The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02_046 PC ResolutionATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-046 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RELATED ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF Bu'rI'ERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0076) Project Description WHEREAS, the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and related actions ("Specific Plan"), initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan proposes the development of The annexation of 634 acres to the City of Temecula; a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element to incorporate the proposed land uses, and to include Planning Areas 33A and 33B to the Specific plan Overlay Figure; a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation element to eliminate the connection between Nicolas Road and Calle Contento through the project and to change the designation of Buttedield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road from 4 lanes to Specific Plan Road; a Zone Change to pre-zone the annexation property to the SP zoning designation and to amend the Development Code Section 17.16.070 of the City of Temecula Development Code to adopt a Specific Plan for 804.7 acres to provide zoning and development standards for the development of 2,015 dwelling units within several gated communities, 110,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial retail space, a 12 acre elementary school site and a 20 acre middle school site, two public parks sites including a 19.7 acre Sports Park with lighted playing fields and a 4.8 acre neighborhood park with passive uses, three private recreation facilities, private and public trails and paseos, a fire station site, and 202.7 acres of natural open space to be preserved as permanent habitat, related flood control improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash; a tentative map to subdivide the project for conveyance purposes; a tentative map to create 509 residential lots within a gated community, a 4.8 acre private recreational facility, a .3 acre private mini park, private paseos and trails, a 5.1 acre public park site, and two open space lots (21.9 acres) to be preserved as permanent habitat; and a Development Agreement to grant the developer development rights for ten years and secure the construction of certain infrastructure improvements by the developer. Environmental Review Process WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City is the lead agency for the Specific Plan as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principle responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan; and, R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew~I:'C Staff Report 10-16-02LResos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 2 WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was issued on December 10, 1997, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other regulatory agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082; and, WHEREAS, 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; and, WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of Specific Plan implementation pursuant to CEQA; and, WHEREAS, upon completion of the Draft EIR dated April 3, 2002, the City initiated a 45- day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research in May 17, 2002; and, WHEREAS, 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; and, WHEREAS, during and before the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City received 16 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"); and, WHEREAS, on October 17, 2001 the Planning Commission held a workshop, on October 16, 2002 and October 30, 2002 the Planning Commission held public hearings, and on September 12, 2001 and September 25, 2002 two Community meetings were conducted to provide information about the Specific Plan; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided its responses to all commentors on October 1,2002; and, Statutory Requirements for Findings WHEREAS, 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: A. 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, B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, RAS P~Rofipaugh Ranch SPXnew~C Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 3 C. 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; and, WHEREAS, Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if the Specific Plan 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; and, WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but which the Planning Commission 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 Specific Plan and set forth herein are described in Section 1 of the proposed City Council Resolution to Certify the FEIR; and, WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the Planning Commission finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in Section 2 of the proposed City Council Resolution to Certify the FEIR; and, WHEREAS, alternatives to the Specific Plan that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section 4 of the proposed City Council Resolution to Certify the FEIR, have been determined not to significantly reduce the environmental impact of the Specific Plan; and, WHEREAS, a discussion of Specific Plan benefits identified by 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 3 of the proposed City Council Resolution to Certify the FEIR; and, WHEREAS, a discussion of Growth Inducing Impacts are set forth in Section 5 of the proposed City Council Resolution to Certify the FEIR; and, WHEREAS, Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, as set forth in Section 7 of the prposed City Council Resolution to Certify the FEIR, for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures; and, WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Planning Commission has 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 Planning Commission and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Specific Plan 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. R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SI~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by FC.doc 4 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs The Final Environmental Impact Report, adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations and approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program substantially in the form contained in Exhibits A and B respectively of the City Council Resolution to Certify the FEIR. Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 30th day of October 2002. iniaeff, Chairman A'I-FEST: Debbie Ubnoske Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2002-046 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 30th day of October, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and Chairman Chiniaeff NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None noske, Secretary R:XS PkRoripaugh Ranch SP~ewXPC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 5 EXHIBIT A (For Attachment No. 1) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnewh~'C Staff Report 10-164)2~Resos and ord (E/P) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 6 CC RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD. (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0076) Statement of Findings of Fact Pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15091 For the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan WHEREAS, the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and related actions ("Specific Plan"), initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan proposes the development of The annexation of 634 acres to the City of Temecula; a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element to incorporate the proposed land uses, and to include Planning Areas 33A and 33B to the Specific plan Overlay Figure; a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation element to eliminate the connection between Nicolas Road and Calle Contento through the project and to upgrade the designation of Buttedield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road from 4 lanes to Specific Plan Road; a Zone Change to pre-zone the annexation property to the SP zoning designation and to amend the Development Code Section 17.16.070 of the City of Temecula Development Code to adopt a Specific Plan for 804.7 acres to provide zoning and development standards for the development of 2,015 dwelling units within several gated communities, 110,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial retail space, a 12 acre elementary school site and a 20 acre middle school site, two public parks sites including a 19.7 acre Sports Park with lighted playing fields and a 4.8 acre neighborhood park with passive uses, three private recreation facilities, private and public trails and paseos, a fire station site, and 202.7 acres of natural open space to be preserved as permanent habitat, related flood control improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash; a tentative map to subdivide the project for conveyance purposes; a tentative map to create 509 residential lots within a gated community, a 4.8 acre private recreational facility, a .3 acre private mini park, private paseos and trails, a 5.1 acre public park site, and two open space lots (21.9 acres) to be preserved as permanent habitat; and a Development Agreement to grant the developer development rights for ten years and secure the construction of certain infrastructure improvements by the developer. WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City is the lead agency for the Specific Plan as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principle responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was issued on April 1, 1999, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other regulatory agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15062; and, R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~q. esos and ord (EJP) * 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 7 WHEREAS, 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; and, WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of Specific Plan implementation pursuant to CEQA; and, WHEREAS, upon completion of the Draft EIR dated November 2, 2000, the City initiated a 45-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research in November 2, 2000; and, WHEREAS, 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; and, WHEREAS, during and before the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City received 16 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"); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided its responses to all commentors on October 1,2002; and, WHEREAS, on October 16, 2002 and October 30, 2002 the Planning Commission held public hearings, and on __., 2002 the City Council held a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, 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: A. 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, B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, C. 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; and, WHEREAS, Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if the Specific Plan 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; and, R:\S l%Roripaugh Ranch SPXnewWC Staff Report 10-16-02kResos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 8 WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but which the City 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 Specific Plan and set forth herein are described in Section 1 hereof; and, WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City Council finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in Section 42 hereof, and, WHEREAS, alternatives to the Specific Plan that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section 4; and, WHEREAS, a discussion of Specific Plan benefits identified by 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 3 hereof; and, WHEREAS, Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures; and, WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has 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 City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Specific Plan 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. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings, Impacts of the Project that have been mitigated to insignificant Levels. The following issues were found to be less than significant based on detailed technical data supporting a conclusion that mitigation measures identified in the EIR and administrative record will be implemented reducing the impacts to below a level of significance. In the following presentation each resource issue is identified and followed by (A) a description of the potential significant impact, (B) a discussion of the finding in the entire administrative record, primarily the EIR, (C) any mitigation measures that will be implemented to achieve a non- significant impact are identified, and (D) the facts supporting the finding. A. The City Council hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment for the resources addressed below. 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: R:\S PXRofipaugh Ranch SPXnewWC Staff Report 10*16-02XResos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 9 1. 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; 2. 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 3. Specific economic, social, or other consideration make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. B. The City Council hereby finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081, that the following issues are less than significant based on implementation of the mitigation measures outlined below and that no additional mitigation measures or Project changes are required to reduce these impacts below a significant level. These issues and the measures adopted to mitigate them to a level of insignificance are as follows: Land Use and Planning A. Potential Significant Impact The Project site is currently classified as a Specific Plan in the City of Temecula General Plan, which allows a gross density of 3 units per acre. (DEIR, p. 3-9 to 3-11) The County's Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) also designates the "Valley" portion of the site for Iow density housing (DEiR, p. 3-10). (Ibid.) The proposed net density of the Project is 2.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). (DEIR, p. 3-11) Short-term impacts will occur as the land use on the property changes from unimproved vacant land, to a construction site, and finally to a Iow to moderate intensity residential neighborhood. (DEIR, p. 3-11) Due to the design of the project, development of the site will not have long-term impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods to the southwest, south, and east (DEIR, pp. 3-9 to 3-11). In addition, the Valley portion of the project will be annexed into the City of Temecula - this is not expected to have any significant land use impacts. B. Finding The current combination of standard conditions, uniform codes, and Project design features help reduce the overall land use impacts of the Project on surrounding land uses by creating larger lots around the perimeter of the site with smaller lots on the "inside" of the Project (DEIR, pp. 3-9 to 3-11). The following measures are proposed to mitigate potential land use impacts of the proposed project relative to regional plans (i.e., the French Valley Airport Master Plan): C. Mitigation Measures 1. The Specific Plan has been transmitted to the County's Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for review and comment. Official comments, including the Conditions of Approval prepared by ALUC, have been transmitted to the City as part of the decision-making action on the project. 2. The developer has provided the County's Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) with Avigation Easements for all the parcels in Planning Areas 1-9, and sends a copy of that proof to the City Planning Department. R:XS PxRoripaugh Ranch SP~newXPC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC,d~c 10 3. The developer has also provided the City with proof that avigation easements have been obtained for all the lots in Planning Areas 1-5. 4. Prior to recordation of any maps in Planning Areas 1-5, the developer shall demonstrate to the City Planning Department that buyer information contains a statement regarding avigation easements. This information shall be provided either in the White Report or supplementary information with an affidavit of disclosure by the developer. 5. The developer has demonstrated that proposed structures comply with the current height restrictions of the French Valley Airport and ALUC for Planning Areas 1-9. 6. One or both of the proposed school sites can be converted to residential use provided that all of the following are met: (a) approval of a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) is obtained from the City to convert from Educational Designation to Low Medium Residential Designation; (b) the School District has indicated in writing that they are no longer interested in using Planning Areas 28 and/or 29 as schools sites; and (c) the total number of units for the entire project does not exceed 2,015 units. 