TEC Project emissions associated with
both construction and operations are forecast to exceed the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's thresholds of significant for several pollutants. For traffic, a potential
short-term cumulative traffic impact will occur at the intersections surrounding the 1-
15/Winchester Road interchange. Substantial improvements are being made in this
intersection and ultimately an additional interchange (variously termed Cherry, Date and French
Valley) are forecast to mitigate the cumulative circulation system impacts. Regardless, these
impacts and the measures identified to minimize them to the extent feasible are summarized
below. Thus, the potential for significant effects to occur for this issue would continue to exist
regardless of whether or not the project implements the project changes and mitigation
measures mandated by the City of Temecula in the FEIR.
The potential impact to the above listed resources and existing background conditions were
concluded to be significant based on the whole record which demonstrated that this impact
could not be reduced below thresholds of significance by the proposed project changes to the
TEC Project (alternatives, mitigation measures or design changes). To the extent that future
TEC development phases generate the emissions forecast from construction activities and
mobile sources, approval of the TEC Project contributes to the significant impacts as described
in detail below. Thus, despite the incorporation of changes to the proposed project, air quality
and circulation system (traffic) impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a level of insignificance and
a statement of overriding consideration is thereby included herein.
5.
AIr Quality
Significant Unavoidable Impact
b.
Violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation.
Facts:
Since it is assumed that no overlap occurs between construction phases, the
maximum construction emissions are those that occur in each phase. Grading
emissions of fugitive dust will not exceed the 150 Ib/day threshold (about 104
Ibslday, mitigated). Using the SCAQMD URBEMIS model, the emission data
-31-
I
indicate that SCAQMD threshold of significance for VOC and NOx will be equaled
or exceeded in Phase I and Phase III. During Phase 1 the following maximum daily
emissions are forecast to occur:
I
I
-32-
I
Table 5.2-9
PHASE I CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
"--- L,"";î;tßì1íí!Þi,¿;i,:....,";j~;;i~~~íÌf~¡;':":~!
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Volatile Organic Carbon (VOC)
5
233"
Nilrogen Oxide (NOx)
Particulate Malter (PM,.)
305"
21
" Exceeds SCAOMD Signilicanca Thresholds.
Assuming similar construction schedules and techniques, it is forecast that daily
construction emissions for VOC's and NOx will be:
Phase 1/
VOC
NOx
30 Ibs/day
40 Ibs/day
Phase 1/1
VOC
NOx
77 Ibs/day
100 Ibs/day
I
VOC and NOx Phase II emissions will be well below thresholds of significance while
Phase III emissions will equal significance thresholds for VOC's and NOx. No
exceedance of thresholds are forecast to occur in Phase II.
The above construction emission forecast incorporates the following mitigation
measures:
5.2-1 The following mitigation measures shall be Implemented throughout construction
activities In order to reduce project Impacts.
Use appropriate emission control devices on gasoline and diesel construction
equipment and malnte/n construction equipment engines by klilflplng
them tuned.
Prohibit Idling and other unnecessary operetlon of equipment.
Utilize existing power sources (I.e., temporary power poles) and avoid on./te
power generation.
I
Have sufficient equipment at the site to carry out dust-contro/lfU///surea In all areas
covered by the contract work (not Just the Immediate area of
construction).
Employ construction activity management technlquea, such as: configuring the
construction perldng to minimize traffic Interference; extending thø
conatructlon period; reducing the number of pieces of equipment used
simultaneously; Increasing thø distance be/wlilfln theemlaslon sources;
and reducing or changing the hours of construction; to minimize
construction activity emissions.
-33-
I
Mslntllin all work and acce88 areea free from dust
Cover loøded truclc8 utlBd In COIU/tnJcUon operaUona with tIIrpøullna or malntllin at leøat
2 feet of frrHI/oød and W88h off trucb leøvlng the altll.
S_p strøøtllif silt Is carried over to adJaCtlnt public thoroughfares.
Water dust-generatlng aurfacea at Intllrvals to køøp all parts of the disturbed area
continuously damp.
Watllr the altlland clean the equipment In the morning and evening.
ConstrucUon operaUons afføcUng off site roadways shall be scheduled for offpøak trsfflc
hours and shall mlnlmlzø obstrucUon of through-traffic lanes.
Construction acUvlUes should be scheduled to occur first on the upwind port/on of the
project sltll to reduce the potenUal for fuglUve dust Impactllin the
downwind areaS.
Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow Interfarence from construction activities
Including advance public noUce of routing.
Use low VOC asphalt and cosUngs.
I
5.2-2 The propotlBd project shall submit a plan to control fugitive dust through Implemen-
tIIUon of reesonably available dust control measures. It shall be prepared and
submitted to the City of Temecula for approval prior to the IssuanCtl of any
grading parmltll associated with the project The plan shall specify the fugitive
dust control messures to be employed, Including the above messures at a
minimum.
5.2-3 The project proponent shall comply with all applicable SCAOMD Rules and RegulaUons.
In part/cular, SCAOMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, Insuring the c/esn up of
constructlon-re/atad dirt on approach routlls to the sltll. Rule 403 prohlbltll the
re/esse of fuglUve dust emissions from any acUve operaUon, open storage
pile, or disturbed surfaCtl area beyond the property line of the emission
sourca. Particulate matter deposltll on public roadways are also prohlbltad.
5.24 Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to part/ally mitigate the Impact of
constnJctlon-generatad dust particulates. Port/ons of the project site that are
under-golng Barth moving operations shall be watered such that a crust will be
formed on the ground surface snd then wstered again at the end of the CÚlY.
5.2-5 Any vegetllUve ground cover to be uUllzed onslte shall be plantlld as soon as possible to
redUCtl the disturbed sras subject to wind erosion. IrrlgsUon systems nesded
to water these plantll shall be Instlliled as soon as possible to ma/ntllin the
ground cover and mlnlmlzø wind erosion of the soil.
5.2-6 Any construcUon access roads (other than temporary access roads) shall be paved as
soon ss possible and cleaned after esch work day. The maximum vehicle
speed limit on unpaved roads shall be 15 mph.
I
5.2-7 Grading operaUons shall be suspended during first and second atllge ozone episodes or
when winds exceed 25 mph.
5.2-6 Any construcUon equipment using diesel drive Internal combusUon englnss Bhsll use a
diesel fwl with a maximum of 0.05 percant sulfur and a four degree retllrd.
-34-
I
5.2-9 Construction personnel shall be Informed of ride sharing opportunities and an Incentive
progrsm shall be Implemented by the contractor.
5.2-10 BuildIng construction shall comply wIth tha energy UN guIdelines In TltJe24 oftha
CalifornIa AdmInIstration Code.
5.2-11 Where vehIcles leave the construction slla and enter adJacent public atreets, the atreets
shall be swept dally or washed down at tha end of the work day to remove aoll
tracked onto the paved surface.
5.2-12 All dlese/-powered vehicles and equipment shall be operated with the fuel InJection
timing retsrded 2 degrees from the manufacturer's recommendation and use
high pressure InJectors.
5.2-13 All dlese/-powered vehIcles shall be turned off whan not In use for more than 30 minutes
and gasoline - powered equIpment shall be turned off when not In use for more
than live minutes.
5.2-14 The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gas powered equipment In
lieu of gasoline or diesel powered engines, where feasible and where
economically competitive.
