HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-111 CC ResolutionCC RESOLUTION NO. 02 -111
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE
RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED
PLANNING APPLICATIONS ACTIONS AND ADOPTING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND THE
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN,
LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF
BU'I-DERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD.
(PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0076).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Public
Resources Code State CEQA Guideline Section 15091
For the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan
(Including All Actions Arising Under Planning Application 94-0076)
and the Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program
Under California Public Resources Code 21081.6 and
Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines
WHEREAS, the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and related actions as
reflected on PA 940076 (Actions), were initiated and prepared by Ashby USA, LLC and were
submitted to the City of Temecula for its review and consideration. The Roripaugh Ranch
Specific Plan proposes the development of 804.7 acres, including the annexation of 634 acres
of 634 acres to the City of Temecula; Related actions include 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 Butterfieid 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
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 1
improvements by the developer. The actions include a statutory development agreement,
including a prezoning of the portion of the site not in the City.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City is the
lead agency for the Actions as the public agency with both general governmental powers and
the principle responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan; and,
WHEREAS, On June 1, 1999, the City issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for the proposed Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan project (SCH# 97121030). The 45-day
public comment period ran from June 1 to July 16, 1999, during which 26 comment letters were
received.
On June 8, 2001, the City issued a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for this project,
and 16 comment letters were received from various agencies and individuals during the 45-day
public review period, which ran from June 11 to July 26, 2001.
Subsequent to cimulation of the Revised DEIR, the applicant revised the project based on input
from the City and local residents. On April 1,2002, the City issued a 2nd Revised DEIR on the
Roripaugh project. Sixteen (16) comment letters were received during the 45-day public review
period, which ran from April 3 to May 17, 2002. Responses to comments received on the
Revised DEIR and 2nd Revised DEIR were included in the Final EiR for this project dated
September 26, 2002; 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 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 November 26, 2002 the City Council held a public hearing; and,
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 2
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21081 and Section 15091 of the State
CEQA Guidelines prevent 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,
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 P~an
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 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 EIFI under CEQA, nor do the minor
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 3
clarifications and modifications to the Final EIR require additional public review because within
each no new significant environmental impacts were identified and no substantial increase in
the severity of any environmental impacts will occur as a result of the clarifications.
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:
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
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 4
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 and included into the Mitigation
Monitoring Program and Conditions of Approval 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.
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 retail 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 to City 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).
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 5
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 in Planning Areas 1-9: a) stadiums;
b) amphitheaters; c) lighted ball fields; and d) churches because of the ALUC's conditions.
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.
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.)
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 6
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 sudace 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
23 liquefaction
24 liquefaction
27 liquefaction (sports park)
28 liquefaction (school site)
31 liquefaction
33A, B liquefaction
Nicolas liquefaction (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 Calle 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.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 7
5. Water Resources (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.) Aisc, 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)
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.)
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 8
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 refer to MWD pipelines that could be impacted.
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 pn 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 (HCA). 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 HCA.
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'flex, or equivalent improvements, as approved by and to the satisfaction
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 9
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)
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.) Aisc, 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.)
R:/Resos 2002JResos 02-111 10
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:
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,
R:/Resos 2002,/Resos 02-111 11
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...
1s~ building permit PA 3, 4A, or 4B
1st ,bthUilding permit in PA lA, 2, or 3 PA lA (PA 7B)
250 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, or 31) 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).
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:
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 12
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 XlNG"). 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.
o. 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
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.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 13
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)
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)
R:/Resos 2002_/Resos 02-111 14
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 taws 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 1 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.
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).
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 15
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
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 residen.ce 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.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 16
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 Buttedield 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-parted 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).
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 are 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)
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 17
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. Schools: 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 Butterfie~d 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)
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:
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 18
C. Mitigation Measures
1. Fire Protection:
a. Prior to both issuance of a nonresidential use and noncommercial
use building permit in any Planning Area other than 1, 2, or 3A, and the completion of a
permanent onsite fire station, the developer shall demonstrate that the proposed unit is located
within a 5-minute response time from an existing station 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 251s~ 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 commercial 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;
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 provide coverage thereby further discouraging graffiti and
climbing.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 19
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, 0.3oacre 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
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.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 20
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 by City, separate trails shall be
designed and shown on the tentative map outside of the flood control right-of-way if the Long
Valley Wash trails cannot be constructed within the maintenance roads and shall be constructed
pursuant to Section C.4.q. and C.4.r below.
p. Prior to issuance of the 1st building permit in Phase 2 as specified
in the Specific Plan, 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.
s. Prior to issuance of the 75t" 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
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 21
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). Aisc, 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 user
based revenues will provide approximately $603,052 annually to the City 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); accordingly no further conditions of approval or mitigation
measures will be required to respond to the Project's demand for services.