7. Incorporate noise attenuation measures into any building construction to ensure interior noise levels are at or below 45-decibel levels. (Refer to Noise Mitigation Measures 3.10-5 and 3.10-6). 8. Install hoods or shields to prevent either spillage of lumens or reflections into the sky (lights must be downward facing). 9. The Plan and EIR are amended to recognize the approved CLUP and the airport is to include the appropriate text and graphic illustrations. 10. No obstruction of the "FAR Part 77 Conical Surface" shall be permitted. (Refer- see Land Use & Planning Mitigation Measure 3.1-5) 11. The following uses shall be precluded: a) stadiums; b) amphitheaters; c) lighted ball fields; and d) churches in Planning Areas 1-9. 12. The following uses shall be prohibited: a) Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA- approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator; b) any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport; c) any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area; or d) any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation. 13. Prior to recordation of any final maps, or the recordation of any avigation easements, whichever is first, the Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD) shall approve the wording for, and authorize the filing of, an avigation easement for the neighborhood park (Planning Area 6). The avigation easement for PA 6 shall be recorded and documented with the Planning Department prior to construction of the park. R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew'd~C Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 11 D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. The density of the Project (i.e., Iow density suburban intensity of 2.5 units/acre) complies with the General Plan and has been organized to minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods (Draft EIR, p. 3-11 ). 2. With implementation of the standard conditions, uniform codes, Project design features, and the recommended mitigation measures, the Project will not significantly impact surrounding land uses and is consistent with the City's General Plan, and will thus create no significant short- or long-term impacts on land use. (Draft EIR, p. 3-15) 3. Development in the Temecula area is expected to continue and result in a fundamental change in the character of the area (DEIR, p. 6-6). However, the change need not be cumulatively considerable if proper planning is exercised. It is not anticipated the Project will contribute to cumulative land use and planning impacts in the Temecula area. (DEIR, p. 6-11) Earth Resources A. Potential Significant Impact Various regional faults, such as the San Andreas Fault, are capable of producing major earthquakes and substantial ground shaking. (Draft EIR, p. 3-28) Development of the proposed Project will introduce additional homes and residents into an area subject to moderate ground shaking, settling, and other seismic related hazards. (Ibid.) Soils on the site have a moderate to high potential for erosion if the vegetative cover is removed. (Draft EIR, p. 3-30, 3-34) The Project will temporarily increase the potential for erosion by removing vegetation during grading activities for roads and building pads. (Ibid.) Long-term increases to erosion potential will occur as a result of increased surface runoff rates due to road paving and construction of impermeable structures. (Ibid.) B. Finding The following measures are recommended to prevent earth-related impacts from becoming significant: C. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, engineering reports addressing geologic, seismic, or soil limitations and foundation design will be prepared for the following Planning Areas: PA(s) Report Topic(s) 12 Liquefaction 14 liquefaction, landslides 15 landslides 17 Landslides 18 Liquefaction (south end) 19 landslides and liquefaction for lots along creek 20 landslides and liquefaction for lots along creek 22 liquefaction R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~newWC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 23 liquefaction 24 liquefaction 27 liquefaction 28 liquefaction 31 liquefaction 33A, B liquefaction Nicolas liquefaction (sports park) (school site) (offsite improvements) 2. If a particular lot cannot accommodate appropriate setbacks, it will not be built. These reports will specify appropriate foundations and other design parameters to alleviate identified potential geotechnical impacts. These reports will be prepared and approved by the City Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of grading permits. 3. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for offsite improvements related to the project, engineering reports addressing geologic, seismic, or soil limitations and foundation design will be prepared for any affected areas that have not already had such studies, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 4. At least two days prior to scheduled blasting, the developer shall post a clearly visible sign at the intersection of Nicolas Road and Caile Girasol to notify residents of the Nicolas Valley if and when blasting will occur. Any blasting activities will be limited to the hours of 9 AM to 4 PM, Monday through Friday. Prior to any blasting, the developer shall obtain permission from the City Engineer to post notice in at least one newspaper of local circulation at least one week in advance. A note to this effect shall be placed on the grading plans. 5. Water Resoumes (below) contains mitigation measures for erosion control and sedimentation (i.e., water erosion). Section 6 on Air Quality contains mitigation measures for dust control (i.e., wind erosion and revegetation of disturbed areas). D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. While development of the proposed Project will introduce additional homes and residents into an area subject to moderate ground shaking, settling, and other seismic related hazards, these hazards are similar to those experienced throughout the mountain region, and most of Southern California. (Draft EIR, p. 3-28) These hazards are not substantially elevated for the Project site and will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects. (Ibid.) Also, the residential structures will be designed to withstand anticipated seismic stresses and soil conditions, further minimizing potential impacts to new residents. (Draft EIR, p. 3-30, 3-34) 2. Implementation of standard conditions, existing codes, proposed Project design features, and the mitigation measures listed above, will assure that potential geologic, seismic, soil, and other earth-related impacts remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3-39) Development throughout the region will also introduce thousands of new residences and residents into areas subject to considerable ground shaking and some that have soil limitations. However, with proper design and engineering, no cumulative impacts to earth resources are expected. Therefore, the Project's potential impacts to earth resources are not cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, p. 6-6) R:\S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SPXnew',PC Stuff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 13 Water Resources A. Potential Significant Impact Development of the Project site will increase the amount of onsite runoff by covering pervious native soils with various impervious surfaces such as asphalt, concrete, and buildings. (DEIR, p. 3-45) Based on the proposed development plan, approximately 254 acres (32 percent) of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces (e.g., roadways, parking areas, homes, patios, etc.). (DEIR, p. 3-47) The covering of existing native soils with impervious surfaces could slightly change recharge of local groundwater. (Draft EIR, p. 3-48) Santa Gertrudis Creek presently has an outlet flow off the Project site of 3,479 cfs - the proposed drainage plan will not increase that flow. Similarly, Long Valley Wash presently has an outlet flow of 4,460 cfs - the proposed drainage plan will not increase that flow with construction of the proposed drainage facilities (FEIR, pp. 11, 12) Present runoff is mostly limited to natural sediments from the surrounding agricultural land. (Draft EIR, p. 3-48) Conversion of the site to urban uses means that runoff entering the storm drain system will contain minor amounts of pollutants typical of urban use, including pesticides, fertilizers, oil and rubber residues, detergents, grease, hydrocarbon particles, dust particles, and other debris. (Ibid.) This runoff, although typical of urban use, will contribute to the incremental degradation of downstream water quality in Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. (Ibid.) B. Finding With compliance with NPDES requirements and implementation of the following mitigation measures, water resource related impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level: C. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to the issuance of a rough grading permit, the developer shall provide a Drainage Management Plan (DMP) covering both Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Creek immediately downstream of the project site. The DMP must provide erosion control measures sufficient to protect properties downstream of Santa Gertrudis Creek, Long Valley Wash, and the Plateau portion of the project from flooding, scour, erosion, and/or other drainage-related damage up to a 100-year storm. The DMP will demonstrate that runoff leaving the project site will not increase velocity or flow. The report will demonstrate how total offsite flows from the 2 channels can be reduced to the greatest extent feasible from existing flows. The DMP will identify maintenance responsibilities and be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The DMP shall incorporate any changes to the project drainage reports and demonstrate the project meets all applicable requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) relative to drainage improvements and drainage-related construction activities. The DMP must demonstrate the planned improvements will prevent downstream erosion and flooding impacts and any increases in offsite runoff. If it cannot demonstrate these conditions are met, no building permits shall be issued, to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department and the RCFCWCD. For the purposes of this measure, downstream impacts also refers to MWD pipelines that could be impacted. R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 2. Prior to recordation of any maps, or issuance of grading permits, whichever is first, the developer shall provide a maintenance agreement for the portions of the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Creek on the project site. It must be mutually agreeable to the City Public Works Department, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD), and the Home Owners Association (HOA). This agreement shall state that the City is only responsible for maintaining flood control facilities under public roads, and is not responsible for maintaining the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash channels or detention basins, and the other facilities must be maintained by RCFCWCD/HOA, with funding provided by the HOA. 3. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall coordinate any construction that could impact facilities of the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) to assure that their facilities are not damaged by project construction, either onsite or offsite. 4. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits, as part of implementation of the mass grading plan, the developer shall identify and make, as necessary, interim channel improvements including, but not limited to, grading and construction of detention basins during the period before Phase 2 permanent channel improvements are constructed to protect downstream facilities constructed during Phase 1, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Interim improvements will require a mass-grading permit. 5. The City reserves the right to require the developer to mitigate any concentrated offsite flows near the project improvements and to adequately disperse them by the use of rip-rap, armor[lex, or equivalent improvements, as approved by and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This measure shall be in force during the entire development process for the project. 6. The timing of all bridge improvements shall be consistent with the transportation mitigation measures, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 7. Prior to recordation of any final map, the developer shall provide a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLMR) and comply with that process, to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. 8. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Phase 2, the developer shall submit appropriate documentation to the Federal Emergency Management Agency sufficient to update the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Planning Areas 12, 13, 14, 27, 33A, and 33B for Santa Gertrudis Creek, and Planning Areas 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 31 for Long Valley Wash. 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the SDRWQCB for review and comment covering both construction and occupancy of the project. The WQMP shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. The amount of water that will be required for the Project is not substantial on a regional basis, and will not result in any significant change to the overall direction or flow rate of groundwater and will mainly use imported water supplied by EMWD. (Draft EIR, p. 3-45) R:~S PxP. oripaugh Ranch SPXnewXPC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (EIP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 15 2. With implementation of the proposed drainage master plan, runoff and peak flows will not increase (FEIR, pp. 11, 12) The Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. (Ibid.) Also, the Project will not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on or off-site. (Ibid.) 3. With implementation of the standard conditions, uniform codes, Project design features, and the recommended mitigation measures, the Project will not significantly alter flows to Santa Gertrudis Creek or Long Valley Wash, and will have no significant short- or long-term impacts on water-related resources. (Draft EIR, p. 3-54) 4. As development occurs, local water resources, both surface and underground, will be incrementally impacted as native soils are covered over, runoff is increased, and more urban pollutants are introduced into local runoff. (Draft EIR, p. 3-58) However, these impacts are not expected to be significant as long as the County continues to require developers to not increase offsite runoff and to properly plan flood control improvements for new development. (Ibid.) As growth continues, there may be cumulative significant impacts to water resources, (Ibid.) However, the Project will not make a significant contribution to potential cumulatively considerable impacts on water resources. (Ibid.) Biological Resources A. Potentially Significant Impact 1. The Project site contains several vegetation types, including 248.5 acres (31%) covered by sage scrub, transitional and grasslands, 24.6 acres of riparian vegetation, 7.8 acres of woodlands, and 537.5 acres (67%) of disturbed land. (Draft EIR, p. 3-117) The site contains two major drainages (Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash) plus several other minor tributary drainages. The site supports a number of listed or otherwise protected species, including the California gnatcatcher, Quino butterfly, Stephen's kangaroo rat, and possibly burrowing owls. 2. After circulation of the first DEIR, the Project was extensively revised and was made consistent with the Assessment District 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan recently approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (DEIR, pp. 3-125 to 3-129). The Project is also consistent with the draft habitat and conservation areas identified in the CETAP maps of the Riverside County Integrated Plan (FEIR, p. 15). The Project, as proposed, will remove 154 acres of the onsite sage scrub, transitional, and grassland vegetation, 9.9 acres of the riparian vegetation, and almost all of the woodland vegetation. Almost all of the proposed development will be on land already disturbed (DEIR, p. 3-131) The site provides extensive raptor foraging habitat, so its removal could have cumulative impacts on raptors. (DEIR, p. 3-134) Due to preservation of much of the Santa Gertrudis environs in the AD 161 SHCP, the proposed Project will not adversely affect biological resources on, or wildlife movement across, the site. (Draft EIR, 3-140) B. Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels; R:~S l~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~C Staff Report 10-16*02~Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 16 C. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or map recordation, whichever is first, the developer shall obtain Streambed Alteration Agreements (SAA) with the California Department of Fish and Game for impacts to onsite drainages, including but not limited to, Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Creek. While this is a standard agency requirement, several unique requirements of the Roripaugh site require this measure to be spelled out in detail. Existing disturbed wetland areas on the site will be restored and maintained according to conditions of approval of the SAA. The two flow-by/detention basins shown in the Master Drainage Plan in the two major drainage channels will be constructed with "soft" (i.e., natural) bottoms and be allowed to revegitate naturally (in Planning Areas 13 and 25). They will be maintained on a regular basis for flood control purposes. Willow and other appropriate riparian species will be planted in areas designated by the CWA 404 permit being processed for this project. This vegetation will create new wetland habitat (approximately 1.22 acres) to compensate for the loss of existing onsite wetlands (0.61 acres). The project is expected to impact a total of 2.69 acres of land under ACOE jurisdiction. It is also expected to impact 3.0 acres of land under CDF&G jurisdiction, of which 0.83 acres is riparian habitat. The revegetation areas may be near the flow-by/detention basins or within the creek channels, as approved by the Army Corps in approved 404 permitting documents. As shown in Figure 3.4-3, Master Drainage Plan, the basins will be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the following areas: Basin Location South end of PA-7C Southwest portion of Santa Gertrudis Creek Long Valley Wash (PA 25 & 26) Constructed prior to issuance of... 1st building permit PA 3, 4A, or 4B 1st building permit in PA lA, 2, or 3 PA lA (PA 7B) 250th building permit in PA lA, 2, or 3 (PA 13) 1st building permit east of Butterfield Stage Road (PA 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, or31) and concurrent with Long Valley channel improvements These basins shall be maintained by the Developer, although the basin in Planning Area 13 may be maintained by the County's designated conservation organization under the AD 161 SHCP. Non-performance of maintenance duties will be cause for suspension of building permits for the project, regardless of development phase. In addition, the developer shall transmit a copy of the approved CWA 404 permit for the project within 30 days of approval by the ACOE. 2. The developer has retained a qualified biologist to prepare a directed survey to locate on site coastal California gnatcatcher nests, and no occupied gnatcatcher nests were present. In addition, no grading or removal of habitat will take place within 100 feet of known nesting sites during the nesting and breeding season (mid-February through mid-July). The developer shall provide the City with a copy of the report approved by the appropriate resource agency. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any vegetation clearing, including offsite roadway or other improvements, a focused burrowing owl survey will be completed and any burrowing owls occurring on the site will be excluded from active burrows. Owl surveys and burrow exclusion will follow the CDFG protocols for this species (CDFG 1993). R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch S PXnew\PC Staff Report 10-16~)2~Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc The developer shall provide the City with a copy of the report approved by the appropriate resource agency. 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any vegetation clearing, including offsite roadway or other improvements, a directed survey shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of nesting raptor species. Surveys will be conducted between April and June. If raptor nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat will take place within 500 feet of known nesting sites during the nesting/breeding season (mid-March through mid-July). The developer shall provide the City with a copy of the report approved by the appropriate resource agency. 5. The open space in Planning Areas 8, 9A, 9B, and 13 will be managed by a conservation organization authorized by the most current AD 161 SHCP Agreement. Prior to recordation of a final map, the developer shall provide the City with a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) signed by the agency that will own and maintain the habitat area, covering activities related to the AD 161 Habitat area on the project site (Planning Areas 8-10). The HMP will address the exact boundaries of the area, fencing, lighting, landscaping, fuel modification, access roads for fire equipment, pedestrian and equestrian trails, and access gates to the preserve area, including public access to the Johnson Ranch and UCR property. The Developer shall comply with all applicable requirements of the AD 161 SHCP and the approved HMP, including but not limited to the following: a. Roadways in or adjacent to the open space areas, including security and maintenance roads, shall have highly visible signs notifying drivers of the potential for wildlife (e.g. "WARNING - WILDLIFE XING"). Speed laws near corridors should be strictly enforced. b. No fences shall impede movement within the corridor. If a fence is necessary in these areas, it should be a two-strand smooth-wire or split-rail type. The bottom strand or rail should occur no lower than 20 inches above the ground, with the second strand or rail occurring no higher than 40 inches above the ground. c. Fencing shall be installed and maintained along the perimeter of the open space areas (Planning Areas 8, 9A, 9B, and 13) to minimize intrusion by humans, pets, vehicles, etc. d. Habitat or corridors shall be screened from the direct view of adjacent homes, roads, etc. by trees and shrubs. Dense vegetative screening is required for the edge of any developed areas adjacent to corridors. e. If nighttime lighting is necessary in the area of wildlife corridors, only appropriate restrictive lighting pointed away from the corridor should be allowed. In addition, streets should not terminate at the edge of the corridor because this may promote turning of automobiles, which would flood the corridor with headlight illumination. Streets that do terminate shall have fencing or other visual screening to limit light intrusion into the habitat area. f. During the vegetation clearing or grading, all areas of Riversidian sage scrub proposed to be preserved in the vicinity of construction activities shall be protected through the construction of temporary fencing. No construction access, parking or storage will R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~ewU'C Staff Report I 0-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 18 be permitted within the fenced area. Vehicle transportation routes between cut-and-fill locations will be restricted. Failure of the developer to abide by the guidelines of AD 161 SHCP and the HMP will be grounds for suspension of building permits for the project, regardless of phase. This action can be appealed to the City Council in disputed cases. 6. Prior to final map approval, the Developer shall document that an effective Fuel Modification Zone (FMZ) has been planned around the AD 161 SHCP area (Planning Areas 8-10), to the satisfaction of the City Planning and Public Works Departments, City Fire Department, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No maps shall be approved until a mutually agreeable FMZ plan is approved by the City Public Works Department, subject to concurrence with the other affected agencies/departments. 7. Prior to approval of any final maps, all mature trees should be shown on an exhibit (mature = 3 inches truck diameter at breast height or larger). The developer shall replace mature trees lost through development at a minimum 1.5:1 ratio as outlined in the Master Landscape Plan and Landscape Material Palette in Section 5 of the Specific Plan at appropriate locations throughout the project. D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. The proposed mitigation measures will establish a Habitat Management Plan for the habitat land of AD 161 SHCP within the Project site (PAs 8, 9A, 9B, and 13) which will help assure the long-term health of this habitat area for the gnatcatcher, Quino butterfly, and Stephen's kangaroo rat. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-133 to 3-136) Payment of a regional fee will mitigate impacts to the Stephen's kangaroo rat, and protocol surveys and possible relocation will prevent impacts to any burrowing owls. Other sensitive species will also benefit by the 201 acres of habitat land set aside on the site. 2. With implementation of standard conditions, uniform codes, and recommended mitigation measures, impacts to biological resources will be reduced to less than significant levels. (DEIR, p. 3-140) 3. Ongoing development will put additional pressure on local biological resources, especially the loss of foraging land for raptors (DEIR, p. 6-7) Since the Project is mitigating its own impacts, and it will not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts to biological species. (Ibid.) Energy and Mineral Resources A. Potential Significant Impact The project area does not contain any significant energy resources. The State is currently experiencing an energy "crisis" but is expected to resolve it in the coming months. The Santa Gertrudis Creek channel does contain sand and gravel resources, and a small mining operation is currently extracting aggregate from the channel onsite. The proposed Project will preserve Santa Gertrudis Creek channel intact so no significant impacts are expected to mineral resources. (DEIR, p. 3-142) The Project will consume additional electricity and natural gas, but this increase is not considered significant when viewed over the long-term (DEIR, p. 3-142) R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~Rcsos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 19 B. Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential energy impacts to less than significant levels: C. Mitigation Measures Compliance with the State's energy conservation regulations contained in Title 24. D. Facts in Support of the Finding Over the long-term, the public and private utility companies serving Southern California are expected to have adequate supplies of electricity and natural gas, despite the current short-term "crisis" (DEIR, p. 3-141) Hazards A. Potential Significant Impact Occupancy of the proposed Project will require the use of a number of common hazardous materials such as cleaners, fertilizers, etc., however, these are not considered a significant impact (DEIR, p. 3-145). Hazardous materials from former vehicle-related activities were found in several small areas in the center of the site, as delineated in a Phase 1 report for the site. These contaminated areas have since been remediated according to applicable requirements. The site will also expose hundreds of residents to increased hazards related to overflights from the French Valley Airport, which is considered significant. (DEIR, p. 3-146) B. Finding The previous Section 1 entitled Land Use and Planning proposes mitigation measures related to avigation easements for future project residents and land uses (DEIR, pp. 3-14, 3-15) Implementation of the mitigation measures in the Land Use section regarding avigation easements and the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) will reduce impacts related to overflight hazards to less than significant levels. Compliance with existing laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials are considered adequate to control potential exposure of Project residents to hazardous materials. In addition, the following measures are recommended to assure there are no impacts regarding hazardous materials: C. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall demonstrate that the contaminated areas identified in the 1999 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report have been remediated according to applicable regulations, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 2. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall contact the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) if cleanup oversight is required, and contact a DTSC if a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment must be prepared. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~newh~C Staff Report 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 20 3. Prior to the City's acceptance of the grant deeds for the 2 park sites (Planning Areas 6 and 27) and the fire station site (Planning Area 32), the developer shall demonstrate that the sites are not contaminated by hazardous materials, to the satisfaction of the Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD), Public Works, and the Fire Department. 4. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall contact the State's Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) to identify any hazmat permitting authority or agency related to the project. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall obtain a hazardous waste storage permit if so directed by the State's Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. With respect to hazardous materials, large amounts of such materials will not be stored onsite and only small amounts of chemicals typical in suburban uses will be used during operation of the Project. Therefore, significant impacts related to hazardous materials are not anticipated for the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 3-145) In addition, the proposed Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on the use or disposable of hazardous materials. (Draft EIR, p. 6-8) 2. Notifying residents of potential hazards from the proximity to French Valley Airport and restricting building heights will not prevent accidents, but obtaining an avigation easement from all involved property owners is the required mitigation for residential land uses within this zone. With these, the impacts of the Project relative to hazards of aircraft overflight have been mitigated to less than significant levels (DEIR, p. 147). Noise A. Potential Significant Impact The project area is relatively quiet at present due to the lack of major roads and largely rural condition. The proposed Project will generate both short-term construction noise and long-term noise, mainly in the form of vehicular traffic on local roadways. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-157 to 3-162) At buildout, the Project will increase ambient noise levels by 2.6 dB which is below the specified 3 dB CEQA threshold. Area-wide noise impacts from planned growth are expected to be cumulatively considerable (DEIR, p. 6-8) B. Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce short-term noise impacts from construction and long-term noise impacts from project occupancy to less than significant levels: C. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall prepare and file a Noise Control Plan (NCP) with the City Public Works Department. The NCP will commit the developer to the following measures. Failure of the developer to abide by these restrictions R:XS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc will be grounds for suspension of building permits, regardless of phase, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department: a. All construction and general maintenance activities, except in an emergency, shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except for holidays. b. All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier. c. All construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. The location of staging areas will be subject to review and approval by the City prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits. d. Prior to precise grading plan approval, a noise mitigation analysis shall be performed for single family residences or multi-family residential buildings within 200 feet of the edge of right-of-way for Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road, or for any other noise-sensitive uses on the project site potentially exposed to exterior noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL. The analysis must demonstrate that planned noise protection will meet City standards, to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Department. e. Prior to precise grading plan approval, the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation analysis for all non-residential uses within 100 feet of the edge of right-of-way for Murrieta Hot Springs Road or residences along Butterfield Stage Road (e.g., Planning Area 11), or for any other noise-sensitive uses on the project site potentially exposed to exterior noise exceeding 70 dB CNEL. The noise analysis must demonstrate that planned noise protection will meet City standards, to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Department. f. Prior to approval of the final park design, the developer shall document that outdoor recreational areas are designed to have exterior noise levels of less than 70 dB CNEL, to the satisfaction of the City Community Development and Community Services Departments. Noise attenuation along Butterfield Stage Road for the sports park should be in the form of berms rather than walls. g. Prior to precise grading plan approval, the developer shall document that interior living areas have noise levels less than 45 dB CNEL, to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Department. h. Prior to the issuance of building permits for homes in Planning Areas 1-4B, the developer shall demonstrate that the homes will have double-paned windows with at least 25 STC ratings installed to reduce noise from occasional aircraft overflights from French Valley Airport. i. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits in each Planning Area, the developer shall demonstrate that written information is available and being provided to prospective residents in Planning Areas 1-4B on avigation easements, height restrictions, and occasional overflights (noise and hazards). R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch S P~new~PC Staff Report l 0-16-02\Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 22 j. Measures 2 and 3 under Land Use and Planning (Section E, sub- section 1) address potential noise impacts related to operations at the French Valley Airport. D. Facts in Support of the Finding Construction of the Project may temporarily increase noise levels along local roads for several months. However, due to the topography and distance from occupied structures, these noise levels should not exceed significance criteria. (Draft EIR, p. 3-154) 1. Potential noise impacts from the proposed Project will occur in its opening year (2003) as well as at buildout (+2015) but ara not expected to be significant (i.e., +2.6 dB) (Draft EIR, pp. 3-157 to 3-162). Due to the amount of growth anticipated, cumulative noise impacts are expected to be considerable (+6 dB), although the proposed Project's contribution will not be significant (Draft EIR, p. 6-8) 2. Implementation of the mitigation measures described above, as well as standard conditions and uniform codes, will reduce potential noise impacts to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 3-165) Public Services A. Potential Significant Impact 1. Fire Protection: Almost the entire Project site is currently outside of the 5- minute response time requirement of the Temecula Fire Department (FD) (DEIR, p. 3-166) In addition; the Project will require an extensive Fuel Modification Zone (Ibid.) The Project is providing a new fire station site (DEIR, p. 3-167) 2. Police Protection: Law enforcement services are provided by the Temecula Police Department and the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. When annexed, the entire site will be under the jurisdiction of the City Police Department. (DEIR, p. 3-173) The Project would require the service of an additional 6 deputies. (Ibid.) 3. : At present, all local school sites of the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) are impacted by local growth and the State's mandatory class-size reduction program. (Draft EIR, p. 3-175) Data from the TVUSD shows that all of the schools that would serve the Project site are currently at or over capacity. (FEIR, p. 16) In addition, the TVUSD is expecting enrollments to continue increasing and expects to accommodate the continued growth by using portables. (Ibid.) Consequently, cumulative impacts to school services will be significant due to continued growth (DEIR, p. 6-8) The Project is making available a new 12- acre elementary school site and a new 20-acre middle school site southeast of Butter[ield Stage Road and Nicolas Road. (DEIR, p. 2-9) 4. Recreation: The proposed Project could generate as many as 5,743 new residents, which would create a need for approximately 28.7 acres of parkland, based on State and local Quimby Act standards (DEIR, p. 3-179) The Project will provide an amount of parkland equivalent to 28.7 acres, including a 5.1-acre neighborhood park in the Plateau area, a 19.8- acre community sports park just west of the middle school site, and 9.1 acres of private recreational facilities. (Ibid.) As the area grows, additional parkland will have to be provided to assure there are no cumulatively considerable recreation impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 6-8) R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch S PXnewWC Staff Report 10-16-02~P, esos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 23 5. Library: The proposed Project will increase the area population and community demand for library services. The City of Temecula has adopted a Library Component of the Development Impact Fee to mitigate the impacts of the projects. The project will be required to pay this fee prior to the issuance of each building permit. B. Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to public services to less than significant levels: C. Mitigation Measures 1. Fire Protection: a. Prior to issuance of a building permit in any Planning Area other than 1, 2, or 3A, and completion of a permanent onsite fire station, the developer shall demonstrate that the proposed unit is within a 5-minute response time for the City Fire Department. b. The developer shall provide, in fee title, a permanent fire station site to the Temecula Fire Department (Planning Area 32). The station shall be operational, including all permanent utilities, prior to issuance of the 250th building permit within Planning Areas lA, 2, or 3. No additional building or occupancy permits shall be granted until adequate onsite fire services are available, as determined by the Temecula Fire Department. c. Prior to issuance of the 251st building permit for the project, and if a permanent fire station is not yet operational, the developer shall provide a site, construct, and fund the operation of a temporary firs station. The location and other parameters of this station are up to the discretion of the City Fire Chief. d. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the developer shall pay the appropriate fire component of the Development Impact Fee (DIF), to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. 2. Police Protection a. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall incorporate the following crime prevention measures within the detailed design plans for each tract map submitted to the City for review. The City of Temecula, Crime Prevention Officer shall review detailed design plans for proposed residential and commemial uses in order to insure incorporation of these measures: i. On-site street, walkways and bikeways shall be illuminated in order to enhance night time visibility; ii. Doors and windows shall be visible from the street and between buildings in order to discourage burglaries and potential suspect hiding places; iii. Fencing heights and materials utilized are intended to discourage climbing; R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~UC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 24 iv. The numbering identification system utilized on-site shall be visible and readily apparent in order to aid emergency response agencies in quickly finding specific locations; and v. (e) Walls along backbone streets will utilize graffiti resistant materials in their construction. In addition, shrubs, vines, and espaliers shall be planted along the outside of these walls in order to prove 'de coverage thereby further discouraging graffiti and climbing. 3. Schools a. The developer shall pay applicable developer fees according to SB 50 and state law. Under current law (SB-50, 1998), developers are required to pay a Level 2 or Level 3 developer fee prior to building permit issuance for each residential unit not covered by a developer/TVUSD negotiated mitigation agreement. TVUSD has established $3.32 and $6.63 per square foot as the Level 2 and Level 3 fees, respectively, in compliance with the SB- 50 provisions. Level 2 applies until the state declares Level 3 is allowed, at which time TVUSD's Level 3 rate will take effect immediately, pursuant to TVUSD Governing Board Resolution. The Level 2 and Level 3 rates are subject to change as they are re-calculated and the revised rates are adopted annually pursuant to the SB-50 provisions. City Resolution 96- 119 is no longer in effect. 4. Recreation (Parks, Trails, and Open Space) a. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the developer will demonstrate that a minimum of 28.7 acres of park credit has or will be provided to the satisfaction of the City Community Services Director. (See Figure 3.11-4) b. Prior to approval of the private recreational facility plans, all private recreational facility parking areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and the Director of Community Services, to ensure that they are in accordance with the City of Temecula standards, including permanent utilities. c. Prior to the issuance of the 400th building permit in the project area, the 5.1-acre park site (Planning Area 6) will be developed, including all permanent utilities and the 90-day maintenance period, and the grant deed accepted by the City Council. d. Prior to issuance of the 100th building permit, 0.3-acre mini-park site (Planning Area lB) will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director, including all permanent utilities e. Prior to the issuance of the 250th building permit, the park portion of the private recreation area in the Plateau area (Planning Area 5) will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. f. Prior to the issuance of the 350th building permit, the building and pool portion of the private recreation area in the Plateau area (Planning Area 5) will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. g. Prior to the issuance of the 700th building permit in the project area, the 19.8-acre sports park site (Planning Area 27) will be developed, including all R:~S l~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ncwWC Staff Report 10-16-02W, esos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC,doc 25 permanent utilities and the 90-day maintenance period, and the grant deed accepted by the City Council. h. Prior to the issuance of the 800th building permit, the park portion of the private recreation area in the Valley area (Planning Area 30) will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. i. Prior to the issuance of the 1150th building permit, the building and pool portion of the private recreation area in the Valley area (Planning Area 30) will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. j. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the developer shall pay the appropriate parks component of the Developer Impact Fee (DIF) or enter into a DIF credit agreement, to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. k. All proposed TCSD slope/landscaping maintenance easements should be offered for dedication on the final maps. I. Prior to final map approval, the developer will certify to the City that ownership and maintenance of all open space areas will be the responsibility of an appropriate conservation organization. TCSD does not assume maintenance of open space or habitat areas. m. Prior to issuance of the 400th building permit, the Plateau trail in Planning Area 7A and the trail between Planning Areas 4B and 6 shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. n. Prior to A map recordation for the Valley portion or B map tentative map approval for the Valley portion, the developer shall provide written authorization from RCFCWCD that the maintenance roads along both sides of Long Valley Wash can be used as trails. o. Prior to tentative map approval, if the Long Valley Wash trails cannot be constructed within the maintenance roads, separate trails shall be designed and shown on the tentative map outside of the flood control right-of-way. p. Prior to issuance of the 1st building permit in Phase 2, the Riverwalk multi-use trails within the maintenance roads on both sides of Long Valley Wash shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. q. If the maintenance road along the north side of Long Valley Wash cannot be used as a multi-use trail, a separate trail along the north side of Long Valley Wash shall be completed prior to issuance of the 50th building permit in Planning Area 31, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. r. If the maintenance road along the south side of Long Valley Wash cannot be used as a multi-use trail, a separate trail along the south side of Long Valley Wash shall be completed prior to issuance of the 75th building permit in Planning Areas 22, 23, or 24, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. R:~S PXRodpaugh Ranch SPXnewXPC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by lC.doc 26 s. Prior to issuance of the 75th building permit for Planning Areas 22, 23, or 24, the developer shall construct a pedestrian bridge across Long Valley Wash, consistent with the guidelines in the Specific Plan, and to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. t. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in Planning Areas 19, 20, or 21, the developer shall construct a 15-foot wide multi-use trail within a 30-foot wide fuel modification zone along the south side of Planning Areas 20, 21, the south and west sides of Planning Area 32, and the east sides of Planning Areas 19 and 20, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. The trail will be designated as an easement for public use on any tentative maps for these areas. 5. Library Services a. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall pay the appropriate Library DIF fee component. D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. Fire Protection: Development of the proposed Project will increase the need for fire service, but the project will provide a new fire station. (DEIR, p. 3-168) The Project will also contribute additional tax revenues and other City and County funds to help offset additional fire service costs (FIA, p. 5). 2. Police Protection: The proposed Project will incrementally increase the need for police services, but it is not expected to have any direct significant impacts on police services (DEIR, p. 3-174). In addition, access to the site and surrounding area by police personnel, as well as response times for emergency and non-emergency calls, should not be significantly impacted. (Ibid.) The Project will also contribute additional tax revenues and other City funds to help offset additional police service costs (FIA, p. 6) 3. Schools: The Project will contribute additional students at all grade levels to the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) but this will be offset by offering two new school sites. (Draft EIR, p. 3-175 to 3-176). Also, recent changes in school financing laws indicate that payment of developer impact fees (or their equivalent in facilities) represents full and complete mitigation under CEQA. (Ibid.) 4. Recreation: The Project will provide 24.8 acres of new developed parkland to serve project residents and the community at large (DEIR, p. 3-157) In addition, the proposed Project will provide private recreational facilities and passive open space for Project residents. (Ibid.) The Project will provide $131,321 in additional revenues to the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) compared to additional costs of $115,523 (FIA, p. 6, 8) 5. Library Services: At Project build-out, property taxes and other revenues will provide approximately $603,052 annually for library services to offset annual operating costs. This will assure there are no significant impacts on library services. (DEIR, p. 3-186, FIA, p. 6). 6. Medical Services: The Project will incrementally increase the need for hospital and paramedic services, however, it is not expected to create any significant impacts to medical services. (DEIR, p. 3-187) R:\S PXRofipaugh Ranch SP~newh°C Staff Report 10-16-02hResos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.dcc 27 7. Roads: Project residents will place additional demands on local and regional roads (DEIR, p. 3-189) However, the Project and its attendant CFD will provide for the construction of a number of critical improvements of local and regional roadways, intersections, and traffic signals. In addition, the Project will provide additional funds to the City and County through increased property and gasoline taxes to help fund road maintenance (FIA, pp. 6-7) 8. .Government: Upon annexation, the Project will provide additional funds to the City in the form of increased sales taxes, subventions, and other taxes to help fund governmental services. (FIA, p. 5) After build-out, the proposed Project will provide estimated recurring revenues totaling $1,338,571 and will generate service costs of $1,279,312, for an annual surplus of $59,259. (Ibid.) Therefore, the proposed Project will not produce any significant impacts related to general government services. (Ibid.) 9. With the standard conditions and uniform codes as part of the Project's design features, as well as implementation of the above mitigation measures, potential impacts to public services will be reduced to less than significant and will have positive impacts to the City. (DEIR, p. 3-190) Utilities A. Potential Significant Impact 1. Water: Project residents will increase the consumption of water provided by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) by 1.33 million gallons per day (DEIR, p. 3- 191 ) The EMWD expects to be able to serve the Project by the construction of various on- and off-site pipelines and other improvements (DEIR, p. 3-193) 2. Sewer: Project residents will increase the generation of wastewater collected and treated by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) by 611,500 gallons per day (DEIR, p. 3-169) The EMWD expects to be able to serve the Project by the construction of various on- and off-site pipelines and other improvements (DEIR, p. 3-198) 3. Electricity/Natural Gas: The Project will consume 36,940 kilowatt-hours per day of electricity and 464,667 cubic feet per day of natural gas. (DEIR, p. 191) Edison International and the Southern California Gas Company have indicated they can serve the Project. (DEIR, pp. 3-203, 3-204) 4. Solid Waste: At buildout, the Project will generate approximately 13 tons per day of waste (DEIR, p. 3-205), which can be disposed of at existing County facilities (Ibid) B. Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to public services to less than significant: C. Mitigation Measures 1. Water a. Prior to the recordation of maps, the developer will demonstrate that water in adequate volume and of adequate quality is available to serve project start-up R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew~C Staff Report l 0-16~)2~Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 28 through completion and full occupancy per requirements of the Eastern Municipal Water District and Rancho California Water District, as applicable. b. The developer has provided the City with adequate documentation from the local water purveyors (EMWD and RCWD) that they have adequate water supplies according to the requirements of SB 221 and SB 610. 2. Sewer a. The developer shall install reclaimed water piping for irrigating the two private recreational facilities, the public park sites; and all common landscaped areas on the project site, to the satisfaction of the Temecula Community Services and Public Works Departments. 3. Electricity/Natural Gas * None proposed 4. Solid Waste a. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the developers will inform all refuse generators within the project site in writing about opportunities for recycling and waste reduction (i.e. buyback centers, curbside recycling, etc.). The use of such facilities will be encouraged by the developer through information (e.g. materials, accepted locations, etc.) provided in sales literature. b. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer will provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials (recycling areas) in the commercial and multi-family residential areas. This will help the City comply with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 (AB 1327). The developer will also demonstrate compliance with established standards for design, siting, and operation of recycling areas and programs. c. All commercial wastes shall be processed at the Materials Recovery Facility in the City of Perris, or similar recovery facility. d. The developer shall provide proof to TCSD that construction debris, including but not limited to lumber, asphalt, concrete, sand, paper, and metal is recycled through the City's solid waste hauler. D. Facts in Support of the Finding The Project will consume additional water, electricity, and natural gas, and generate additional wastewater and solid waste. However, local serving agencies indicate they have adequate resources to serve the Project, and thus no significant impacts are expected (DEIR, p. 3-197. 3- 200, 3-203, 3-204, 3-205, 3-207) R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch S P~newL°C Staff Report l 0-16~)2~Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 29 Scientific Resources A. Potential Significant Impact Although a site survey revealed no surficial archaeological artifacts, the Temecula Valley has yielded archaeological resources in the past (DEIR, p. 3-229). In addition, certain local geologic formations have yielded paleontological resources in the past, and the Project site contains some of these formations. (Ibid) Based on the above information, the Project site could yield scientific resources during grading. (Draft EIR, p. 3-230) B. Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts related to cultural resoumes to less than significant: C. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall retain an archaeological/paleontological monitor to observe onsite grading, including excavated soil stockpiles, especially in areas where Pauba or unnamed Sandstone formations are disturbed, for evidence of paleontological, archaeological, or historical artifacts (e.g., shells, fossils, bones, pottery, charcoal deposits, arrowheads, etc.). If any artifacts are discovered during grading, work will be halted and qualified personnel will be retained to examine, evaluate, and determine the most appropriate disposition of the resource(s). 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the local Native American (NA) Pechanga Band to allow for up to 2 NA representatives to monitor all groundbreaking and grading activities. This effort will be coordinated through the archaeological monitor, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. 3. If human remains are found, and determined by the County Coroner's office to be Native American, and it is determined by the Native American Heritage Commission that member(s) of the Pechanga Band are the most likely descendants, the Developer shall allow reburial of the remains and associated goods within the project boundaries, to be "capped" to prevent further disturbances in the future. The site of such burial shall not be disclosed to the public, pursuant to Government Code §6254. Details of the reburial shall be negotiated between the Developer and the Pechanga Cultural Resources Committee. 4. If human remains are found, and not determined by the County Coroner's office to be Native American, but believed by the Pechanga Band to be so, the Developer shall be required to pay reasonable costs to determine whether the remains are Native American. 5. All Luiseno cultural items and associated grave goods found on site, other than human remains, are to be avoided, relocated, salvaged, returned to the Pechanga Band or any other option decided by the Pechanga Band to be appropriate, before development of the area in which the item was found is to resumed. 6. The Developer shall provide for tribal archaeological monitors to be present during any Phase II and potential Phase III surveys of all sites within the project. R:\S P~oripaugh Ranch SPXnew~PC Staff Report 10-I 6-02XP, esos and ord (EIP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 30 D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. Although the Project area is considered sensitive for archaeological and paleontological resources, no such resources were found on the Project site during a walkover survey. (Draft EIR, p. 3-230) In addition, qualified personnel will be onsite to monitor grading in case such resources are discovered (DEIR, p. 3-230) 2. In addition, the Project's potential impacts will not be cumulatively considerable provided the County and City continue to require archaeological surveys and mitigation as part of its development approval process. (Draft EIR, p. 6-9) Through the implementation of the above mitigation measures, potential impacts to scientific resources will be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 3-231) Section 2. Findinqs Significant Unavoidable Impacts of the Project A. Despite incorporating changes and alterations into the Project, four environmental categories were found to have direct unavoidable and significant adverse environmental effects. The following direct environmental impacts were found to be significant in the EIR: 1) loss of agricultural land; 2) transportation and circulation; 3) air quality; and 4) aesthetics. The potential impacts were concluded to be significant because the impacts could not be reduced below thresholds of significance by the proposed Project changes and mitigation measures. In addition, the EIR found that growth in the area would have cumulatively considerable impacts on traffic, noise, air quality, and water consumption. The following discussion outlines the four direct significant, unavoidable impact categories of the Project and describes both the anticipated effects of the Project as well as the mitigation measures designed to minimize them to the degree feasible. Agriculture A. Significant Unavoidable Impact The Project site has supported agriculture for many decades, and is classified as locally important farmland in the Temecula General Plan and contains prime agricultural soils according to the federal Natural Resoumes Conservation Service (DEIR, pp. 3-16 to 3-17) B. Finding Conversion of the site to suburban uses will eventually eliminate all agricultural activities on the site. There is no effective mitigation other than precluding its development, which would not achieve the overall goals of the project. C. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is therefore recommended. D. Facts in Support of the Finding Loss of agricultural activities on the site is unavoidable if the site is converted to suburban uses. This is therefore a significant unavoidable impact of the Project (DEIR, p. 3-21) R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 31 Transportation and Circulation A. Significant Unavoidable Impact 1. Existing traffic levels in the vicinity of the Project site are relatively Iow and most intersections in the immediate area are operating at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) except some intersections near the Temecula Mall (DEIR, p. 3-60) at buildout, the Project will generate 28,165 vehicle trips. As the Project builds out, it will cause the LOS at the intersections of the 1-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road Winchester Road at Margarita Road to exceed City standards by 2007. In addition, the intersections of the 1-15 southbound ramps at Winchester Road, Ynez Road at Winchester Road, and Ynez Road at Rancho California Road will exceed City LOS standards with or without the project at buildout. These intersections represent a significant traffic impact (DEIR, p. 3-97). 2. Continuing development in the surrounding area is expected to produce significant traffic impacts. Therefore, the Project will make a significant contribution to cumulative traffic impacts. (Ibid.) B. Finding The following mitigation measures will help reduce traffic and circulation related impacts to the greatest degree practical: C. Mitigation Measures 1. The following shall be used to implement the mitigation measures in this section: (a) all proposed road improvements shall include associated flood control, storm drain, water, and sewer lines; (b) all references to bridges shall mean hydro-arch bridges or other designs as approved by the City Engineer; (c) full-width improvements shall consist of the complete street and landscape improvements with the right-of-way; (d) half-width improvements shall consist of the construction of the improvements from curb to the raised landscaped median, the full-width raised landscaped median, where applicable, and a travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half; (e) on center improvements shall mean (1) a 38'width improvement consisting of two 14' travel lanes and a 10' turn lane, or (2) a 40' width improvement consisting of two 14' travel lanes and a 12' turn lane. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the developer or the CFD must construct the improvements identified (in Table 1). The City reserves the right to withhold building permits in excess of those indicated until the mitigation measures necessary to improve the Level of Service to LOS D or better are completed for each phase of development, except the following five intersections that will exceed City standards even without project- related traffic: a) 1-15 southbound ramps at Winchester Road; b) 1-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road; c) the intersection of Ynez Road at Winchester Road; d) the intersection of Ynez Road at Rancho California Road; and e) the intersection of Margarita Road at Winchester Road. However, the developer is still responsible to comply with the mitigation measures for the improvement of the above five intersections. The developer and/or CFD will be responsible for acquiring right-of-way where necessary for any required onsite and offsite improvements. The City will require additional or supplemental traffic studies prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. If these studies confirm that area intersections are operating below LOS D or R:~S PXRo,Spaugh Ranch SPmew\PC Staff Report 10-16-02~Reso$ and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 32 otherwise pose an unsafe condition from project traffic, then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions, in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR. In general, the supplemental traffic studies will: (a) document ambient traffic volume conditions; (b) estimate trip generation for the particular development phase; and (c) assess traffic conditions with the traffic added by the particular development phase. The exact study area to be addressed in each of the traffic studies should be defined through discussions with the City Traffic Engineer. In general, the study area should include the immediate access intersections and roadways which would serve the new development phase, and those critical offsite intersections and roadways that will provide primary access to the new development. Critical intersections/roadways are defined as those facilities that are experiencing high levels of peak period traffic congestion at the time the traffic study is to be performed. The traffic study determinations would assist the City in proactively planning for area roadway improvements. NOTE: The proposed improvements and their phasing are summarized in the attached Table 1. 3. The developer must make a fair share contribution towards the improvement of the following intersections identified (in Table 2). The City reserves the right to withhold building permits in excess of those indicated until the mitigation measures necessary to improve the Level of Service to LOS D or better are completed for each phase of development, except the following five intersections that will exceed City standards even without project- related traffic: a) 1-15 southbound ramps at Winchester Road; b) 1-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road; c) the intersection of Ynez Road at Winchester Road; d) the intersection of Ynez Road at Rancho California Road; and e) the intersection of Margarita Road at Winchester Road. However, the developer is still responsible to comply with the mitigation measures for the improvement of the above five intersections. The developer and/or CFD will be responsible for acquiring right-of-way where necessary for any required onsite and offsite improvements. Additional or supplemental traffic shall be conducted studies prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. If these studies confirm that area intersections are operating below LOS D or otherwise pose an unsafe condition, then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions, in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR. In general, the supplemental traffic studies will: (a) document ambient traffic volume conditions; (b) estimate trip generation for the particular development phase; and (c) assess traffic conditions with the traffic added by the particular development phase. The exact study area to be addressed in each of the traffic studies should be defined through discussions with the City Traffic Engineer. In general, the study area should include the immediate access intersections and roadways which would serve the new development phase, and those critical offsite intersections and roadways that will provide primary access to the new development. Critical intersections and roadways are defined as those facilities that are experiencing high levels of peak period traffic congestion at the time the traffic study is to be performed. The traffic study determinations would assist the City in proactively planning for area roadway improvements. NOTE: The proposed improvements and their phasing are summarized in the attached Table 2. 4. When the appropriate warrants are met, the developer will contribute a fair share contribution towards the installation of traffic signals and related intersection R:XS P~Rorlpaugh Ranch SP~newhUC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 33 improvements at: la) Butterfield Stage Road at La Serena Way; and lb) Meadows Parkway at La Serena Way. 5. Prior to approval of the street improvement plans, the developer shall demonstrate that the sight distance at each of the project entrances meets City and Caltrans standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 6. Prior to the approval of the tentative tract maps for Planning Areas 17, 18, and 19, the streets shall be designed to provide safe horizontal and vertical alignments including special considerations to speed control on steep grades. 7. A General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element is being approved for the following: la) the designation of Calle Contento as a Principal Collector Road is recommended to be deleted within the project site; and lb) the designation of Butterfield Stage Road as an Specific Plan Road (122' right-of-way) from Murrieta Hot Spring Road to Nicolas Road lc) the designation of North and South Loop Roads as Specific Plan Roads (76' right-of- way), and (d) the designation of A and B street as Collector Roads (66' right-of-way). 