5.2-15 The construction contractor shall utilize es much as possible precoatedlnatural colored
building materials, wster based or low VOC coating, and coating transfer or
spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as high volume low
pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coatlnga application such aa paInt
brush, hand roller, trowel, spstula, dauber, rag, or sponge.
I
Table 5.2-12 shows that operationaVoccupancy air emissions for PM,o are below
CEQA thresholds, and therefore would not have a significant impact to air quality.
However, CO, NOx and VOC emissions would be higher than CEQA thresholds
during operation of the project, and are therefore potentially significant.
Table 5.2-12
TOTAL MITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS FROM TEC PROPERTY
'P,oIlÌìtâÍlt
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Volatile Organic Carbon (VOC)
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)
638.4"
75.2"
550
55
76.6"
Particulate Matter (PM,.)
28
55
150
, Sum 01 the emissions from Table 5.2-9, Table 5.2-10, and Table 5.2-11.
.. Data exceeds the threshold.
The following mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce operational
emissions.
I
5.2-16 The following measures shall be Implemented In order to reduce the proJect operational
Impacts. The percent reduction for esch measure Is provIded.
OrIent building to NorthlSouth direction to reduce the energy usage.
-35-
35%
I
I
I
Findino:
Trip t8ducUon by good tl'/Inølt Infrastructure measures.
Trip t8ducUon by pedÐstr/sn snluJnclnglnfrastructure msssures
for res/denUsl snd non-resldenUs/.
Trip t8ducUon by bicycle snluJnc/nglnfrastructure measures for
resldenu.lsnd non-res/denu.l. 7%
Provide tl'/Inslt shelters benches. 2%
The majority of the operational emissions are associated with mobile sources. Four
of the five identified mitigation measures are trip reduction measures, which will
reduce the emissions of all pollutants associated with mobile sources. These
measures are estimated to have a combined effectiveness of 35 percent reduction
in trips and resulting emissions. The first measure will reduce energy consumption
associated with heating and cooling. All identified mitigation measures will be
applied to the proposed project. As shown on Table 5.2-10, even with mitigation,
CO, VOC and NOx mobile source emissions remain significant. Mitigated
operational emissions for this development are shown on Table 5.2-11. After
implementing the above mitigation measures, both construction and operational air
quality emissions cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance when compared to
the SCAQMD Handbook emission thresholds.
15%
2%
c.
Result In a cumulatively consIderable net Increase of any criterIa pollutant for
whIch the project regIon Is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard:
Facts:
Please refer to issue 5.b above for the detailed facts about the emissions of criteria
pollutants which exceed thresholds. NOx and VOC emissions contribute to ozone
and particulate non-attainment. CO and NOx emissions do not contribute to
violations of either of these criteria pollutants. CO concentrations are a function of
the number of vehicles, length of time they are idling, and the background or
ambient CO concentrations. The nearest SCAQMD air quality monitoring station to
the project site that monitors CO is the Lake Elsinore Station (4158). Data provided
on Table 5.2-1 of this EIR reveals that the highest 1-hour concentration measured
in 2002 was 3 parts per million (ppm). The standards are >35 ppm federal and >20
ppm state. The maximum 8-hour CO concentration was 2 ppm. The closest
approximation for road type is the local (several hundred vehicles during the peak
hour) and the maximum 1-hour CO concentration is 1.2. Thus, the screening
technique indicates that the project plus background would be 4.2 ppm, well below
the 20 ppm 1-hour standard. Using the highest persistence factor in Chapter 9,
page 9-11 of the Handbook, 0.8 (which is consistent with the measured values
referenced above), the 8-hour concentration would be 3.4 ppm, well below the 8-
hour 9.5 and 9.0 ppm standards, federal and state respectively. Finally, the PM10
emissions during construction also exceed thresholds and contribute to PM10 non-
attainment in the South Coast Air Basin.
Findinos: After implementing the above mitigation measures, both construction and
operational air quality emissions cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance when
compared to the SCAQMD Handbook emission thresholds.
d.
Expose sensItIve receptors to substantIal pollutant concentratIons:
-36-
I
I
I
Facts:
The only pollutant with a potential to affect sensitive receptors are particulates,
particularly fugitive dust. Extensive fugitive dust controls (mitigation measures)
outlined above reduce dust emissions to a less than significant level.
Findina:
Based on the air quality data in the FEIR, the proposed project will not expose
sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations, directly or indirectly.
6.
T r an s po rtatl onIT raffle
a.
Cause an Increase In traffic which Is substantial In relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system:
Facts:
A project specific traffic study was prepared for the TEC Project. The following is a
summary of the study's conclusions:
1.
The project will generate about 10,435 daily vehicle trips at buildout. About
576 vehicle trips will occur in the AM peak hour with about 991 vehicle trips
projected to occur within the PM peak hour.
The project will contribute to the decline in level of service at the following
study area intersections to below LOS "D" if identified roadway improvements
are not provided.
2.
Diaz Road (NS) at:
Winchester Road (EW)
Jefferson Avenue (NS) at:
Winchester Road (EW)
1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at:
Winchester Road (EW)
1-15 Freeway NB Ramps (NS) at:
Winchester Road (EW)
Ynez Road (NS) at:
Winchester Road (EW)
3.
The project will contribute to the need for traffic signals at the following study
area intersections in the Year 2008:
Diaz Road (NIS) at:
Campus Parkway (EW)
Remington Avenue (EW)
Zevo Drive (EW)
The following are the mitigation measures available to the proposed project to
reduce the cumulative traffic impacts that exceed the City's thresholds of
significance.
-37-
I
I
I
5.3-1
The City shall require tha deva/oper to participate on a fair share basis the
InstallaUon of traffic slgllllis at the fol/owlnglntel8BCUolIII whan WIImInted:
Dlaz Road. Campus Parlcway
Dlaz Road. Remington Avenue
Dlaz Road. ZIIvo Drlva
5.3-2 Deva/opmant of tha TEC shal/lnclude provision of an onslte mass transit facility or
centsr. This facility shall ba daslgned In consultsUon with the Riverside
Transit Authority to pro vida ssfe convan/ent service to the proposed facll/Ues.
Findina: The proposed project will contribute to the generation of additional traffic on local
and regional roadways. The project, however, is consistent with the land use and
density for the site as identified in the City's General Plan and is consistent with the
General Plan's circulation element. The City of Temecula, the Western Riverside
Council of Government, and the Southern California Association of Governments
have developed plans and policies that are intended to guide the type and location
of growth in population and traffic. The growth and management programs and
policies have been partially developed using the General Plans of local jurisdictions.
Development that is compatible with the General Plan is therefore considered
consistent with the regional population and traffic growth management programs.
Based on projected growth, these agencies have developed plans to control and
mitigate regional transportation impacts to acceptable levels. The City of Temecula
participated in the regional transportation plans by implementing the goals and
policies and requiring that projects provide a fair share contribution to the regional
mitigation plan. Compliance with these local and regional plans has been judged
adequate to reduce the cumulative impacts to the transportation system to
acceptable levels. Thus, over the long term the circulation system is forecast to be
adequate to meet the build out trip generation within the City.
However, the analysis contained in the TIA determined that available roadway
improvements in the study area will be needed either with or without this project.