6. Medical Services: The Project will incrementally increase the need for
hospital and paramedic services, however, no significant impacts to medical services were
identified. (DEIR, p. 3-187)
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)
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 22
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 wiII demonstrate
that water in adequate volume and of adequate quality is available to serve project start-up
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.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 23
2. Sewer
a. The developer shall install reclaimed water piping for irrigating the
two private recreational facilities, the public park sites, and ali 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 wilt 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)
Scientific Resources
A. Potential Significant Impact
Although a site survey revealed no surficial archaeological artifacts, the Temecula Valley has
yielded amhaeological 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)
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 24
B. Finding
implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts related to cultural
resources 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.
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
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 25
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 dLrect 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 Resources 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 )
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 buLIdout, 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
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 26
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
The following mitigation measures will be imposed upon the developer in the event the statutory
development agreement which is anticipated to be entered into between the City and the
developer is not entered into or, if entered into, is deemed unenforceable by a court of
competent jurisdiction prior to either party tendering substantial performance of its obligations
under the Development Agreement.
In the event the Development Agreement is executed by the parties and not judicially deemed
unenforceable then the mitigation measures described in Section 3, Traffic and Circulation, 3.1.
hereunder will be rejected by this City Council and replaced with those provisions regarding
traffic as are set forth in the Development Agreement and the conditions of approval applied to
each development entitlement arising under the Actions. Functionally, and not withstanding
anything to the contrary, the developer shall pay all required fair share payments and make all
identified improvements at the time and of the nature required by the FEIR. City shall aggregate
the fair share payments and shall, rather than retain the incremental portions of the various fair
share components, consolidate the monies and apply them to public projects that will result in
the full improvement of certain specified intersections. It is believed that the immediate
improvement of the intersections identified in Section 3, Traffic and Circulation b, d, and e will
bring a greater public benefit than will the retained incremental economic contributions toward
future improvements. This alternative mitigation measure program is believed to provide a
greater level of traffic mitigation at the present while not substantially impairing the future
development of the remaining intersections at the time traffic demand warrants the
improvements. At such time the City of Temecula will fund on it own account, the necessary
traffic and circulation improvements.
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.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 27
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
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.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 28
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
improvements at: (a) Butterfield Stage Road at La Serena Way; and (b) 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: (a) the designation of Calle Contento as a Principal Collector Road is
recommended to be deleted within the project site; and (b) the designation of Buttedieid Stage
Road as an Specific Plan Road (122' right-of-way) from Murrieta Hot Spring Road to Nicolas
Road (c) 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 RTA to incorporate transit-related facilities and design features into the
project, to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 29
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.
D. Facts in Support of the Finding
1. Even with implementation of all these mitigation measures, two
intersections will still exceed City standards as a result of Project traffic through year 2007 but it
is anticipated that the full scope of improvements at project build out will conform all
intersections to City standards. 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:
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 30
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.
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 any 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.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 31
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
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.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 32
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.
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 alt 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)
Facts in Support of the Finding
The project's contribution to loss of agricultural land on a regional basis is cumulatively
considerable (i.e., significant). The DEIR concluded that development throuqhout the reqion,
includin.q the proposed proiectl could have cumulatively considerable impacts to 1) traffic; 2) air
quality; 3) noise; 4) water consumption; and 5) loss of agricultural land. However, the
Roripaugh project will mitigate its contributions to these cumulative impacts to the greatest
degree practical, except for loss of agricultural land. The project will use reclaimed water when
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 33
it is available, and has received SB 221 and SB 610 certifications from the local water suppliers.
Therefore, the project has mitigated its water use impacts to the greatest degree practical (i.e.,
less than significant project impacts too). The project's aesthetic impacts are not cumulatively
considerable but are individually significant on a project level due to its location and the
proposed sports field lights at the community park.
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 (but of a total of seven
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 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
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 34
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.
b. North General Kearney Road at Nicolas Road to be constructed by the
1st building permit in accordance with the ultimate lane configurations:
Northbound N General Kearney Rd: 1 Through Lane, 1 Right
Turn Lane
ii.
Southbound N General Kearney Rd: 1 Shared Left, Through,
Right Turn Lane
iii,
Eastbound Nicolas Rd: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes, 1
Right Turn Lane
iv.
Westbound Nicolas Rd: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes, 1
Right Turn Lane
c. Pourroy Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road to be constructed by the
400th building permit.
d. Winchester Road at Nicolas Road to be constructed by the 510th building
permit in accordance with the ultimate lane configurations:
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 35
i. Northbound Winchester: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 4 Through Lanes, 1
Free Right Turn Lane.
ii.