8. Prior to approval of development plans for Planning Area 11, the developer shall provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities in this area, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. 9. Prior to issuance of any building permit for Planning Areas 10, 11, 12, 14- 31, 33A, or 33B, the developer shall provide and construct 50 designated Park-N-Ride spaces in Planning Area 11. 10. Prior to the first building permit in Phase 2, the developer shall fund operation of a shuttle bus service to and from the project. The developer shall pay the RTA to operate the shuttle bus service for a period of 3 years for project residents, but may be expanded to serve areas outside of the project on a fair share basis. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and RTA. 11. Prior to tentative tract map approval in each phase, the developer shall coordinate with the R'iA to incorporate transit-related facilities and design features into the project, to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. 12. In conjunction with constructing Nicolas Road offsite in Phase 1, the developer shall install a 6-foot wide asphalt path along the north side of Nicolas Road. This path shall be built to the satisfaction of the Temecula Community Services and Public Works Departments. The asphalt path shall be extended from 450 feet east of the Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to the bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek during Phase 2. 13. Prior to issuance of the grading permits and/or building permits, the developer shall provide the City with a letter stating that all contractors will be prohibited from using Nicolas Road for construction-related traffic. 14. Prior to tentative map approval for Planning Area 19, the 15-foot wide multi-use trail within a 30-foot fuel modification zone shall be designated to be screened from offsite homes on an as needed basis. Screening shall be accomplished through the use of either landscaping or topography, to the greatest extent feasible. However, the primary goal of this trail is to provide access to the trail from adjacent onsite and offsite lots. R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch Sl~nevAPC Staff Report 10-164)2~Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 34 D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. Even with implementation of all these mitigation measures, several intersections will still exceed City standards as a result of Project traffic. Therefore, the Project will still have significant traffic impacts even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures (DEIR, p. 3-97) Air Quality A. Significant Unavoidable Impact 1. Temporary or short-term emissions will occur during construction of the Project (approximately 2000 to 2005). Such emissions include on-site generation of dust and equipment exhaust, and off-site emissions from construction employee commuting and/or trucks delivering building materials. (Ibid.) Evaporative emissions of volatile organic compounds from paints, asphalt, and other coatings will also be generated, and will exceed SCAQMD significance levels.. (DEIR, p. 3-108) 2. SCQAMD daily significance thresholds will also be exceeded for CO, ROC, NOx, and PM10 (DEIR, p. 3-111) however, the mobile nature of the on-site construction equipment and off-site trucks will prevent any violation of CO standards in the immediate Project area. (DEIR, p. 3-111) B. Finding The following measures are recommended to reduce potential short-term (construction-related) and long-term (operational) air quality impacts to the greatest extent feasible: C. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer will submit a Dust Control Plan (DCP) to the City consistent with SCAQMD guidelines. These requirements apply to offsite as well as onsite improvements. The DCP will include activities to reduce onsite and offsite dust production. Such activities will include but are not limited to: a. Throughout grading and construction activities, exposed soil will be kept moist through a minimum of twice daily watering to reduce fugitive dust. b. Street sweeping will be conducted, as needed, alone, paved site access roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or dried mud carried off by trucks moving dirt or bringing construction materials. Site access driveways and adjacent streets will be washed if there are visible signs of any dirt track-out at the conclusion of any workday. c. All trucks hauling dirt away from the site will be covered to prevent the generation of fugitive dust. d. During high wind conditions (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph), areas with disturbed soil will be watered hourly, sprayed with chemical binders, or activities on unpaved surfaces will be terminated until wind speeds no longer exceed 25 mph. R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ewh°C Staff Report 10-16-02XP,¢sos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 35 e. chip sealing access roads (if needed) hydroseeding exposed soil surfaces. chemical binders or surfactants to water. During the construction phase of the project, if the measures identified in the DCP are not implemented as proposed, the City shall halt construction until such time as the situation is corrected, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 2. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the developer will document to the City that appropriate construction equipment has had tune-ups or equivalent work to assure Iow NOx emissions. These requirements apply to offsite as well as onsite improvements. This documentation must be provided prior to the commencement of any work on an.y equipment anticipated to be used for more than 30 days. In addition, the developer shall encourage the use of alternative fuels (e.g., compressed natural gas) on construction vehicles and equipment. All diesel equipment and vehicles must be equipped with particulate filters and use only Iow sulfur fuels (less than 15 ppm sulfur content). 3. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the developer will document to the City that all workers have been encouraged to carpool, and workers will be informed in writing. These requirements apply to offsite as well as onsite improvements. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits, individual contractors will submit a Traffic Management Plan to the Public Works Department that includes, but is not limited to: a. scheduling receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods (i.e., 7:30 - 8:30 AM and 4:00 - 6:00 PM); b. routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity; c. limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods; d. staging areas away from existing residential uses; and e. staging areas away from existing residential uses. 5. In addition to these measures to control construction-related emissions, the Mitigation Measures portion of the Transportation and Circulation section of this document (Section 5, above) includes several transportation system management/transportation demand management (TSM/TDM) measures to help reduce long-term (operationally-related) air quality impacts, including a shuttle bus, transit node, and design for alternative transportation options. D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. Due to the size and nature of the project, its construction and occupancy will generate amounts of air pollutants that will exceed SCAQMD thresholds (DEIR, pp. 3-108, 3-111). While implementation of the proposed mitigation will help reduce pollutant emissions, they are not likely to reduce them to less than significant levels (DEIR, p. 3-115) 2. Future development will contribute to incremental increases in air pollution over the long-term (i.e., as units are occupied) as a result of vehicular traffic and energy consumption. (Draft EIR, p. 6-7) According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i)(3), "a lead agency may determine that a Project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew'xPC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 36 not cumulatively considerable if the Project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the Project is located." (Ibid.) In this case, a Project's cumulative impact can be mitigated to a level of less than significant by compliance with SCAQMD's AQMP guidelines. (Ibid.) Aesthetics A. Significant Unavoidable Impact 1. As the Project builds out, the surrounding rural neighborhoods will presented with views of suburban housing (Draft EIR, pp. 3-214 to 3-217)..In addition, lighting for the athletic fields at the community park will introduce new sources of light and glare to the Project site and surrounding areas and roads. (Ibid.). These are considered significant aesthetic impacts on the rural Nicolas Valley and Temecula Wine Country areas (Ibid.) B. Finding The following mitigation measures will help reduce potential aesthetic impacts to the greatest degree practical: C. Mitigation Measures 1. The developer will submit all architectural and landscape design plans, along with plant material palettes, to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits in conformance with the approved Specific Plan. 2. Prior to approval of the tentative tract map or Development Plan, whichever is applicable, for Planning Area 31, a 25-foot building setback consisting of a landscaped buffer zone or an internal street or driveway, shall be provided along the north and west boundary of Planning Area 31. If one or both of the schools are built prior to approval of the tentative map or the Development Plan for Planning Area 31, and an equivalent buffer, as determined by the Planning Director, is provided on the school sites, the developer may request the City to reduce or eliminate the buffering requirement. 3. The Community Services Director shall review and approve the sports field lighting during design development. 4. The City will evaluate the commercial center lighting for potential offsite impacts prior to the issuance of building permits for Planning Area 11. The lighting in these areas will be adequately shielded or directed to minimize offsite impacts, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 5. The developer shall submit plans for rural-oriented lighting for Planning Areas 14-26, 30, and 31. These plans are subject to review and approval by the City Community Development and Public Works Departments. No final maps will be approved until the lighting plan is approved. 6. The Master developer shall provide prospective homebuyers with notice that the community sports park will include sports field lighting for evening use. Proof of the notification shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to the recordation of the final map. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (E.Ip) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 37 7. Prior to recordation of final maps or issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit plans to the Planning Department for Planning Areas 10, 12, and 14 through 17 for those uses adjacent to the AD 161 SHCP open space areas of sufficient scale and detail for City staff to review potential lighting impacts on the open space areas. The developer shall make any changes to the plans, including reduction in the amount or placement of streetlights, night lighting, fencing, etc. to preclude light spilling into the habitat areas. Review of plans for possible changes to street lighting shall be coordinated with the City Public Works Department. D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. The only effective way of eliminating aesthetic impacts of the Project (i.e., views and night lighting) would be to substantially reduce the density of the project and eliminate the night lighting at the community park. According to the developer, the Project density is needed to fund its various local and regional improvements, and the night lighting is needed for youth sports to make effective use of the community park. Therefore, construction of the Project as proposed, including the recommended mitigation measures, will result in significant aesthetic impacts (Draft EIR, p. 3-219) Cumulative Impacts The Project was found to have potentially significant cumulative impacts on: (1) traffic; (2) air quality; 3) noise; and water consumption. Even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures for this Project, its contributions to cumulative impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 6-6 to 6-9) Section 3. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein: A. 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 a proposed project against its unavoidable significant impacts, and to determine whether the Project related significant impacts are acceptably overridden by the Project benefits. As outlined in Section 2 above, the Project would produce direct unavoidable significant impacts in four environmental categories: 1) loss of agricultural land; 2) transportation and circulation; 3) air quality; and 4) aesthetics. It will also make contributions to cumulatively considerable impacts related to traffic, air quality, noise, and water consumption. B. The City Council's findings set forth in the preceding sections have identified all of the adverse environmental impacts and the feasible mitigation measures which can reduce impacts to less than significant levels where feasible, or to the lowest achievable levels where significant unavoidable impacts remain. These impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in Section 1 and 2 of this document. With the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the EIR and administrative record, these effects can be mitigated to a level of less than significant except for unavoidable significant impacts as discussed in Section 2. C. The findings have also analyzed three action alternatives to determine whether they are reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action or whether they might reduce or eliminate the unavoidable significant impacts of the proposed action. These significant impacts have been outlined in Section 4 and the City Council finds that all feasible alternatives R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~newXPC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 38 and mitigation measures have been adopted or identified for implementation by the City or Responsible Agencies. D. The Council finds that the Project's benefits are substantial and outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects to air quality, Agriculture, Transportation, and aesthetics and cumulative impacts associated with the Project. This finding is supported by the fact that major infrastructure improvements will benefit the community through improvements to flood control facilities, fire protection, improvements to the local water system and road improvements affecting the whole community. Moreover, the Project site will now be managed where currently no management occurs, greatly benefiting the property as well as the surrounding community. Moreover, the Project will add a high quality development with diverse housing opportunities. The Council finds that these benefits and others set forth above, when balanced against the four unavoidable significant adverse impacts, outweigh the impacts because of the social and economic values, which accrue to the community. E. The City Council hereby declares that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended in the EIR 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 this Council finds outweigh the unmitigated impacts. The City Council further finds that except for the Project, all other alternatives set forth in the EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of Project objectives and/or of specific economic, social and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives. F. The City Council hereby declares, that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting 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 City Council has determined that the following 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 following overriding considerations: TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 1. The Project will provide various regional and local roadway improvements that will be installed by the developer or funded through the Community Facilities District, and that are beyond the Project's fair share contributions, are substantial and outweigh the significant traffic impacts of the project. 2. The Project will provide various traffic signals and intersection improvements that exceed its fair share contributions in this regard, and earlier than currently proposed, which therefore outweigh the identified significant traffic impacts at several local intersections. 3. The Project will construct the following intersection improvements selected by the City for early completion, and in lieu of its fair share contributions to area intersections, as identified in Section 6 and 7 below: a. If warranted, bonds shall be posted to secure traffic signal and intersection improvements prior to recordation of final maps with construction complete prior to issuance of building permits. 