The TIA also determined that even with available mitigation, these roadway
improvements will not be adequate to maintain a LOS "D" or better condition at
certain study area intersections either with or without the proposed project, in the
near term future. The with project evaluation determined that the level of service at
certain intersections would decline below the levels identified under the without
project alternative. Note that improvements already scheduled may improve the
affected intersection sufficiently to avoid a significant impact, but the timing and
implementation of these improvements cannot be controlled by the City or the
project developer.
According to the City of Temecula, the primary roadway improvement that could
mitigate congestion at study area intersections is the extension of Cherry Street to
the proposed French Valley Parkway Interchange at the 1-15 Freeway. This new
roadway would provide an additional crossing of Murrieta Creek and access to the
freeway and areas easterly of the freeway, thus relieving congestion on existing
roads. However, this roadway is in the planning stages and there is no assurance it
will be constructed prior to initiating operations at the TEC Project.
-38-
I
I
I
b.
Thus, the proposed project will make a relatively small but cumulatively significant
contribution to the further decline in the level of service at study area intersections.
This impact can ultimately be mitigated, but in the short-term a potential for
significant circulation impacts is forecast to occur.
Exceed, either Individually or cumulatively, a level of servIce standard established
for the affected roads or hIghways:
Facts:
Please refer to the discussion under a above.
Findinas:
Based on the traffic study compiled for the TEC Project, the proposed project will
make a relatively small, but cumulatively significant, contribution to the further
decline in the level of service at study area intersections. This impact can ultimately
be mitigated, but in the short-term a potential for significant circulation impacts is
forecast to occur.
The City finds that it is not possible to provide for full implementation of the
proposed project without causing the unavoidable adverse impacts summarized
above. The City further finds that no additional measures are known that can further
reduce the air quality and traffic impacts that will result from implementing the
proposed project. Therefore, the City concludes that the proposed project will
contribute to unavoidable, significant adverse air quality and traffic effects if it is
implemented.
Based upon the findings presented in the Final EIR, the above described environmental issues
have been determined by the City to be: (1) adequately addressed in the FEIR; and
(2) impacted to a degree deemed by the City to be significant and unavoidable even after
implementation of the mitigation measures identified above and summarized in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program. No substantial evidence was subsequently presented to or
identified by the City which further modified or otherwise altered the City's significant and
unavoidable impact finding with mitigation determined for each of these environmental issues.
This concludes the summary of environmental impacts that were identified In the FEIR
and the Initial Study as unavoidable significant adverse Impacts with mitigation related
to implementation of the proposed project.
G.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires discussion of reasonable project
alternatives that could feasibly attain the project's objectives (14 CCR §15126(d»). CEOA
requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project that: (1) offers substantial environmental advantages over the proposed
project, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner and within a reasonable
period of time considering the economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors
involved.
The basic objective of the TEC Project is to provide facilities to consolidate post-secondary
education for the Murrieta- Temecula region. Under present conditions post-secondary
education is provided at a variety of facilities in the region, or local students must travel outside
-39-
I
I
I
the area (to San Marcos, Riverside, Menifee, etc.) to attend classes. By constructing a satellite
facility to meet this essential post-secondary educational need, including supporting facilities
(such as day care, commercial and residential facilities), the City will create a campus-like
environment that will make obtaining post-secondary education easier and better supported in
the community. In addition to the higher education objective, the proposed project will also
provide affordable housing in the City of Temecula. Presently, no affordable housing exists in
the northwesterly portion of the City and this project provides the opportunity to remedy this
situation by the provision of 50 such housing units on RDA owned property. Additional
objectives are to provide housing and retail opportunities in a portion of the City which is
developing without such uses. The TEC will also provide housing, daycare, retail and
educational opportunities to people working in the developing northwesterly portion of the City.
The objectives identified in the EIR must be fulfilled in order for an alternative to provide a
feasible and reasonable alternative to the proposed project.
The FEIR for the TEC Project considered two alternatives to the proposed action. These
alternatives were defined based on mandatory requirements and alternatives designed to
reduce the identified significant impact of the project: historical resources. Based on the project
objectives referenced above, neither alternative was considered to be technically feasible and
they were rejected from further consideration based on failure to meet the fundamental project
objectives.
The four alternatives that were subject to comparative evaluation in the FEIR with the proposed
action are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
No Project
Alternative Location
Senior Housing Project
Government Offices with Affordable Housing Project
The purpose in analyzing alternatives to a proposed project is to determine if an alternative is
capable of eliminating or reducing potential significant adverse environmental effects, .even if
these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or
would be more costly" (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(d)(3». The following discussion
summarizes the FEIR evaluation of each of these alternatives in determining whether they are
feasible alternatives to the proposed action (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(d» and
whether an alternative can eliminate or substantially lessen significant impacts described in this
document for the proposed action.
a. No Project Alternative: Under this alternative, the TEC Project would not receive
any of the proposed entitlements, such as the Conditional Use Permit, Development Plan,
Disposition and Development Agreement. Because there are no approved plans or
entitlements for the site, the no project alternative assumes the site is undeveloped and
remains in its current condition. If the TEC Project is not developed and higher education
activities would continue to occur as they do under current conditions. This means that air
emissions related to current and future vehicle trips to existing higher education classes, both in
the area and out of the area, would continue to occur. Although not quantifiable, the emissions
associated with the same number of students are assumed to be comparable or greater
because of the need to drive out of the Murrieta-Temecula region to one of several colleges
and universities that would hold classes at the TEC Project site.
-40-
I
I
I
Regarding traffic impacts, the same number of trips would occur on the regional and local
circulation system, but these trips would not be concentrated at the existing Winchester/'-15
interchange and at the future CherrylDatelFrench Valley/l-15 interchange. Retaining the
existing higher education situation could reduce the short-term project related circulation
impacts, but the cumulative short-term impact is forecast to continue to occur until a new
interchange is constructed to serve the project area.
The No Project Alternative would also eliminate all construction related impacts and those
nonsignificant impacts that would result from the project, including those impacts, such as
cultural resources, that require extensive mitigation to achieve a less than significant level of
impact.
However, the no project alternative would not meet the basic objectives of the City's General
Plan (development compatible with the Piland use designation) nor that of the City's
Redevelopment Plan and the AGK Group. The RDA's objective are to provide affordable
housing and higher educational facilities on the site in the City of Temecula. The AGK Group's
objectives are to provide housing and retail and professional facilities within a portion of the City
which currently does not have such facilities or services. Because the no project alternative
cannot meet any of the basic objectives of the proposed project, it is not considered a feasible
alternative to the proposed project.
b. Alternative Location: The proposed TEC could theoretically be developed at
alternative locations within the City of Temecula. However, the California Supreme Court
determined that examination of infeasible alternatives need not be given exhaustive evaluation.
The Temecula Education Complex is designed to provide a mixed use development on RDA
property that is consistent with the City's General Plan. The project site is the only undeveloped
parcel of adequate size owned by the RDA which has the appropriate land use designation. It
is not feasible to meet the objectives of the project at another location because no other site of
adequate size which is owned by the RDA with the appropriate land use designation exists
within the City.