Southbound Winchester: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 4 Through Lanes, 1
Right Turn Lane.
iii. Eastbound Nicolas Road: 1 Left Turn Lane, 1 Through Lane, 1
Right Turn Lane.
iv. Westbound Nicolas Road: 3 Left Turn Lanes, 1 Through Lane, 1
Right Turn Lane.
Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road by the 510th building
permit.
i. Northbound BSR: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes
ii. Southbound BSR: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes
iii. Eastbound RCR: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 2 Through Lanes
iv. Westbound RCR: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes
f. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by
the 510th building permit.
building permit.
Nicolas Road at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510th
building permit.
Calle Chapos at Buttedield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510th
i. 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.
j. 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:
v. 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;
vi. Undetermined percentage for the lane improvements at Murrieta
Hot Springs Road and Alta Murrieta in the City of Murrieta including improvements to be
specified.
vii. 12.4% for the traffic signal at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and
Margarita Road.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 36
viii. 11.1% for the traffic signal at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and
Winchester Road.
k. 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.
I. 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. Butteriield 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 left-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 left-turn lane,
southbound right-turn overlap, and eastbound left-turn lane
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
R:/Resos 2002,/Resos 02-111 37
m. In addition, Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs road
and the northern project boundary will not be constructed since the construction of this segment
will not connect to an existing road.
BIOLOGICALRESOURCES
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 commercial access
to the local community, thereby allowing increased access for fire control services to the Project
site and surrounding area.
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.
FISCA~HOUSING
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,
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 38
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 singie-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.
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.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 39
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 reasonabie 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
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
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 40
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.) Aisc, 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.
Active Alternatives Evaluated in Detail
Alternative 1 - Agriculture-Clustered Development (472 units)
Alternative 1 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) and lighted sports facilities.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 41
The City Council finds that Alternative 1 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) and the provision of lighted sports facilities.
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) and lighted sports facilities.
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
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.
R:/Resos 2002-/Resos 02-111 42
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. Section 2 includes impacts of the project as identified in the DEIR that
cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance even after the imposition of mitigation measures,
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
attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. 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
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.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 43
Section 9.
of Temecula this 26th day of November, 2002.
A"I-I':E~T: -'-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City
Ron P~oberts, Mayor
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify
that Resolution No. 02-111 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 26th day of November, 2002, by the following
vote:
AYES:
5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
~.,......~ City Clerk
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 44
TABLE 1
PHASE 1 (Planning Areas 1-4B, 6, and 32)
Onsite
Prior to issuance of the 34t' 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 108t' 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 properly.
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 Buttedield 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) All project entrances on Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 45
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 Butter'field 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
Butter'field Stage Road - Construct remaining half-width improvements from Murrieta Hot
Springs Road to 550' south of the intersection of Buttedield Stage Road and Nicolas
Road.
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 46
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 Butteffield Stage Road.
Nicolas Road - Construct remaining improvements from Butter[ield 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 Butter[ield Stage Road,
Butterfield Stage Road at North Loop Road, and
Buttedield Stage Road at South Loop Road.
Offsite
Butterfield 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.
Butter'field 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 Nicotas Road / Catle 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:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 47
TABLE 2
PHASE 1 (prior to issuance of 1sI building permit in Planning Areas 1-4B, 6, and 32)
1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left turn lane,
$cuthwestbound free right-turn lane, and eastbound free right turn lane, and southbound
free riqhf-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 1`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, c:ctwestbound free ri,qht-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
Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - westbound left-turn lane, westbound right-turn
lane,~_v.~w,"""*~' .... ,~'~ *~',, ,, ..... ~u,~', ...... southbound through lane, southbound free fight turn lane,
eastbound free right-turn lane, and eastbound through lane
R:/Resos 2002,/Resos 02-111 48
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
10.
Margarita Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - northbound shared left-through lane,
eastbound through lane, and westbound through lane
11.
Winchester Road at Nicolas Road - northbound left-turn lane, northbound free right turn
...... ~.,ane, westbound left-turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left-turn
lane, southbound through lane, and eastbound right-turn overlap, =nd wostbcund !oft
12.
Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - northbound through lane, southbound
through lane, and westbound through lane
13.
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
14.
Calle Contento at Rancho California Road - eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound through
lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through lane
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 49
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
1-15 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 2nd Revised DEIR)
N:\31367~doc\EIR\SOC&Findings5.doc
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 50
EXHIBIT A (FOR ATrACHMENT 1)
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
R:/Resos 2002/Resos 02-111 51
Z