4. North General Kearney Road at Nicolas Road to be constructed by the Ist building permit in accordance with the ultimate lane configurations: R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch S PXne wXI:'C Staff Report 10-16-02'xResos and ord (EJP) - I0-30-02 approved by PC.doc 39 a. Northbound N General Kearney Rd: I Through Lane, 1 Right Turn Lane Southbound N General Kearney Rd: I Shared Left, Through, Right Turn Lane Eastbound Nicolas Rd: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes, 1 Right Turn Lane Westbound Nicolas Rd: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes, 1 Right Turn Lane 5. Pourroy Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road to be constructed by the 400th building permit. 6. Winchester Road at Nicolas Road to be constructed by the 510th building permit in accordance with the ultimate lane configurations: Right Turn Lane. Northbound Winchester: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 4 Through Lanes, 1 Free Southbound Winchester: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 4 Through Lanes, 1 Right Turn Lane. Eastbound Nicolas Road: 1 Left Turn Lane, 1 Through Lane, 1 Right Turn Lane. Westbound Nicolas Road: 3 Left Turn Lanes, 1 Through Lane, 1 Right Turn Lane. th 7. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road by the 510 building permit. a. Northbound BSR: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes b. Southbound BSR: I Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes c. Eastbound nCR: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 2 Through Lanes d. Westbound nCR: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes 8. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510th building permit. permit. Nicolas Road at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510th building 10. Calle Chapos at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510th building permit. 11. Traffic signals may be required, as warranted, at the two other project entrances from Murrieta Hot Springs Road located to the east and west of the Pourroy Road main project entrance. R:~,S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnewLPC StaffReport 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 4O a. The Developer shall execute an agreement with the City to contribute a fair share portion of the total construction costs for traffic signals at the following percentages; 12. 5.8% for the traffic signal at 1-215 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Murrieta Hot Springs Road including southbound left turn lane, southbound right turn lane, eastbound through lane, eastbound right turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right turn lane; 13. Undetermined percentage for the lane improvements at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Alta Murrieta in the City of Murrieta including improvements to be specified. 14. 12.4% for the traffic signal at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita Road. 15. 11.1 % for the traffic signal at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Winchester Road. a. If warranted, bonds shall be posted to secure traffic signal and intersection improvements prior to recordation of final maps with construction complete prior to issuance of building permits. b. The following intersections fair share contributions are deemed satisfied by the completion of the intersection improvements in Section 3, 4, and 5 above. i. 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left turn lane, westbound free right-turn lane, eastbound free right turn lane, and southbound free right-turn lane ii. Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound right-turn overlap iii. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - eastbound through lane iv. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road - traffic signal v. 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Winchester Road southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, westbound free right-turn lane, right-turn lane, westbound through lane, eastbound through lane, and eastbound free right-turn lane. vi. Traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the intersection of La Serena and Meadows Parkway. vii. 1-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Winchester Road - northbound leff-turn lane, northbound free right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-turn lane viii. I- 15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound, eastbound, and westbound free right-turn lanes. ix. 1-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - northbound left-turn and right-turn lanes x. Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound ~eft-tum lane, southbound right-turn overlap, and eastbound left-turn lane R:~S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc xi. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - westbound left-turn lane, westbound right-turn lane, southbound through lane, southbound free fight turn lane, eastbound free right-turn lane, and eastbound through lane xii. Margarita Road at Rancho California Road - northbound and southbound through lanes, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound right-turn overlap, westbound left-turn lane, northbound right-turn lane, and westbound right turn overlap xiii. Calle Contento at Rancho California Road - eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through lane 16. In addition, Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs road and the northern project boundary will not be constructed. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. The Project will dedicate 201 acres for the long-term maintenance of habitat as its part of the Assessment District 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. 2. The Project will improve Long Valley Wash so as to provide for enhanced wildlife movement through the area. 3. The Project will provide over 10 acres of new and/or restored (i.e., revegetated) biological habitat onsite, including riparian and wetland areas along Santa Gertrudis Creek and the Long Valley Wash. WATER RESOURCES 1. The Project will provide for needed flood control improvements along these critical stretches of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash, and help protect downstream properties from historical flooding, which substantially exceeds its fair share contribution in this regard. 2. The Project will provide for the long-term maintenance of proposed flood control facilities to minimize additional cost to the City for protecting offsite properties from historical flooding. 3. The Project will construct a new water distribution system onsite and connect to area-wide water service system of the Eastern Municipal Water District. 4. Without the Project, the existing uncontrolled drainage will continue to occur. FIRE PROTECTION 1. The Project will provide a site and funding for a new fire station for the Temecula Fire Department. 2. The Project will significantly improve existing emergency and commemial access to the local community, thereby allowing increased access for fire control services to the Project site and surrounding area. R:XS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~newXPC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 42 SCHOOLS 1. The Project will make available a new 12-acre elementary school site to the Temecula Valley Unified School District. 2. The Project will make available a new 20-acre middle school site to the Temecula Valley Unified School District. FISCAUHOUSING 1. The Project will facilitate the formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund needed public improvements, such as roads, drainage, bridges, fire station, landscaping, intersections, and traffic signals, at a minimum cost of approximately $33.3 million, including roads such as Butterfield Stage Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, etc. 2. The Project will pay off an estimated $835,000 left in the AD 161 fund through formation of the CFD 3. The Project will facilitate the formation of a master Homeowner Association (HOA) to maintain the onsite landscaped and open space areas not already maintained by the County or its designee for habitat under the AD 161 SHCP program. 4. The Project will enhance and increase available housing choices in the area, by providing additional housing types through the provision of approximately 2,015 single-family residential units. 5. The Project will augment the County's economic base through increased property taxes, gasoline tax, sales taxes subventions and other taxes. At full buildout, the Project will provide estimated recurring revenues totaling $1,338,571 versus service costs of $1,279,312, resulting in an annual surplus of $59,259. (Fiscal Impact Assessment, September, 2002). 6. The Project will increase employment, during the short-term from such jobs as construction, landscaping and sales-related jobs, and during the long-term from such jobs as maintenance, security, various onsite office uses, and increase retail sales of goods in the Temecula area. 7. The Project will increase property values in the area through development of a series of gated communities throughout the Project. Private roads and landscaped medians on non-arterial roads will be maintained by the private Homeowners Association without cost to the general public. RECREATION 1. The Project will provide benefits to the community through the construction of a 5.1-acre neighborhood park and a 19.8-acre community sports park to meet a portion of its 28.7 acres of parkland required under the Quimby Act. 2. The Project will provide two private recreational facilities on 9.1 acres for Project residents in addition to the public parks, thereby reducing the demand on public facilities and providing the balance of the 28.7 acres of parkland required under the Quimby Act. R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~newXPC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (F~P) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 43 3. The Project will create an interconnected system of sidewalks and trails to allow pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians efficient non-vehicular access through the project site. SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES 1. The Project will provide benefit to the community through the documentation and curation of any notable archaeological and/or paleontological material that may be discovered during excavation and grading of the site. Without such actions, such archaeological and/or paleontological resources would be unrecognized. SUMMARY The City Council hereby declares 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 City Council finds that the Project benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. Section 4. Alternatives. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires discussion of a reasonable range of project alternatives that could feasibly attain the project's objectives (14 CCR § 15126(f)). CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the 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. 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" (§ 15126.6). A. The Draft EIR identified the City's objectives for the proposed Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Project, which are to provide: 1) a master-planned community; 2) a variety of housing options; 3) be sensitive to natural features; 4) provide unifying themes within the community; 5) provide a variety of major public improvements; 6) provide backbone infrastructure for the site and surrounding area; 7) be consistent with the City's goals and policies; 8) minimize impacts to surrounding residents, public services, and utilities; and 8) neighborhood commercial uses. (DEIR, p. 2-20) The EIR considered a total of seven alternatives to the proposed action which were examined in detail as follows: Alternative Locations 1. The alternative that considered another location was eliminated from detailed analysis. In the process of preparing the EIR, it was necessary to consider possible alternative locations to the proposed Project to ascertain whether potential significant impacts could be reduced below a significant level. Assuming that development would occur on a comparable area and with the same uses, same general density, and same intensity, no alternative site could be found which could feasibly reduce or eliminate the unavoidable significant impacts of a comparable project. The California Supreme Court ruled that a feasible alternative must take into account economic factors, including whether a property is owned or can be reasonably acquired by the Project proponent. (Citizens of Goleta Valley et al. v. City Council (1990) 52 R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch S P~new~PC Staff Repor~ 10-16~)2XResos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by lC.doc Cal.3d 553.) (Draft EIR, p. 7-24) In addition, the Court ruled that it is not necessary to consider alternative sites when the proposed Project is in accordance with an approved regional planning framework, such as the Riverside County General Plan. (Ibid.) 2. The EIR concluded that, based on the outcome of the Goleta II case, under the circumstances, a more thorough discussion of an alternative site for the Project was not necessary. (DEIR, p. 7-24) Further, the EIR concluded that, for the unavoidable significant impacts of the Project on air quality, demographics, schools and traffic, an alternative location would differ very little from those of the proposed Project. (DEIR, p. 7-24) Also, the "Alternative Sites" alternative is infeasible because the developer does not own or control any other large parcels of vacant land in the area, and the proposed Project was developed specifically for this site, so it is likely the Project, as proposed, could not be reasonably "moved" or developed on some other site. (DEIR, p. 7-24) For these reasons, the Draft EIR determined that no feasible alternative sites exist. Finding 1. The Council finds that the conclusion in the EIR regarding an alternative location for the proposed Project was properly eliminated from further detailed consideration because no alternative project site can feasibly meet the objectives established for the proposed Project. The Council also finds that no alternative location is capable of eliminating or reducing the identified significant effects of the proposed action. Therefore, no alternative location offers substantial environmental advantages over the proposed Project and the City Council rejects this alternative because such locations are considered environmentally infeasible. This concludes the discussion of the alternative that was eliminated from further consideration. A discussion of the five alternatives given detailed consideration follows: No-Action Alternatives Evaluated in Detail A. No Project - No Development Alternative (0 units) 1. Under this alternative, much of the 804.7 acres of private property would remain in agricultural use (i.e., vacant) (DEIR, pp. 7-7, 7-8). The City Council finds that although the "No Project - No Development" alternative is the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed Project, it is infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives. 2. Under the "No Project - No Development" alternative, all significant Project specific impacts will be avoided, assuming that the site remains undeveloped. (DEIR, pp. 7-7, 7-8) However, since the property is currently designated for residential development, it can reasonably be anticipated that another residential development project would be submitted in the future, if the proposed Project is not approved. Future development of any residential project for the site would likely result in environmental impacts similar to those of the proposed Project. (DEIR, p. 7-8) Notwithstanding these future speculations, the "No Project - No Development" alternative as described in the Draft EIR would result in less impacts to the environment than the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Therefore, it is an environmentally superior alternative. (Ibid.) However, this alternative does not meet the Project's objectives of developing a residential project consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. (Ibid.) Also, this alternative does not meet the Project objectives regarding providing a variety of quality housing opportunities, providing backbone public infrastructure, etc. (DEIR, p. 7-23). Therefore, the City Council finds that the "No Project - No Development" alternative is infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives and rejects it. R:xS P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnewXPC Staff Report 10-16~02XResos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 45 Active Alternatives Evaluated in Detail Alternative 1 - Agriculture-Clustered Development (472 units) Alternative I would cluster Iow-medium density suburban housing along the south side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and along both sides of Butterfield Stage Road. The remaining portions of the property that were not within Santa Gertrudis Creek or an improved Long Valley Wash would remain for agricultural use (380 acres). This alternative would eliminate significant all of the significant impacts associated with the proposed Project (i.e., loss of agricultural land, air quality, traffic, and aesthetics)(DEIR, p. 7-25). The City Council finds that Alternative I fails to meet Project objectives as compared to the Project. With the proposed modifications, the Project's impacts and density are only slightly reduced from those of the proposed Project. The City Council finds that Alternative 1 is less feasible because it does not meet Project objectives to the same degree as the proposed Project, such as the ability to fund the various major public improvements (e.g., parks, schools, roads). Alternative 2- Reduced Intensity (1,131 units) Alternative 2 would eliminate all the medium density residential uses and distribute Iow and Iow medium density housing throughout the site. This alternative would reduce impacts of the proposed Project related to traffic and aesthetics to less than significant levels, although impacts to agriculture and possibly air quality would remain. The City Council finds that Alternative 2 is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, but is not feasible because it fails to meet many of the Project objectives, including the ability to fund the various major public improvements (e.g., parks, schools, roads). Alternative 3 - Rural Density (166 units) Alternative 3 would limit development to rural densities (2.5 and 5-acre lots) on the entire property. This alternative would eliminate all significant environmental impacts of the project except loss of agricultural land. However, it would not provide enough units to support formation of a CFD to finance the planned major improvements. The City Council finds that Alternative 3 is environmentally superior to the proposed Project but is not feasible because it fails to meet Project objectives, and rejects it. Environmentally Superior Alternative State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 subdivision (e) requires a discussion of the "No Project" alternative. (Ibid.) However, the State CEQA Guidelines stipulate that if the "No Project" alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, subd. (e)(2)). Alternatives 1,2, and 3 are all considered by the Draft EIR as "environmentally superior" to the proposed Project. (Ibid.) These alternatives eliminate two or more significant impacts of the Project. (Ibid.) For these reason, the Draft EIR determined that Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are considered "environmentally superior" alternatives to the proposed Project. (DEIR, p. 7-16) However, none of the alternatives contain enough units to support a CFD to fund necessary regional road improvements. Therefore, the City Council rejects all of the alternatives in favor of the proposed Project. Section5. Growth Inducing Impacts. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 requires the evaluation of growth-inducing impacts of a proposed project. This discussion must address ways the Project could encourage economic and population growth and construction of R:XS PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (E, Ip) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 46 additional housing either directly or indirectly. (DEIR, p. 6-1) The proposed Project is somewhat growth inducing as it introduces utilities, roads, etc. into areas that are currently vacant or support rural residential uses. A. The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval and implementation of the Specific Plan outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the Specific Plan which cannot be mitigated. The City Council further finds that each of the Specific Plan benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified 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 City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. B. The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the Specific Plan, 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. The City Council hereby certifies the Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings and conclusions: A. Findings. The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section 2 of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. B. Conclusions 1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Specific Plan 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 6 above. 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Specific Plan, which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Specific Plan. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Specific Plan override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Specific Plan. Section 7. Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Appendix D of the Final EIR and attached to this Resolution as Exhibit I. 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 A. 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 R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew\PC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 47 Drive, Temecula, California 92590. The custodian for these records is the City of Temecula Planning Director. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. Section 9. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of 2002. ATTEST: Ron Robeds, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the th day of ,2002, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None City Clerk Susan W. Jones, CMC R:XS P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 48 TABLE 1 PHASE 1 (Planning Areas 1-4B, 6, and 32) Onsite Prior to issuance of the 34th building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: 1. Secondary Access - Provide secondary access limited to right-turns only from Planning Areas lA, 2, or 4A to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Prior to issuance of the 108th building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: 2. Butterfield Stage Road - Construct half-width improvements from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the south project boundary at Planning Area 32, including construction of two full-width bridges within and over Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. 3. Butterfield Stage Road - Dedicate full-width right-of-way from the northern project boundary to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. 4. Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Construct full-width improvements from east of Pourroy Road at the northern project boundary to the MWD pipeline property. 5. Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Construct half-width improvements from the MWD pipeline property to Butterfield Stage Road. 6. Nicolas Road - Offer a dedication for a 110' right-of-way from Butterfield Stage Road to the west project boundary. 7. Nicolas Road - Construct half-width from Butterfield Stage Road to the western project boundary. 8. South Loop Road - Construct half-width in front of fire station (Planning Area 32). Prior to issuance of the 400" building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: 9. "A" Street - Construct full-width from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Butterfield Stage Road. 10. "B" Street - Construct full-width improvements from Nicolas Road to "A" Street. 11. North Loop Road - Construct a full-width bridge over and within Santa Gertrudis Creek and connect the bridge to Butterfield Stage Road with full width improvements. 12. Traffic Signals - Construct traffic signals and related intersection improvements as warranted at: (a) Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Pourroy Road and (b) Ali project entrances on Murrieta Hot Springs Road. R:\S PxRoripaugh Ranch SP~newWC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 49 Offsite Prior to the issuance of the 108" building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: Nicolas Road - Construct 40' width on center improvements from the western project boundary to 450' east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. Secondary Access - The required secondary access for the Plateau area shall be provided by one of the following options: If Nicolas Road is designated as the secondary access route, the following improvements shall be completed: Construct 40' width on center improvements from 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road / Calle Girasol intersection to Liefer Road including the full width bridge structure over and within Santa Gertrudis Creek. ii. Realign existing Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. If Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane and Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road / Calle Girasol intersection is designated as secondary access, the following improvements shall be completed: Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane - Construct 38' width improvements on center to existing pavement. ii. Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection Construct 38' width on center improvements, as required by the City Fire Chief and City Engineer (including right-of-way acquisition), on Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. If Butterfield Stage Road from the southern project boundary to Rancho California Road is designated as secondary access, construct half width improvements from the southern project boundary at Planning Area 32 to Rancho California Road, excluding any existing improvements. PHASE 2 (Planning Areas 10, 11, 12, 14 - 24, 27 - 31, 33A, and 33B) Prior to the issuance of any building permit in Phase 2, the following improvements must be completed: .Onsite Butterfield Stage Road - Construct remaining half-width improvements from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to 550' south of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road. R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXnewXPC StaffReport 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 50 2. Butterfield Stage Road - Construct or bond for grading and full-width improvements from the northern project boundary to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Construct remaining half-width improvements from the MWD pipeline property to Butterfield Stage Road. North Loop Road - Construct full-width improvements from the bridge structure at North Loop Road/Santa Gertrudis Creek crossing to the Long Valley Wash Bridge structure at South Loop Road. South Loop Road - Construct the full width bridge structure crossing Long Valley Wash and construct full width street improvements from this bridge to Butterfield Stage Road. Nicolas Road - Construct remaining improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to western project boundary. Traffic signal - Construct traffic signals and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the intersections of: Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Butterfield Stage Road, Butterfield Stage Road at North Loop Road, and Butterfield Stage Road at South Loop Road. Offsite Buttedield Stage Road - Construct remaining half-width improvements from 550' south of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road to the south project boundary at Planning Area 32. Butterfield Stage Road - Construct full width improvements from the southern project boundary at Planning Area 32 to Rancho California Road excluding any existing improvements. Nicolas Road - Construct 40' width improvements from 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to Liefer Road including the full width bridge structure over Santa Gertrudis Creek. Calle Girasol and the Nicolas Road / Calle Girasol intersection - Realign existing Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. Calle Chapos - Construct 38' width on center improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to the existing paved terminus at Calle Girasol. R:\S PxRofipaugh Ranch SP~newhUC Staff Report 10-16-02XRcsos and ord( F~I p) * 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 51 TABLE 2 PHASE I (prior to issuance of Ist building permit in Planning Areas 1-4B, 6, and 32) 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left turn lane, ...... ,vestbound free nght-turn lane, end eastbound free right turn lane, and southbound free riqht-turn lane 1-215 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound through lane, eastbound right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-turn lane 3. Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound right-turn overlap 4. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - eastbound through lane 5. North General Kearny Road at Nicolas Road - traffic signal. 6. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road - traffic signal Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Alta Murrieta Drive (in the City of Murrieta) - lane improvements (as yet undetermined). The developer shall provide the City of Temecula with a letter from the City of Murrieta stating that a fair share contribution to identified improvements at this intersection has been made. PHASE 2 (prior to issuance of I"t building permit in Planning Areas 10 - 12, 14 - 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33A, and 33B) 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Winchester Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, ccc.westbound free riqht-turn lane, right-turn lane, westbound through lane, eastbound through lane, and eastbound free right-turn lane. Traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the intersection of La Serena and Meadows Parkway. 1-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Winchester Road - northbound left-turn lane, northbound free right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-turn lane I- 15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound, eastbound, and westbound free right-turn lanes. 1-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - northbound left-turn and right-turn lanes Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn overlap, and eastbound left-turn lane R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch S P~new\FC S~aff Report I 0-16-02\Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 52 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - westbound left-turn lane, westbound right-turn lane, ""-*~' .... '~ *~' ..... ~- !a.-.c, southbound through lane, southbound free fight turn lane, eastbound free right-turn lane, and eastbound through lane Margarita Road at Winchester Road - eastbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, westbound right-turn lane, and southbound right-turn overlap Margarita Road at Rancho California Road - northbound and southbound through lanes, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound right-turn overlap, westbound left-turn lane, northbound right-turn lane, and westbound right turn overlap Margarita Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - northbound shared left-through lane, eastbound through lane, and westbound through lane Winchester Road at Nicolas Road - northbound left-turn lane, northbound free right turn c ..... ~..ane, westbound left-turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left-turn lane, southbound through lane, and eastbound right-turn overlapre~ turn !"nc Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - northbound through lane, southbound through lane, and westbound through lane Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road - northbound left-turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left-turn lane, southbound through lane, eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through lane Calle Contento at Rancho California Road - eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through lane R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch S P~newXd'C Staff Report 10-16-02~Resos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 53 These improvements shall be constructed and the developer shall provide appropriate fair share contributions to these improvements as shown below: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTIONS Project Percent of New Roadway (N/S) Intersection (E/W) Traffic AM PM 1-215 Freeway - SB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Road 4.4 5.8 1-215 Freeway - NB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Road 7.3 6.8 I-15 Freeway - SB Ramps Winchester Road 3.2 5.7 Rancho California Road 5.7 6.8 1-15 Freeway - NB Ramps Winchester Road 2.4 4.9 Rancho California Road 7.8 10.0 Ynez Road Winchester Road 4.5 5.6 Rancho California Road 6.2 5.9 Margarita Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 11.4 12.4 Winchester Road 11.1 11.2 La Serena Way 6.6 7.4 Rancho California Road 5.6 6.4 Winchester Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 11.1 9.3 Nicolas Road 10.1 12.3 N. General Kearny Road Nicolas Road 18.6 18.3 Meadows Parkway La Serena Way 30.5 22.1 Rancho California Road 28.6 23.6 Butterfield Stage Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 23.2 24.2 Nicolas Road 39.7 35.7 Calle Chapos 29.5 25.8 La Serena Way 20.8 19.0 Rancho California Road 21.3 19.1 Calle Contento Rancho California Road 10.3 11.3 Alta Murrieta Drive Murrieta Hot Springs Road TBD TBD (City of Murrieta) TBD = to be determined based on fair share calculations Source: Table 6-1 from Urban Crossroads, November 2001 (as shown in Table 3.5-8 from 2"a Revised DEIR) N:\31367~doc\EIR\SOC&Findings5.doc R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ewWC Staff Report 10-16~)2XResos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 54 EXHIBIT I (FOR ATFACHMENT 1) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02XResos and ord (EJP) - 10-30-02 approved by PC.doc 55 E E ~ Z