Within the context of Section 15126.6(f)(1), the project site is the only vacant site that is owned
by the RDA and that meets the general plan consistency for the proposed TEC and the mix of
uses proposed. Therefore, the alternative of implementing the proposed project at another
location is not considered a reasonable or feasible alternative to the proposed project and will
not be given further consideration.
c. Senior Housing ProJect: The senior housing only project could meet one but not
all of the project objectives. As previously stated, one of the RDA's objectives is to provide
housing on this site in compliance with the City's Redevelopment Plan goals. The AGK Group's
objectives also includes provision of housing on the site. Section 17.12.030 of the City's
Development Code identifies senior housing as a permitted use of the Public Institutional (PI)
land use designation subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Senior housing is a permitted use in the High Density Residential Zoning district of the Land
Use Element of the City's General Plan. Section 17.06.050 (H.1 and H.3) of the Development
Code allow a maximum density of 30 units per acre for Senior Housing. Therefore, it is
possible that about 1,040 senior housing units could be developed on the site. The maximum
-41-
I
I
I
structure height is 50 feet. While the senior housing project alternative could meet project
objectives for housing, it would not provide educational or retail facilities.
In terms of eliminating the two identified significant effects of the project, air quality and traffic, a
senior housing project would result in the same construction air quality impacts (significant); it
would result in about 8,000 vehicle trips per day with operational air emissions still exceeding
SCAQMD air quality significance thresholds; and it would still contribute to cumulative
significant traffic impacts as forecast for the proposed project.
Thus, this alternative will not significantly reduce or eliminate the significant impacts forecast for
the proposed project and it will also not fully meet the objectives of the project. This alternative
would meet the project objectives of providing housing on the site. However, this alternatives
does not satisfy the objectives of providing the non-residential use objectives of the project.
The Senior Housing alternative project was rejected from further consideration.
d. Government Offices with Affordable HousIng Project: The government offices!
affordable housing project would meet one of the ADA's objectives of providing affordable
housing in the City of Temecula, but would not meet the objective of providing educational
facilities. This alternative would not meet the AGK Group's objectives of providing housing and
retail opportunities on the site.
Under this alternative, 60 affordable housing units would be constructed on the site. Assuming
the housing is developed at less than the maximum density of 30 units per acre, about 5 acres
of the site would be utilized. The remaining :t25 acres would be developed as government
offices. The City's General Plan identifies floor area ratios (FAA) of 0.4 to 0.7 for Piland uses.
This would convert into a potential for between 500,000 to 915,000 gross square feet of floor
area on the site. This, however, is considered more floor area than would reasonably be
constructed. Therefore, this alternative will evaluate a more likely structure with about 250,000
square feet of floor area.
This alternative would cause the same construction air quality impacts due to development of
the site for offices and affordable housing. It was estimated that the trip generation from this
alternative would be about 30% less than that forecast for the proposed project. Thus, the air
quality and traffic impacts would be reduced by a commensurate amount. However, a 30%
reduction still causes the air emissions thresholds to be exceeded and the cumulative traffic
impacts would still occur, although the project's contribution to this impact would be reduced.
The Government Offices With Affordable Housing Alternative would partially, but not fully, meet
the project objectives. This alternative will provide affordable housing but no educational
facilities. This alternative would not meet the objectives of providing additional housing and
retail facilities at the site. Thus, this alternative project is a feasible development project, but it
was rejected from further consideration because it does not meet the project's objectives.
Based upon the findings presented in the FEIA, the above described alternatives have been
determined by the City to represent a reasonable range of alternatives for consideration with
the proposed project and to adequately address alternatives in the FEIR. Therefore, the City
concurs with the finding in the EIA that the none of the altematives placed before it for
consideration can meet the project objectives established in the FEIR.
-42-
I
1.
1)
2)
3)
I 4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
I
This concludes the summary of alternative that were Identified and considered In the
FEIR and the Initial Study.
H.
PROJECT BENEFITS
The benefits from approving the proposed project are related to the provision of affordable
housing combined with consolidation of post-secondary education activities in the region at a
campus-like location in the City of Temecula. The project benefits outlined below were
considered by the City in performing the balancing test with those unavoidable significant
adverse environmental impacts presented earlier in this document.
Benefits of Implementing the Proposed Project
Construction of the TEC Project will inject approximately 75 million dollars into the local
economy over the next five years of construction. This will support an estimated 150
construction jobs within the community.
Once completed, the TEC Project will create an estimated 150 permanent jobs, with an
annual payroll of $5,025,000 per year.
The TEC Project will establish a higher education facility in the City of Temecula, which
will contribute substantially to the City of Temecula's quality of life.
The TEC Project will provide a continuing education/training facility for new and exists
employees that will assist in retaining the City's industrial employee base.
The TEC Project will provide 50 affordable housing units to assist the City in meeting its
housing element requirements.
The TEC Project will provide additional retail operations to support the educational facility
and surrounding industrial park uses. These retail commercial operations will generate
additional, unquantifiable sales tax revenues that will accrue to the City of Temecula.
The TEC Project assists the City by redirecting the predominant traffic pattern by placing
housing west of Interstate 15.
The TEC Project provides additional support for the French Valley interchange and
extension west across Murrieta Creek.
The TEC Project will consolidate three higher education institutions at one location,
creating a better overall higher educational environment for the region's residents.
10) The TEC Project establishes a corporate training facility that can would create a hub for
economic development activities in the surrounding industrial parks.
11) The TEC Project will reduce the need to travel to San Marcos, Riverside and other out-of-
area locations for students that must currently travel to obtain higher or continuing
education. This has secondary benefits, such as a reduction in vehicle miles traveled for
-43-
I
I
I
local residents and air quality; time savings for individuals; and reduced traffic congestion
on freeways.
I.
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
This section of the findings addresses the requirements in Section 15093 of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Section 15093 requires the Lead Agency to balance the
benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable significant adverse impacts, and to
determine whether the project-related significant impacts can be acceptably overridden by the
project benefits when the impactslbenefits are compared and balanced. As outlined in Section
F above, the proposed project is forecast to contribu1e to cumulative, unavoidable significant
adverse environmental impacts in two environmental categories: air quality and
transportation/traffic.
The Temecula City Council finds that the previously stated benefits of the proposed project,
outlined in Section G above and as will result from implementation of the TEC Project, outweigh
the cumulative unavoidable adverse environmental effect to air quality and traffic that has been
outlined above. The City needs a centralized educational facility, and the opportunity to
combine such a facility with residential, including affordable housing, and other supporting uses
is of considerable benefit to the City. Further, the commercial and day care uses will meet
needs of industrial employees in an area that is currently under served with retail commercial
stores and child care facilities. Thus, the City concludes that the benefits outlined above, that
accrue to the community from developing the TEC Project, outweigh the additional air
emissions and circulation system effects of the project. The social and economic benefits
stated in the previous section are considered sufficient to offset the loss of the existing
structures.
The City's findings set forth in the preceding sections have identified all of the adverse
environmental impacts and feasible mitigation measures which can reduce potential adverse
environmental impacts to insignificant levels where feasible, or to the lowest achievable levels
where significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts remain. The findings have also
analyzed four alternatives to determine whether they are reasonable or feasible alternatives to
the proposed action, or whether these alternatives might reduce or eliminate the significant air
quality and traffic impacts of the proposed action.
The TEC Project FEIR presents evidence that implementing the proposed project will contribute
to significant adverse air quality and traffic impacts which cannot be substantially mitigated to
an insignificant level. These significant impacts have been outlined above and presented in
detail in the FEIR and the City Council finds that all feasible alternatives and mitigation
measures have been adopted or identified for implementation by the City of Temecula and
other agencies where appropriate.
The City Council finds that the project's benefits are substantial as ou1lined in Section G of this
document and that these benefits justify overriding the unavoidable significant adverse impacts
associated with the proposed project. This finding is supported by the fact that many of the
benefits listed above result in the TEC Project fulfilling a critical role for the City in supporting
adequate post-secondary educational opportunities for its work force and providing affordable
housing opportunities for its citizens. These are critical societal management responsibilities,
which if not properly support, could result in a decline in local employment opportunities and
-44-
I
I
I
inadequate housing that creates substantial quality-of-life benefits that offset the quality-of-life
effects from cumulative air quality and circulation system impacts that may result from
implementing the TEC Project. The City Council further finds that the benefits outlined above,
when balanced against the unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts outweighs
these impacts because of the environmental, social, and economic benefits which accrue to
City of Temecula and the residents in its service area as outlined in Section G of this document.
As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed action, the City of Temecula has independently
reviewed the applicable sections of this document and the TEC Project FEIR, and fully
understands the scope of the proposed project. Further, the City Council finds that all potential
adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts
have been identified in the FEIR, public comment, and public testimony. These impacts and
mitigation measures are discussed in Section D and E and the Council concurs with the facts
and findings contained in those sections. The City Council also finds that a reasonable range
of alternatives was considered in the FEIR, as summarized in Section F of this document and
that no feasible alternatives which substantially lessen project impacts are available for
adoption.
The City Council concurs with the extensive environmental, economic and societal benefits
identified above, which will accrue to the City of Temecula and the population residing within its
jurisdiction. The Council has balanced these substantial environmental, social and economic
benefits against the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects of the proposed
project. Given that these substantial benefits will support the residents of the City of Temecula
as a result of implementing the TEC Project, the City Council hereby finds that the benefits
identified herein, collectively and individually, outweigh the unavoidable, cumulative significant
adverse air quality and traffic impacts, and hereby override these impacts to obtain the benefits
listed in Section G that will result from approval and implementation of the TEC Project.
-45-
I
I
I
EXHIBIT B
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
8
March 7, 2004 763760.1
I
I
I
MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
-
-
-
TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MitIgation Measure . . SoLircé Impieilientatlon Responsible Verification Status I Date I
Schedule Party InItIals
MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN THE INITIAL STUDY .
Geology and Solis
3.a-1 A comprehensive geotechnical investi- Initial Study The geotechnical City of A copy of the study shall
gation shall be required prior to engineer- study shall be com- Temecula be retained by the City.
ing and design development of structures piled for pertinent Copies of the building
identified under Risk Class I & II, e.g., structures for review blueprints incorporating
public facilities and residences, as and approval prior to the design requirements
identified below: completing the final shall be retained in the
design for all struc- project file. Field inspec-
Risk Class I & II, Structures Critically tures. tions during construction
Needed after Disaster. Structures that . shall verify that the gec-
are critically r)eeded after a disaster technical design measures
include important utility centers, fire have been installed. Field
stations, police stations, emergency inspection notes shall be
communication facilities, hospitals, and retained in the project file.
critical transportation elements such as :
bridges and overpasses and smaller
dams.
Acceptable Damage: Minor non-
structural; facility should remain opera-
tional and safe, or be suitable for quick
restoration of service.
a. Resist minor earthquakes.witl:1out
damage;
b. Resist moderate earthquakes without
structural damage, but with some
non-structural damage; or
MMRP Table, Page 1
-
-
-
TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
I Mitigation Mea!lure Source Implementation .. Res )onslble Verification Status I Date I
. Schedule Party . Initials
Geology and Solls:(contlnued)
3.a-1 c. Resist major earthquakes, of the
(cont.) intensity or severity of the strongest
experienced in Califomia, without
collapse, but with some structural, as
well as non-structural damage.
3.b-1 The developer shall file a Notice of Intent Initial Study The SWPPP and City of A copy of the approved
to obtain coverage under the State con- grading and erosion Temecula SWPPP and grading and
struction program pursuant to NPDES, control plan for con- erosion control plan shall
prepare a SWPPP for the site, and struction shall be be retained by the City.
impil!¡ment BMPs identified in the Santa. submitted for Copies of the construction
Margarita Watershed Drainage Area. review and approval blueprints incorporating
Management Plan (DAMP). The perform- prior to initiating the erosion control design
ance standard that shall be met is to construction. The requirements shall be
minimize erosion on the site and release permanent SWPPP retained in the project file.
no more than 10% suspended sediment and erosion control Field inspections during
from the project site when compared to plan shall besub- construction shall verify
present conditions. In addition, during mitted for review that the SWPPP and
construction urban pollutants, grease, oil, and approval prior grading and erosion
etc. shall be reduced by 80% of concen- constructing struc- control best management
trations in stormwater discharges from the tures, pavement or practices have been
site without BMPs. The same standard permanent land- installed. Field inspection
shall be used for permanent stormwater seaping for the notes shall be retained in
discharges from the project site during project site. All the project file.
occupancy. SWPPP and erosion
control measures
3.b-2 Developer shall submit a grading and shall be installed
erosion control plan to the Department of during grading or
Public Works for approval. This plan shall site construction,
incorporate the measures Included in the prior to issuance of .
SWPPP that is designed to achieve the occupancy permits.
performance standard outlined in
measure 3.b-1 above.
MMRP Table, Page 2
-
-
-
. . TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
.
Mitigation Measure Source Implementation Responsible Verification Status I Date I
. .. .Schedule Party Initials
Hydrology and Water Quality
4.g-1 That portion of the site within the. 1 DO-year Initial Study The grading plan City of A copy of the approved
flood hazard area shall be elevated by demonstrating Temecula grading plan shall be
approximately two feet, or at least one elevation above the retained in the project file.
foot above the 100-flood elevation on the 1 DO-year floodplain Field inspections during
property. The Federal Emergency shall be submitted grading shall verify that
Management Agency (FEMA) FIRM map and approved by the the flood protective site
shall be revised to reflect the removal of City prior to initiation elevation has been
the project site from the hazard maps of grading. The . achieved. Field notes
after the site elevation is modified by revision to the FIRM . shall be retained in the
project grading. map shall be com- project file. The revised
pleted within one FIRM map shall be
year of occupancy. retained in the project file.
Noise
10.a-1 All severe noise generation (noise Initial Study These measures City of These measures shall be .
sources above 90 dBA) shall be restricted shall be implement- Temecula. implemented through
to daylight hours between 7 a.m. and ed during construc- contract stipulatìons with
6 p.m when there are occupied dwelling tion. the contractor(s) that
units within one-quarter mile of site construct the project. A
construction. copy of the stipulations
shall be incorporated into
10.a-2 All occupied properties within 800 feet of each construction contract
the project site (this represents the point and verification shall be
where 30 dBA of noise attenuation will provided by the developer
occur) shall be notified of the severe to the City in writing. Field
noise generating activity (such as pile inspections during con-
driving) and a noise complaint/response struction shall verify that
program established. If complaints are the noise measures have
received, noise barriers shall be installed been implemented. Field
between the noise source and the inspection notes shall be
receptor to reduce noise to an level. retained in the project file.
MMRP Table, Page 3 .
-
-
-
TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTIN.G PROGRAM
: linplementation Responsible. . Status I Date I
: Mitigation Measurè Source Verification
Schedule Party '1. Initials
Noise (continued)
10.a-3 If pile driving or comparable noise/vi bra- Initial Study These measures City of These measures shall be
tion activities will occur during construc- shall be implement- Temecula implemented through
tion, businesses within one-quarter mile ed during construc- contract stipulations with
will be notified of this activity prior to tion. the contractor(s) that
initiating such construction activity. construct the project. A
copy of the stipulations
shall be incorporated into
each construction contract
and verification shall be
provided. by the developer
to the City in writing. Field
inspections during con-
struction shall verify that
the noise measures have
been implemented. Field
inspection notes shall be
retained in the project file.
10.a-4 Noise levels during concerts shall be Initial Study This measure shall City of Noise measurements shall
controlled such that the nearest sensitive be implemented Temecula be conducted during
noise receptor is not exposed to contin- during concerts at concert activities and
uous noise levels of 65 dBA during a the amphitheater speakers shall be con-
concert and transient noise levels at the after the site is trolled to limit sound levels
receptor shall not exceed 80 dBA, which occupied. . to that which will not cause
with an assumed 20 dB attenuation in a significant impacts at the
structure will not exceed the 60dBA nea~est occupied sensitive
exterior threshold established by the City receptors.
for sensitive uses.
MMRP Table, Page 4
-
-
-
TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Implementation Verification Status/Date I
Schedule Initials
Noise (continued)
.10.b-1 Construction shall be limited to the hours Initial Study These measures City of These measures shall be
of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Monday through shall be implement- Temecula implemented through
Friday, and between 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on ed during construc- contract stipulations with
Saturday, and shall be prohibited on tion. the contractor(s) that
Sundays and federal holidays, except in construct the project. A
emergencies, for phases that follow copy of the stipulations
construction and occupation of the onsite : shall be incorporated into
residential units. each construction contract
and verification shall be
10.b-2 Utilize construction methods or equipment provided by the developer
that will provide the lowest level of noise to the City in writing. Field
impact, i.e., use newer equipment that will inspections during
generate lower noise levels. construction shall verify
that the noise measures
10.b-3 All construction vehicles and fixed or have been implemented.
mobile equipment shall be equipped with Field inspection notes
properly operating and maintained shall be retained in the
mufflers or sound attenuation devices, as project file.
specified in regulations at the time of
construction.
10.b-4 Schedule the construction such tliat the
absolute minimum number of equipment
would be operating at the same time.
MMRP Table, Page 5
-
-
-
TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING. PROGRAM
. Implementation Status I Date I
Mitigation Measure Source Responsible Verification
Schedule Party Initials
Noise (continued)
10.b-5 The residential and educational buildings Initial Study This measure shall City of The building plans shall
shall be constructed with additional noise be implemented Temecula incorporate the required
attenuation features, including more during design and noise attenuation
insulation, better sound attenuation walls construction of the measures before approval
and double paned windows or equivalent. residential and edu- by the City. The com-
The educational and building design shall cational buildings. pleted structures shall be
include sufficient noise attenuation inspected to verify installa-
features to reduce noise levels within tion of the noise attenua-
occupiable rooms to less than the 60 dBA tion com.ponents. Field.
noise threshold. inspection notes ofverifi-
cation shall be retained in
the project file.
Aesthetics
13.c-1 The design of the campus structures and Initial Study This measure shall City of The buiiding, landscaping,
open spaces shall conform with the City- be implemented Temecula and parking plans shall
wide design guidelines and requirements. during design and incorporate City mandated
construction of the design requirements for
Temecula Education approval by the City. The
Complex. completed facilities shall
be inspected to verify
. installation of the all site
features in accordance
with -approved design
requirements. Field
inspection notes of verifi-
cation shall be retained in
the project file.
MMRP Table, Page 6
-
-
-
TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Source Implementation 'Responslbie Verification Status 1 Date 1
, Schedule' Party Initials
Paleontological Resources
14.c-1 During excavation and hill-side cutting Initial Study This measure shall City of The qualified paleonto-
activities, a qualified paleontological be implemented Temecula logical monitor shall be
monitor will be present and will, have the prior to and during identified prior to initiating
authority to stop and redirect grading construction of the site grading on the hillside.
activities to evaluate the significance of Temecula Education Monitoring shall begin
any paleontological resources exposed Complex. when hillside grading
during the grading activity within the commences and monitor
alignment If paleontological resources presence shall be verified
are encountered, adequate funding will be by City inspectors during
provided to collect, curate and report on hillside grading. If paleon-
these resources to the ensure the values tological resources are
inherent in the resources are adequately identified, a report shall be'
characterized and preserved. submitted to the City
verifying collection, cura-
tion and management of
the resource in accord-
ance with professional
standards. This report
shall be submitted to the
City prior to first occu-
pancy of the project site.
MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIEb IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' ,
Air Quality
5.2-1 Construction
The following mitigation measures shall Draft EIR All of the construc- City of Copies of approved con-
be implemented throughout construction tion equipment Temecula struction contract with the
activities to reduce project impacts. measures shall be above construction equip-
incorporated into the ment air quality mitigation
construction measures shall be retain-
contract and the ed by the Department or
MMRP Table, Page 7
-
-
-
TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
. . Responsible
Mitigation Measure Source Im¡)lemehtatlon Verification Status I Date I
Schedule . Party Initials .
Air Quality (continued)
5.2-1 Use appropriate emission control measures shall be agency. Field inspections
(cont.) devices on gasoline and diesel implemented during during construction shall
construction equipment and maintain construction. verify the measures are
construction equipment engines by being implemented as
k~eping them tuned. identified in this document.
Field inspection notes
Prohibit idling and other unnecessarY shall be retained in the
operation of equipment. project file.
. Utilize existing power sources (i.e.,
temporary power poles) and avoid
onsite power generation.
Have sufficient equipment at the .site
to carry out dust-control measures in
all areas covered by the contract work
(not just the immediate area of
construction).
. Employ construction activity manage-
ment techniques, such as: configuring
the construction parking to minimize
traffic interference; extending the
construction period; reducing the
number of pieces of equipment used
simultaneously; increasing the
distance between the emission
sources; and reducing or changing the
hours of construction; to minimize
construction activity emissions.
Maintain all work and access areas
free from dust.
MMRP Table, Page 8
-
-
-
TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
.
Mitigation Measure Source implementation Responsible Verification Status I Date I
Schedule Party Initials
Air Quality (continued)
5.2-1 Cover loaded trucks used inconstruc-
(con!.) tion operations with tarpaulins or
maintain at least 2 feet of freeload and
wash off trucks leaving the site.
. Sweep streets if silt is carried over to
adjacent public thoroughfares.
. Water dust-generating surfaces at
intervals to keep all parts of the
disturbed area continuously damp.
. Water the site and clean the equip-
ment in the moming and evening.
. Construction operations affecting
offsite roadways shall be scheduled
for offpeak traffic hours and shall
minimize obstruction of through-traffic
lanes.
Construction activities should be
scheduled to occur first on the upwind
portion of. the project site to reduce
the potential for fugitive dust impacts
in the downwind areas.
. Develop a traffic plan to minimize
traffic flow interference from construc-
tion activities including advance public
notice of routing.
Use low VOC asphalt and còatings.
MMRP Table, Page 9
-
-
-
TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Source Implementation Responsible Verification Status I Date I
Schedule Party Initials
Air Quality (continued)
5.2-2 The proposed project shall submit a plan Draft EIR All of the construc- City of Copies of approved con-
to control fugitive dust throughimþlemen- tion equipment Temecula struction contract with the
tation of reasonably available dust control measures shall be above construction equip-
measures. It shall be preparedand incorporated into ment air quality mitigation
submitted to the City of Temecula for the construction measures shall be retain-
approval prior to the issuance of any contract and the ed by the Department or
grading pennits associated with the measures shall be agency. Field inspections
project The plan shall specify the fugitive implemented during during construction snail
dust control measures to be employed, construction. verify the measures are
including the above measures at a being implemented as
minimum. identified in this document.
5.2-3 The project proponent shall comply with Field inspection notes
shall be retained in the
all applicable SCAQMD Rules and project file
Regulations. In particular, SCAQMD Rule
403 shall be adhered to, insuring the
clean up of construction-related dirt on
approach routes to the site. Rule 403
prohibits the release of fugitive dust
emissions from any active operation,
open storage pile, or disturbed surface
area beyond the property line of the
emisl!lon source. Particulate matter
deposits on public roadways are also
prohibited.
MMRP Table, Page 10
-
-
-
TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Source " Implementation Responsible Verification Status I Date /
Schedule Party Initials
Air Quality (continued) .
5.2-4 Adequate watering techniques shall be Draft EIR All of the construc- City of Copies of approved Con-
employed to partially mitigate the impact tion equipment Temecula struction contract with the
of construction-generated dust particu- measures shall be above construction equip-
lates. Portions of the project site that are incorporated into ment air quality mitigation
under-going earth moving operations shall the construction measures shall be retain-
be w;!tered such that a crust will be contract and the ed by the Department or
formed on the ground surface and then: measures shall be agency. Field inspections
watered again at the end of the day. implemented during during construction shall
construction. verify the measures are
5.2-5 Any vegetative ground cover to be utilized being implemented as
onsite shall be planted as soon as identified in this document.
possible to reduce the disturbed area Field inspection notes
subjåct to wind erosion. Irrigation shall be retained in the
systems needed to water these plants project file.
shàll be installed as soon as possible to
maintain the ground cover and minimize
wind'erosion of the soil.
5.2-6 Any construction access roads (other
than temporary access 'roads) shall be
paved as soon as possible and cleaned
after each work day. The maximum
vehicle speed limit on unpaved roads
shall be 15 mph.
5.2-7 Grading operations shall be suspended
during first and second stage ozone
episodes or when winds exceed 25 mph.
5.2-8 Any construction equipment using diesel
drive intemal combustion engines shall
use a diesel fuel with a maximum of 0.05
percent sulfur and a four degree reta 'd.
MMRP Table, Page 11
-
-
-
TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
. . Implementation ..>
Mitigation Measure Source Responsible Verification Status I Date I
. Schedule Party . - Initials
Air Quality (continued)
5.2-9 Construction personnel shall be informed Draft EIR All of the construe- City of Copies of approved con-
of ride sharing opportunities and an tion equipment Temecula struction contract with the
incentive program shall be implemented measures shall be above construction equip-
by the contractor. incorporated into ment air quality mitigation
the construction measures shall be retain-
5.2-10 Building construction shall comply with contract and the ed by the Department.or
the energy use guidelines in Title 24 of measures shall be agency. Field inspections
the Califomia Administration Code. implemented during during construction shall
5.2-11 Where vehicles leave the construction site construction. verify the measures are
being implemented as
and enter adjacent public streets, the identified in this document. :
streets shall be swept daily or washed
down at the end of the work day to Field inspection notes
shall be retained in the
remove soil tracked onto the paved project file.
surface.
5.2-12 All diesel-powered vehicles and equip-
ment shall be operated with the fuel
injection timing retarded 2 degrees from
the manufacturer's recommendation and
use high pressure injectors.
5.2-13 All diesel-powered vehicles shall be
tumed off when not in use for more than
30 minutes and gasoline - powered
equipment shall be tumed off when not in
use for more than five minutes.
5.2-14 The construction contractor shall utilize
electric or natural gas powered equipment
in lieu of gåsoline or diesèl powered
engines, where feasible and where
economically competitive.
MMRP Table, Page 12
-
-
-
TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
I Mitigation Measure Source Implementation Responsible Verification Status I Date I
Schedule. Party Initials
Air Quality (continued)
5.2-15 The construction contractor shall utilize as Draft EIR All of the construc- City of Copies of approved con-
much as possible precoated/natural tion equipment Temecula struction contract with the
colored building materials, water based or measures shall be above construction equip-
low \tOC coating, and coating transfer or incorporated into ment air quality mitigation
spray equipment with high transfer effi- . the construction measures shall be retain-
clency, such as high volume low pressure contract and the ed by the Department or
(HVLP) spray method, or manual coatings measures shall be agency. Field inspections
application such as paint brush, hand implemented during during construction shall
roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or construction. verify the measures are
sponge. being implemented as
identified in this document.
Field inspection notes
shall be retained in the
project file.
ODerationallmDact
5.2-16 The following measures shall be imple- Draft EIR These measures City of For each of the above
mented in order to reduce the project shall be implemen- Temecula measures, a report of
operational impacts. ted during TEC specific facilities and
facility operation. . implementation programs
. Trip reduction by good transit infra- shall be provided to the
structure 'measures. City within one year of
. Trip reduction by pedestrian enhanc- opening the first educa-
ing infrastructure measures for resi- tional facility. The report
dential and non-residential. shall demonstrate how trip
. Trip reduction by bicycle enhancing reductions are being
infrastructure measures for residential achieved and the amount
and non-residential. of reduction being accom-
Provide transit shelters benches. plished to the extent
feasible.
MMRP Table, Page 13
-
-
-
TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Source Implementation Responsible Verification Status I Date I
Schedule Party Initials
Transportation and Traffic
5.3-1 The City shall require the developer to Draft EIR Fair share funding City of Receipts for payment of
participate on a fair share basis the for traffic signals Temecula fair share funding or
installation of traffic signals at the shall be paid or delivery of performance
following intersections when warranted: placed under per- bonds shall verify imp!.e-
formance bond prior mentation of this mitigation
Diaz Road @ Campus ParkWay to occupancy of the measure.
Diaz Road @ Remington Avenue project site.
Diaz.Road@Zevo Drive
5.3-2 Development of the TEC shall include Draft EIR The design shall be City of A copy of the approved
provision of an onsite mass transit facility approved prior to Temecula transit facility design shall
or center. This facility shall be designed issuance of occu- be retained in the project
in consultation with the Riverside Transit pancy permits for file. Field inspections shall
Authority to provide safe convenient the project. The verify that the facility is
service to the proposed facilities. transit facility shall constructed as designed.
be completed prior A copy of field notes shall
to initiation of the be retained in the project
second phase of the file.
project.
5.3-3 If fill material is imported to the site using Draft EIR Written approval of City of A copy of the City's written
public streets, the City shall review and the means of deli- Temecula approval shall be retained
approve the type of equipment, hours of vering imported fill in the project file. Field
operation, and the approved haul route material to the site inspections shall verify
prior to any importing activity. shall be provided by that the import of fill
the City prior to occurs as approved by the
initiating importation City. A copy of field notes
offill material. shall be retained in the
project file.
MMRP Table,Page 14
-
-
-
TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measurè SourCe Implementation. I. Responsible . Verification Status I Date I
Schedule Party Initials
Hazards
5.4-1 The developer shall retain an on-call Draft EIR During construction I City of If contaminated material is
indusþ'ial hygiene firm that will respond activities. I Temecula discovered during con-
immediately to any discovery of soil . struction, the City shall be
contamination during grading to determine notified in writing imme-
the nature of the contamination.. Before diately (on the same day
proceeding with site development, any as the discovery). If
discovered contamination shall be treated remediation is required, a
or removed from the area with residual letter report summarizing
soil concentrations being reduced to the all remediation activities
regulatory thresholds in place at the time up to the final disposal of
of construction. The contaminated the contaminated material
material shall be managed in a manner shall be provided to the
that does not expose employees or other City within one week after
humans to significant health hazards and final disposal is com-
shall be either treated or removed from pleted. The notification
the site so that it no longer poses any and letter report shall be
hazard. retained in the project file.
5.4-2 If an accidental spill occurs during DraftEIR During construction City of A copy of the specific
construction, the developer shall halt activities. Temecula thresholds of the cleanup
construction in the area of contamination; and data verifying the
limit the area of contamination to the cleanup thresholds have
maximum extent feasible; collect all been met shall be pro-
contaminated soil at the site to either vided to the City within
background levels of contamination or to one week of receipt of this
the appropriate regulatory standard of information. A copy of the
allowed contamination; transport the specific thresholds and
material to a licensed treatment.or verification data shall be
disposal facility. retained in the project file.
MMRP Table, Page 15
-
-
-
TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitl!¡ation Measure Source Implementation Responsible Verification Status I Date I
.. Schedule . Party initials
Hazards (continued)
5.4-3 Prior to occupancy the developer shall Draft EIR The evacuation plan City of I The approved evacuation
submit an evacuation plan for the shall be approved Temecula plan shall be retained in
Temecula Education Complex (TEC) to for implementation the project file and verified
the City Fire Department and receive prior to occupancy. for adequacy at the end of
approval. This evacuation plan shall each phase of develop-
include provisions for relocating the ment at TEC. Evacuation
occupanÎs of the site to a safe location at plan training classes shall :
an appropriate distance from an acciden- be presented to all educa-
tal release. The performance standard to tion professionals annual-
be achieved by the TEC evacuation plan Iy, and signatures by all
will be to include a responsè time for such professionals shall
initiating relocation within two minutes be retained in the project
following notice to the occupants to file.
evacuate and a means of informing the
occupants (such as an alarm system).
ensile managers shall be available to
direct occupants away from the accidental
release in accordance with the evacuation
plan.
.
Cultural Resources
5.5-1 The City shall require the project Draft EIR The intensive data City of A copy of the intensive
developer to retain an archaeological recovery plan shall Temecula data recovery plan shall
consultant and tribal monitors to prepare be reviewed and be retained in the project
and implement.a plan for an intensive approved by the City file. Following completion
data recovery operation by hand excava- after consultation of the recovery activities, a
tion, artifact analysis and report prepara- with the Pechanga written report of findings
tion such that potential information can be Band of Luiseno shall be delivered to the
salvaged prior to the start of site grading. Indians and imple- City and a copy retained in
mented prior to the project file.
initiation of grading.
MMRP Table, Page 16
-
-
-
TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
. Responsible
Mitigation Measure Source Implementation Verification Status I Date I
. .' Schedule Party Initials
Cultural Resources (continued)
5.5-2 The City shall require the developer to. Draft EIR I The mitigation plan City of A copy of the mitigation
implement a mitigation plan for cultural clause/treatment Temecula plan shall,be retained in
resources. The scope and extent of the plan shall be com- the project file. A report of
mitigation plan shall be determined by pleted prior to initia- findings shall be presented
consultation between City staff, Pechanga ting site grading. to the City and a copy
Band of Luisetlo Mission Indians repre- retained in the project file.
sentatives, and the archaeological
consultant for the project.
5.5-3 The City shall require that site grading be Draft ErR The qualified arch- City of The list of qualified moni-
monitored by a qualified archaeologist aeologist and tribal Temecula tors for the TEC project
Tribal monitors designated by the monitors shall be shall be retained in the
Pechanga Band of Luisetlo Mission identified prior to project file. A copy of the
Indians shall also monitor site grading if initiating grading. contract authorizing grad-
required by the tribe. The monitors shall This measure will be ing activities to be halted
have the authority to halt and relocate implemented during .and relocated shall be
construction activities if subsurfaces grading and con- retained in the project file.
resources are encountered. Pechanga struction activities.
Tribal monitors will be allowed to monitor
all archaeological surveys, tests and
studies. The results of the surveys, tests :
and/or studies will be utilized to define
what areas may require avoidance on
the site and the specifies of how any
recovered artifacts shall be managed with
the Tribe, as mutually agreed upon by the
City and its technical staff.
MMRP Table, Page 17
-
-
-
TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
... Implementation Responsible .. Status I Date I
Mitigation Measure Source Verification
Schedule. .. Party Initials
Cultural Resources (continued).
5.5-4 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Final EIR The Agreement with City of A copy of the final Agree-
project developer shall enter into an the Tribe shall be Temecula ment shall be retained
Agreement with the Pechanga .Band of completed prior to in the project file and
Luiseno Mission Indians that addresses initiating grading. periodic monitoring of the
the treatment and disposition of all cultural conditions shall be con-
resources and hÜman remains that may ducted with file notes
be impacted as a result of this develop- verifying compliance.
men!.
5.5-5 The City and site developer agree to Final EIR If and when cultural City of Documentation of cultural
re1inquish ownership of all cultural resources are dis- Temecula resource transfer to 'the
resources, including all archeological covered, the Tribe Tribe shall be retained in
artifacts that are found on the project site. shall be notified and the project file.
to the Pechanga Band of Luiset\o Indians offered an oppor-
for proper treatment and disposition. tunity to claim the
artifacts. Transfer
of such resources
shall be completed
within 30 days of
discovery, barring
extenuating factors.
MMRP Table, Page 18
-
-
-
TEMECULA EDUCATION COMPLEX .
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Implementation Verification Status I Date I
Schedule Initials
Cultural Resources (continued)
5.5-6 The Pechanga Tribe will be allowed to Final EIR The Phase I survey City of Copies of the Phase I
conduct a Phase I survey of the project will be conducted Temecula study and of the Phases II
area in cooperation with the City's prior to initiating of and III studies, if under-
qualified archaeologist for the project site. grading. Any taken, shall be retainea in
Prior to conducting the survey, the Phases II and III the project file. Field
specific individuals from the Tribe and investigations shall inspections by the City
City will be identified and a Phase I be completed prior shall verify that ground
survey methodology will be mutually to grading in areas disturbance does not
agreed upon. If deemed necessary by identified for such occur in study areas prior
the Pechanga Tribe, the City and its studies, but grading to completion of field work.
technical staff. further Phase II surveys can proceed in area
will be completed prior to issuance of any not identified for
grading permit. Any Phase II survey such studies.
activities will be conducted based on a
mutually agreed upon survey methode-
logy and it will be funded by the site
developer.
MMRP Table, Page 19